Will Thibeau
In a recent New York Times op-ed, soon-to-be former West Point professor Graham Parsons blames the Trump administration for West Point’s failure to maintain their status as an apolitical, elite institution of the military profession. The claim is not just disingenuous — it is a deflection.
The op-ed accuses West Point of failing to resist the president’s agenda to rid the military of ideological perversion, as if insubordination is a virtue. This framing exposes the heart of the problem: West Point’s leadership opposes the president’s vision, either out of ideology or incompetence.
It is first important to understand some of the changes President Trump and Secretary Hegseth made to West Point. First, admissions officers are no longer allowed to maintain racial profiles or goals for admissions classes. Long a policy since the 1960s, West Point sought to categorize applicants and cadets based on the color of their skin. Under the Trump administration, that is no longer possible.
Furthermore, West Point is no longer able to be a venue for anti-American ideology like Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT). In Graham Parsons’ telling, West Point now suffers from a supposed infringement on its academic freedom. As a tenured professor, he opines as much without any consideration for the distinct nature of West Point as an institution, one not bound by the typical dictates of civilian educational institutions. It would seem that West Point as an institution has failed to strike this balance in implementing President Trump’s executive orders, too.
There are only two explanations for West Point’s failure. The first is ideological subversion — malicious compliance designed to subvert the president’s orders. Consider Lieutenant General Steven Gilland, the superintendent of West Point, testified before the House Armed Services Committee in July 2023. He called DEI initiatives “operational imperatives” and insisted that racial quotas create “a stronger and more adaptable force.” These are not the words of someone reluctantly complying with DEI; they are the words of an advocate.
No comments:
Post a Comment