Philosopher Resigns from West Point in Protest

Graham Parsons, a philosophy professor at West Point, has stepped down from his tenured role as a form of protest. His decision has sparked various reactions, including a straightforward comment from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. What exactly Parsons’ “principled stand” entails isn’t entirely clear, but perhaps it’s time for others to consider following suit. The motivations behind his resignation are anything but typical.

Many professors like Parsons viewed themselves as advocates in the battle against issues such as social justice and oppression. Yet, they’re now confronted with a challenging reality.

So, what prompted Parsons to resign? In his own words, he stated that current changes hinder responsible work and that he feels ashamed to associate with the academy as it stands. He claims West Point has “failed to provide appropriate education to cadets” under the present leadership. This is a significant accusation. Parsons also rejects any policies associated with Trump and Hegseth that may undermine foundational aspects of military education.

But what exactly does “appropriate education” mean to him? Does he think West Point has stopped teaching crucial ideas? This is a question worth digging into.

Parsons elaborates further in a New York Times piece: students should engage with controversial ideas instead of being told they’re too dangerous to contemplate. He frames this matter as a crackdown on academic freedom, arguing that educators are no longer allowed to critically assess controversial topics. Rather, they seem compelled to echo the government’s messages and abandon genuine critical inquiry. He argues that America’s historical ideals shouldn’t be questioned in educational settings.

Still, it’s important to remember that Parsons isn’t just any professor; he’s at West Point. This isn’t merely about teaching styles; it’s tied to defending American ideals while debating gender theory and critical race theory as valid intellectual frameworks. He labels the academy as “uncritical,” but it seems more about his struggle to uphold a particular view of America’s moral grounding.

The outcome? Criticism of critical race theory (CRT) seems labeled as dogma, with acceptance of CRT regarded as the default position. Today, educators supposedly must endorse gender ideology and racial theories as truth and defend the founding principles of the nation.

Parsons provides specific instances of curriculum changes he opposes. He believes that West Point has misinterpreted directives from Trump. Hegseth argues not only against critical race theory and intersectionality but also limits how race and gender can be organized in the curriculum.

Parsons mentions that he was instructed to review the syllabus, and there were demands to eliminate certain history courses focused on gender and race. He notes that the sociology major has been scrapped, and significant works by authors like James Baldwin and Toni Morrison have been banned from reading lists.

Next, Parsons recounts how academic discussions were restricted. For him, the failure to include feminist and racial critiques in ethical philosophy undermines necessary discourse in a required course for all cadets. He even claims that debate teams were barred from discussing particular viewpoints in competitions.

This paints a clearer image of his underlying grievances. Parsons resigned not due to mundane administrative changes but because he felt limited in teaching his beliefs. He wishes to use critical theory to critique America but seems unwilling to question critical theory itself.

It appears he advocates for questioning everything but the foundation of his own beliefs, embodying a selective skepticism reminiscent of Descartes.

In one of his articles, he states that war theorists should engage with feminist perspectives in literature concerning gender and war—this doesn’t sound like an open invitation for critical inquiry but rather ideological advocacy. It seems he expects his views to be adopted without consideration of alternative perspectives.

On the flip side, West Point seems to be reestablishing classical educational standards, urging instructors to help students recognize and dismantle flawed arguments. Professors are now expected to articulate the shortcomings of specific ideas and train cadets to do likewise.

Parsons maintains that his resignation reflects a loss of ability to foster critical thinking among his students. He claims the academy is censoring dissenting views. While this stance may resonate with many scholars, his resignation reveals a different narrative: it’s less about academic inquiry and more about his desire to promote his ideology without opposition.

Let me share a personal experience regarding a conservative viewpoint in academia. At Arizona State, I was pressured to adapt my curriculum to fit a so-called “decolonized” philosophy. I stood alone in voicing my concerns. My left-leaning colleagues, who now praise Parsons, were nowhere to be found. Over the past two decades, the department has resembled a Socratic dialogue where only one voice prevails.

Furthermore, most professors tend to challenge institutional changes primarily when these alterations threaten their own deeply entrenched beliefs. When leftist ideologies permeate classrooms, those who adhere to them hardly question it; they view it as necessary justice. However, if conservative policies emerge, suddenly it’s labeled censorship, prompting resignations.

This leaves professors like Parsons in a tricky position. They envisioned themselves as champions for social justice, yet now confront an uncomfortable truth. They may have inadvertently supported a system that alienated conservative perspectives. The disparity in partisan representation among university faculties reveals their blind spots; they’ve, in effect, become what they claimed to oppose.

Ultimately, for universities to regain a focus on truth and wisdom, one has to wonder who gets to define these concepts. That, I think, is perhaps the most crucial question we face.

The core of the matter lies in what critical theory really conveys.