“Leaders at these institutions want to ban only certain topics from discussion. To do so, they have issued vague directives that no one knows how to interpret.”

That’s philosopher Jacob Beck (York), writing about higher education in Texas. His first job as a professor was at Texas Tech.

Earlier this fall that university, Beck notes, “told faculty members they must recognize only male and female sexes in their instruction.” Angelo State, another Texas university, “forbade instructors to so much as discuss transgender identities in class.” And as we reported earlier this month, the Texas A&M Board of Regents on November 13th decreed that “No system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity, unless the course and the relevant course materials are approved in advance by the member CEO” (see the discussion here).

In an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News, Professor Beck writes:

Supporters of these actions say they are justified because professors are straying from their syllabi. But that’s a dodge. If an instructor in Calculus 101 teaches Hamlet, the reaction would not be to ban Shakespeare instruction throughout the university. The dean would simply hold the instructor to account.

The Nov. 13 decree only bans advocacy, which might seem harmless. Surely professors should be educators, not advocates! But if the point were to prohibit advocacy, why focus exclusively on gender and race? Why not forbid advocacy of all kinds?

The answer is clear. Leaders at these institutions want to ban only certain topics from discussion. To do so, they have issued vague directives that no one knows how to interpret.

As Beck notes, “the regents haven’t defined advocacy.”

These interventions by trustees, regents, and administrators are anathema to higher education, Beck writes:

Free inquiry is not incidental to a university, whose very purpose is to seek knowledge and understanding. You cannot understand a topic that you cannot investigate.

Some proponents of the new bans might argue that these issues are already settled. We know that there are two genders. We know that racism is wrong. What’s the point of further discussion?

I know that Naziism is a deplorable ideology. Even so, no university should ban its mention. To understand Naziism, you must be able to discuss it. The same goes for gender and race, whatever you think you already know about them.

As he says, “You cannot understand a topic that you cannot investigate.”

You can read the whole op-ed here.