UPDATE: Interim President Tommy Williams ’78 sent an email to A&M students and faculty that featured an acknowledgement of ongoing changes to courses affected by the revised Section 8.1 on Jan. 12. The following is the excerpt in full:

“You may be aware that the university has been working through updates to Texas A&M University System policies that affect some courses. Faculty and college leadership have taken a thoughtful approach to implementing these changes with the goal of minimizing any impact on you and your plans for the semester. As with any large undertaking, there may be some bumps along the way, but I want you to know that there are plans in place to address issues that may arise. If you have questions or concerns, please reach out to your professor and/or advisor.”

A reading from Plato’s “Symposium” has been removed from the syllabus of a philosophy course in order to comply with revisions to Section 8.1 of Texas A&M’s Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure policy, fostering national attention and online controversy.

The course, PHIL 111 Contemporary Moral Issues, had its syllabus altered to remove a section featuring content university administration claims contains race and gender ideology, subjects that were defined and unanimously approved to be restricted from instruction in November 2025.

One text from “Symposium” that was stricken from the syllabus includes Aristophanes’ Myth, which contends that humans were once single beings that were separated into two sexes after ancient gods became fearful of their combined power, posing questions about sexuality, soulmates and the nature of love. Another, Diotima’s Ladder of Love, assigns a hierarchical structure to different forms of love and attraction.

Supporters of the changes argue that the relatively progressive ideas of gender and sexuality presented in the readings fall out of compliance with the introduced changes to Section 8.1. The professor who instructs the course, Martin Peterson, Ph.D., believes his First Amendment rights are being violated. 

“Please note that my course does not ‘advocate’ any ideology; I teach students how to structure and evaluate arguments commonly raised in discussions of contemporary moral issues,” Peterson wrote in an email to department head Kristi Sweet, Ph.D., that made rounds online. “If you interpret System Rule 08.01 § 2.1(b) as prohibiting these topics, I would like to remind you that the U.S. Constitution protects my course content.”

If Peterson fails to comply with the revisions, he would be forced to be reassigned to an upper-level ethics course, an email from Sweet reads.

Peterson told the Houston Chronicle that he would consult with legal counsel and consider pursuing litigation against the university. Various free speech organizations have spoken out against university administration, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE.

“Texas A&M now believes Plato doesn’t belong in an introductory philosophy course,” Director of Campus Rights Advocacy at FIRE Lindsie Rank said in a statement published to the organization’s website. “ … This is what happens when the board of regents gives university bureaucrats veto power over academic content.”

Administration contends it is not the stance or goal of the university to restrict the discussion or assignment of philosophical texts or ideas, but to ensure compliance with updated policies.

“Texas A&M will teach numerous dialogues by Plato in a variety of courses this semester and will continue to do so in the future,” the university said. “… The head of the Department of Philosophy rejected one section of Philosophy 111, a core curriculum course, because the professor slated to teach the class had included modules on gender and race ideology. These were added following the new policy approved by the Board of Regents specifically prohibiting the teaching of such ideologies.”

After consulting legal counsel, Peterson opted to remove the contended section and replaced it with a module of lectures on academic freedom and free speech, which reportedly is set to include a New York Times article covering the controversy. 

Peterson and university administration have not provided further public statements at this time.