Introduction
In an age defined by educational and dietary controversies, the implications of state policies and corporate interests weave a complex narrative that affects our academic and health landscapes. This article will explore various facets of ongoing debates, from the exclusion of classical philosophy in academia to the latest dietary guidelines influenced by corporate agendas.
Part the First: We Live in Pluto’s Republic.
With apologies to the spirit of Walt Disney, this situation was bound to arise. Notably, Corey Robin points out a perplexing development at Texas A&M. A philosophy professor has been instructed to omit Plato from his syllabus due to a recent state mandate. In a restrictive edict, it is stated:
“No academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity, unless the course and the relevant materials are pre-approved by the member CEO.”
This directive was reiterated by the philosophy department chair, who advised Professor Martin Peterson that he could either remove Plato from his syllabus or teach an entirely different course. Among the texts under scrutiny was Plato’s Symposium, known for its exploration of same-sex love and complex ideas on sexual ethics. Peterson’s chair informed him that significant changes were necessary for compliance with these state regulations.
The term “advocate” in this context deserves attention. It suggests a problematic teaching approach where educators are viewed as lobbyists rather than as guides in the learning process, particularly in discussions around race and gender. This insinuates that including these topics inherently reflects a bias on the part of the professors.
In a personal anecdote, I recall failed attempts to convince a friend’s literary agent that my teaching graduate and medical students did not involve imparting my supposed “liberal” biases. The absurdity of censoring fundamental philosophical works like those of Plato only adds to my concern. This isn’t an isolated incident; it’s part of a larger pattern of academic suppression that raises questions about the future of philosophy education, especially in nearby Austin, Texas. Students there might have to turn to the University of Austin for unbiased philosophical discourse—or perhaps they could just watch the bats fly out from under the Congress Avenue Bridge, a delightful alternative that would require no linguistic or philosophical interpretation!
I find Corey Robin somewhat unfair to Porky’s and its sequels. Yes, I watched the original film nearly four decades ago, and while it was amusing, relating it to our current political climate is spot on:
“From the onset of this new conservative era, the parallels have been clear. Just consider a silly movie like Porky’s II, which reflects on a high school drama production of Romeo and Juliet in the 1950s. The ensuing uproar over Shakespeare’s indecency draws parallels to today’s political correctness.”
In this regard, “Porky politics” seem to be the new normal.
Meanwhile, it’s crucial to protect impressionable teens and college students from works like Plato’s Republic or Symposium; some thought-provoking reading could lead them into heavily nuanced discussions far too early.
Part the Second: Dietary Guidelines, Again.
As anticipated, discussions about dietary guidelines take a prominent position. These guidelines have undergone many revisions since the mid-20th century, but this latest edition positions itself under the banner of “Eat Real Food,” promoting a reduction in added sugars. Is it advisable to focus on whole foods, including dairy and meat? Absolutely. This aligns with advice I received back during my school days in the 1960s, before the 1970s and 1980s saw a sharp rise in lifestyle-related health issues fueled by processed carbohydrates.
“Today marks a pivotal shift in federal nutrition policy,” stated the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy, emphasizing the need to address misinformation in previous dietary recommendations.
However, it is essential to recognize that the government has often prioritized corporate profits over public health. The narrative surrounding what constitutes “healthy” food is frequently shaped by those with vested interests. Such matters have been explored repeatedly, with this report recently discussed. Yet the crux of a healthy diet remains straightforward: moderation in consuming real, whole foods from both plant and animal sources. The challenge arises when the systemic approach to our food supply sidelines these crucial principles.
The latest dietary guidelines reveal a troubling trend; those responsible for shaping them often have financial ties to large food corporations, raising concerns about conflicts of interest:
“The review panel’s connections to sectors such as beef and dairy are noteworthy, especially given prior criticisms aimed at conflicts of interest regarding past food guidelines.”
Clearly, experts are often swayed by corporate interests, leading to potential pitfalls in public health:
“For instance, several panelists have disclosed that they have benefitted from partnerships with food industry giants, thus raising questions about the integrity of these guidelines.”
What stands out in contemporary American politics is the alignment of medical “experts” with the prevailing political narrative, a trend that continues unabated since Citizens United. A few select examples include:
Numerous panel members hold financial interests in corporations ranging from meat to dairy, raising ethical questions about their objectivity in shaping the dietary landscape.
Little surprise remains that these academics will refute any connection between their financial support from Big Food and their scholarly judgment. The same can be said for researchers in the pharmaceutical industry. However, it is worth noting that small incentives can be just as influential as lavish events when it comes to shaping scientific opinions.
Part the Third. The Vaccine Mishegoss Continues.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has maintained a controversial approach on the vaccination front. There’s much speculation on how this aligns with the sentiments of federal officials like Senator Bill Cassidy, MD of Louisiana.
As predicted, RFK Jr.’s tenure as HHS Secretary is marked by his attempts to revise the childhood vaccination schedule by reducing the number of vaccines from covering 17 illnesses to just 11, a shift likely to diminish vaccine uptake and boost preventable diseases.
Understanding the nuances of these changes is paramount as the CDC now categorizes vaccines into three distinct classes—population-based, risk-based, and those requiring shared clinical decision-making. By reallocating significant vaccines into the last category, their recommendation diminishes, complicating access for many:
“Vaccines like Hepatitis A and COVID-19 have shifted into the ‘shared clinical decision-making’ realm, effectively removing them from the list of mandatory vaccines, creating potential gaps in public health.”
Applying the example of Denmark, the Secretary emphasizes a flawed analogy, ignoring structural healthcare differences. Denmark’s universal health care contrasts starkly with the U.S. system, wherein millions remain uninsured. The fault lines in vaccine prevention are troubling, as even slight drops in compliance can jeopardize community health:
“The move to reduce vaccine recommendations poses serious risks of increased outbreaks of preventable diseases, leading to widespread morbidity and mortality.”
Dr. Novella emphasizes the inconsistency in RFK’s risk assessments regarding diseases versus vaccines, attributing it to a lack of trust in scientific consensus and a penchant for conspiracy theories. This skepticism reveals broader issues within public trust in health systems.
Part the Fourth: Stone Age Poison Arrows.
An unfortunate tendency among my colleagues is to underestimate ancient peoples’ knowledge and abilities. Evidence such as Roman concrete stands testament to advanced understanding, with recent findings highlighting Stone Age ingenuity. A study in Science Advances elaborates on this topic:
Traces of toxic compounds found on African arrowheads dating back 60,000 years suggest early humans practiced advanced hunting techniques using poisoned arrows, indicating sophisticated cognitive strategies.
The implications from this study shed light on the ingenious capabilities of our ancestors—these findings underscore just how knowledgeable they were, substantially ahead of their time. The inadvertent dismissal of ancient wisdom often overlooks the remarkable achievements that earlier societies accomplished.
Part the Fifth: Leonardo’s DNA.
In a fascinating twist, microbial geneticist Norberto Gonzalez-Juarbe has recently conducted DNA analyses on a centuries-old drawing attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. Through swabs taken from the surface of the Holy Child, researchers are now claiming the possible recovery of Leonardo’s DNA. This endeavor, part of the Leonardo da Vinci DNA Project, opens perhaps unprecedented doors to our understanding of this Renaissance master:
The prompt relevance of Gonzalez-Juarbe’s findings has sparked discussions about authenticity and legacy, although many uncertainties remain surrounding this claim.
As the results become available, the interplay between art and science will likely evoke widespread fascination, yet the probability remains that many claims can be inflated. This quest for genetic traces of historical figures often walks a fine line between legitimate inquiry and sensationalism.
Conclusion
Navigating the complexities of modern education, dietary guidelines, and public health leads us through a landscape riddled with institutional challenges and cultural caveats. The intertwining of various interests emphasizes the need for transparency and integrity in how we educate future generations and promote public health. Only by questioning and critically examining prevailing narratives can we hope to forge a future grounded in truth and balanced understanding. See you next week, God willing and the creek don’t rise.
