Supersizing the Curriculum: The University of Alabama’s Big, Fat Philosophy Class

February 19, 2025 by Charlton Allen

Move over, Socrates. Step aside, Descartes.

The University of Alabama has ushered in a new era of philosophical enlightenment that doesn’t merely ponder the meaning of life but demands we finally confront the great, unspoken tyranny of our time: sizism.

(Which, by the way, can also be spelled “sizeism.” Because one can’t have too many isms, it seems.)

Yes, dear reader, in a world beset by trivial concerns like war, economic collapse, and the creeping erosion of civil liberties, the real struggle is taking place in the narrow confines of an airplane seat.

Finally, academia has found the courage to ask the pressing question: Why does the world refuse to make space for us?

According to The College Fix, Alabama’s philosophy department has served up a course exploring the systemic oppression of people of size. It’s an all-you-can-eat buffet of woke grievance, where students can pile their plates high with heaping portions of victimhood.

And the best part? There’s no need to worry about portion control—this is one class where “too much” is never enough.

A Heavyweight Course Load

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Alabama? Isn’t that a red state?

Sometimes, despite the best intentions of mice and men, things go wrong—and a class like this winds up on the menu.

The course Philosophy of Oppression dives deep into the treacherous waters of weight-based discrimination, among other ponderous matters. It is, quite literally, a big deal.

I imagine students will have a full plate of weighty philosophical quandaries to ponder, such as:

• Is the BMI chart just another tool of the patriarchy?

• If a dietitian recommends portion control in a forest and no one is around to hear it, is it still fatphobic?

• Does gravity itself engage in systemic oppression by weighing us all down?

• Are Mounjaro and Ozempic the modern tools of suppression wielded by greedy Danish capitalists to enforce body conformity? And, if so, is “Danish capitalist” an oxymoron?

Yet, judging from the course description, writing proficiency is required.

So, there is still room for the systematic oppression of illiteracy.

For those who believe philosophy should be about the rigorous examination of ethics, logic, and the human condition, fear not. After all, the human condition includes the silent pain of not seeing one’s shoes.

In today’s enlightened era, philosophy must serve not as a means of critical thought but as a platform to affirm our truths—provided those truths include three extra sides and a biscuit.

The Weight of Injustice

If there’s one thing we can learn from this class, it’s that sizism is the last socially acceptable prejudice—excepting, of course, the left’s demented hatred of anyone who used to be categorized as, well, normal.

At least in the progressive mind—weight, er, wait, there is such a thing—it’s a rare unicorn of discrimination they can still denounce without accidentally canceling themselves.

Forget the fact that our culture tiptoes around any criticism of the ample-bodied with the caution of a man avoiding the last slice of office birthday cake. Forget that every fast-food commercial is now legally required to feature a plus-sized actor engaging in an orgasmic relationship with a cheeseburger as if a drive-thru speaker has become a confessional for society’s collective shame.

And forget, most hilariously, that the flagship university of the state of Alabama—yes, that Alabama—is the one leading this academic crusade.

This is the same Alabama that, for years, boasted a football program under Nick Saban, where recruiting a 350-pound lineman was just another Tuesday.

This is the same Alabama where barbecue (that’s pulled pork for those north of the Mason-Dixon Line) is served with a sauce whose primary ingredient is mayonnaise.

And now Alabama is teaching a philosophy course on the oppression of large people?

The irony is, in a word, delicious.

From Objectified Burger Ads to Reality Checks

Life was more fun at the turn of the century when Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. commercials featured impossibly perfect models—bikini-clad, sun-kissed, and with abs you could iron a shirt on—sensuously devouring a 2,000-calorie monster burger like it was the eighth deadly sin.

It was escapism for the masses, a fleeting moment of fantasy where America could still pretend that eating like a glutton didn't have consequences.

Now? Commercials are a grim reality check. The camera zooms in not on the burger but on the dull, lifeless eyes of an exhausted middle manager trying to power through his second Big Mac. Instead of sultry models, we get a sobering reminder that we should have stopped at the first bite.

And if you’re unlucky, the following commercial in the queue is a Dove soap ad—two full minutes of empowerment messaging reminding you that your body is perfect just the way it is, even if your arteries and cardiologist disagree.

Sigh.

A New Ethics of Expansion

While some critics might argue that universities should focus on, oh, I don’t know, genuine philosophy—things like the nature of free will, artificial intelligence, or the metaphysical existence of the soul—these people fail to grasp the intellectual rigor required to determine whether “low-fat” yogurt constitutes an act of violence.

And lest you think this is just a harmless elective that students take for an easy A (or a C that will be rounded up to an A to avoid accusations of discrimination), consider the implications. And don’t even get me started on grade inflation.

Today, a philosophy class about sizism. Tomorrow? A federal mandate requiring McDonald’s drive-thrus to operate on a sliding scale, where every Happy Meal includes emotional compensation for the trauma of portion control.

Socrates Would Be Proud—If He Hadn’t Been Fat-Shamed to Death

One can only imagine how history’s great thinkers would have approached this momentous philosophical development.

• Would Aristotle have reevaluated his “Golden Mean” if he realized that mean BMI calculations were problematic?

• Would Nietzsche’s Will to Power have been updated to include a universal right to dessert?

• Perhaps most tragically, would Socrates have been forced to drink hemlock if only ancient Athens had recognized his right to be a robustly proportioned philosopher-king?

These are the weighty questions we must now consider.

Let’s be honest—Aristotle would have traded the Golden Mean for the Golden Arches.

Just saying.

A Cattle Call for Change

Academics once sought to elevate the human mind. Now, they simply aim to elevate grievances, no matter how frivolous they are.

But maybe I’ve been too harsh. Perhaps the philosophers of the past were ahead of their time.

After all, Descartes famously declared,

“I think, therefore I ham.”

And with that, I bid you farewell.

Anyway, I need to see if Cracker Barrel has any lunch specials.

Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC