In a fiery collision of ideology and institutional reform, a long-serving West Point philosophy professor announced his resignation this week, decrying what he called a “sweeping assault” on academic freedom—only to be met with a blunt, unapologetic dismissal from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Professor Graham Parsons, who taught at the United States Military Academy for 13 years, used the op-ed pages of The New York Times to explain his abrupt exit. The catalyst? Recent shifts in educational policy and curriculum reforms driven by the Trump administration and cemented by executive directives from Hegseth himself.
“I will be resigning after this semester from my tenured position at West Point,” Parsons wrote. “I cannot tolerate these changes… I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.” What followed was a scathing critique of what Parsons framed as a political purge of academic content—one that eliminated courses, modified syllabi, and reshaped curriculum to reflect what he called “the ideological tastes of the Trump administration.”
But within hours of the op-ed going live, Hegseth—himself a West Point graduate, combat veteran, and now Secretary of Defense—made his feelings crystal clear. In a post on social media, he replied simply: “You will not be missed Professor Parsons.”
The terse rebuke echoed the broader posture of the Trump-era military reforms, particularly the administration’s goal of steering educational institutions like West Point away from the cultural theory-driven instruction that critics claim has taken root in military academia. For Hegseth and Trump, the shift isn’t censorship—it’s course correction.
You will not be missed Professor Parsons. https://t.co/8YcNcN78q6
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) May 8, 2025
This ideological tug-of-war isn’t new, but Parsons’ resignation puts it under a harsh national spotlight. His complaint centers on recent policy directives that bar military academies from teaching theories or frameworks perceived as divisive, anti-American, or rooted in critical race ideology. The policies—introduced through Trump’s executive orders and reinforced by Hegseth’s memos—direct faculty to focus on classical American principles, constitutional literacy, and military history unclouded by contemporary activism.
Parsons called it censorship. The Trump administration calls it clarity.
His claim that West Point has “abandoned its core principles” was swiftly undercut by supporters of the new direction, who argue that the military’s mission is not to mirror the shifting tides of academic fashion but to prepare officers to lead in defense of the nation. “Once a school that strove to give cadets the broad-based, critical-minded, nonpartisan education they need…” Parsons wrote, “…it was suddenly eliminating courses.” That elimination, say critics, is precisely what many believe the academy needed.
Parsons’ op-ed also hinted at a deeper grievance: the tension between elite academia and military leadership. With the Department of Defense now embracing a muscular return to patriotic education, voices like Parsons’—once dominant in military higher education—are finding themselves increasingly out of step with institutional priorities.
