University Topic Bans Treat the Mind as Passive
Students shouldn’t be sheltered from controversial ideas
Texas A&M University recently adopted a policy restricting the topics professors can discuss. In a recent discussion, my colleague Ben Bayer made a point that resonated with me: this policy rests on an implicit view of the human mind that is worth challenging.
A&M’s policy bans professors from teaching “gender ideology” and even just raising the topics of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” That last part is notable: no discussion of these topics is permitted, even if it includes multiple viewpoints and encourages students to think for themselves.
The implicit view is that exposure to certain ideas, by itself, has a corrupting effect. Hearing the views of “gender ideology” expressed or even described is thought to act on students’ impressionable minds, turning them into adherents to this ideology. The only safe policy is to shield them from such notions entirely.
But I for one don’t experience ideas as imprinting themselves on my mind against my will, turning me into a mindless adherent. I was exposed to many “woke” claims as a college student, but I was able to think about the arguments and evidence presented in their favor and decide whether or not to accept them.
Upon assessing the evidence and arguments, I did accept a few, such as the point that women and non-white people still face subtle forms of discrimination that others sometimes do not notice. But I did not encounter any compelling reasons for the notion that grouping people into identity-based collectives and treating the historically oppressed groups more favorably is a solution. So I did not accept this idea.
True, some people do choose to unthinkingly absorb ideas from others, including “gender ideology.” The idea that all knowledge works this way is probably familiar to religious conservatives. Their worldview preaches blind faith rather than rational understanding as the way to know religious truths. But religious conservatives should not assume everyone parrots the viewpoints of whatever seeming authorities they happen to have encountered.
The only way a university can help dogmatic students who unthinkingly accept ideas from others is by urging them to think for themselves. Sheltering all students from controversial or false ideas to allegedly “protect” those with this mindset only inhibits the intellectual development of the students who are most thoughtful.
Image credit: MAXIM ZHURAVLEV / iStock / via Getty Images
 | A guest post by
|
To me the average college discussion never gives a fair hearing to the anti-woke ideology. Your view is correct in a classroom where the notion that there are only 2 genders is given a fair hearing in contrast to the more popular 55 plus one.
1. Why can't admin have a say on currciuli? In calculus the curriculum is set, why should intro to phil be open to discussions of whatever the professor wants? Wasn't that the demand by the free speech movement that Rand called "guild socialism"?
2. I think presenting certain ideas does inevitably exert at least some influence, even if not necessarily upon any specific individual. Think about Peikoff's "Fact and Value" - presenting bad ideas is not morally exempt even if the professors don't implement them. Think about Rand's testimony about communism in hollywood.
So this might have the unintended consequence of preventing critical evaluation of these ideologies by non-woke professors (how many are there, anyway), and hiring right wing professors might be better. But I don't see that there is a moral difference between these two tactics.