Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said before, during, and after his confirmation that his focus as the civilian head of the U.S. military second only to the commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump, will be to ensure that the armed forces laser-focus on becoming the most lethal instrument of combat the world has ever known. Well, okay, he didn’t quite put it that way, but that’s his goal: Lethality first, foremost, and always.
Apparently, however, that’s too much testosterone or something for a soon-to-be-former tenured U.S. Military Academy (Army) professor who has tendered his resignation after complaining in a New York Times piece (of course) that he can’t live with the changes Hegseth is implementing.
In an essay published Thursday by The New York Times, philosophy professor Graham Parsons announced he will resign from West Point at the end of the semester, citing new Trump administration policies that ban instruction on topics such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as critical race theory and gender ideology. Parsons, who has taught at the military academy for 13 years, said the restrictions were incompatible with his role as an educator. Yes, that’s what the Army Officer Corps needs: More divisive DEI, not a focus on lethality and winning battles/wars.
“I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly,” Parsons whined in the Times. Hegseth, never one to back down, essentially adopted that famous line uttered by actor Powers Boothe in the film “Tombstone” — “Well…….bye.” In responding to the essay and to Parsons, what Hegseth actually wrote on social media was this: “You will not be missed, Professor Parsons.”
You will not be missed Professor Parsons. https://t.co/8YcNcN78q6
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) May 8, 2025
Parsons said his troubles began shortly after President Trump’s second term began. He claimed that West Point officials pressured him to retract an article he had written for the national security blog Lawfare, which discussed the military’s duty to maintain political neutrality. “The administrators did not find fault with the article but said they were worried that it might be provocative in the incoming administration. Reluctantly, I complied,” Parsons wrote.
This is what the left-wing does: They couch everything they say and do in the moral language of the ‘politically neutral,’ when in fact their embrace of concepts like DEI and ‘critical race theory’ is an embrace of the political non-neutral and politically divisive. Anyone who adopts concepts and principles that teach one ethnic group is inherently bigoted, or that skin color, not ability and skill, must be the primary consideration when hiring, promoting, or advancing someone, is the racist.
By comparison, the person (in this case, Hegseth) getting rid of such divisive concepts is not the racist. He/she is moving to prevent racism, not promote it. And in a military as diverse as our country, we cannot afford to allow such racially unfair and divisive concepts to filter through the ranks, especially the officer corps.
For the record, this column wasn’t the first essay the far-left Parsons wrote for the NY Times as push-back against the incoming commander-in-chief and his staff, per the Washington Times:
Thursday’s column wasn’t Mr. Parson’s first for the NYT. Just before the 2024 presidential election, he wrote that military leaders could be obliged to refuse orders that may not be strictly illegal. He cited using military force to disperse political protestors or patrolling urban areas, because the actions might interfere with the due process rights of people in the area.
“If the president orders the military to take actions that jeopardize its neutrality, the military is ethically justified in criticizing and even resisting that order even if it is not clearly illegal,” he wrote. “Political neutrality exists to solve a second problem as well — ensuring that the military is subordinate to legitimate democratic authority, not to, say, a tyrant.”