By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced Friday that the Pentagon is severing ties with select elite universities, barring active-duty troops from attending them for graduate education beginning next academic year. Hegseth cited concerns that these institutions have become “factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain,” allegedly indoctrinating service members with an “anti-American” ideology. This decision comes as part of a broader review of the military’s partnerships with higher education institutions to ensure they align with the mission of developing effective leaders and warfighters.
Read the original article here
It’s not just Harvard. The Pentagon is barring troops from attending more Ivy League schools and other top universities, a move that seems to be widening its reach beyond the initial headlines. This isn’t simply about one institution; the scope of the prohibition now extends to a broader list of highly regarded universities, impacting military personnel’s access to advanced education at places previously seen as gateways to critical thinking and specialized knowledge.
The rationale presented for this policy often centers on concerns about “wokeism” and the perceived ideological leanings of these institutions. However, this explanation feels insufficient when considering the reality of what is actually taught at many of these universities. International affairs programs, for instance, which have been a common area of study for military personnel seeking advanced degrees, are not necessarily taught from a purely liberal perspective. In fact, many of these academic programs likely align more closely with current U.S. foreign policy objectives than with what critics might imply.
This shift appears to be a deliberate effort to steer military personnel towards different educational paths. The Pentagon is now actively encouraging service members to attend public universities instead. The intention here, presumably, is to offer alternatives that are perceived as less ideologically charged. Yet, this doesn’t automatically guarantee a less liberal environment; some departments within public universities can be just as, if not more, liberal than those at Ivy League institutions. The underlying principle seems to be a desire for a particular kind of intellectual formation within the military.
This trend feels deeply concerning, and it’s hard to shake the feeling that we’re witnessing a dangerous slide towards anti-intellectualism. Historically, authoritarian movements have often viewed education, especially critical thinking, as a threat. By blocking access to universities that have long been associated with rigorous intellectual inquiry and diverse perspectives, the Pentagon is essentially penalizing service members for pursuing knowledge and self-improvement. It’s a move that seems counterproductive to building a strong, adaptable, and intellectually capable military force.
The hypocrisy in this situation is also quite stark. Many current and former military leaders, including those appointed by the previous administration, are themselves graduates of these very same elite institutions. It raises questions about why such education was beneficial for them but is now deemed problematic for current service members. This policy risks creating an educational glass ceiling, limiting the advancement of dedicated individuals who could bring valuable skills and insights back to the military.
The underlying message seems to be a preference for a less questioning, more compliant soldiery. The idea that “dumbasses are easier to control” or that “stupid people are easier to control” appears to be a driving force. This suggests a desire for a military comprised of individuals who are less likely to think for themselves or to challenge orders, even those that might be questionable. The focus seems to be on producing unquestioning obedience rather than fostering independent strategic thought.
This move also seems to disregard the fact that many of these institutions are not just centers of liberal arts but also house strong engineering and scientific programs. The broad brush being applied to these universities ignores their diverse academic offerings and the fact that specialized technical knowledge is crucial for a modern military. It’s almost as if a predetermined list from a bygone era is being dusted off and implemented without a full understanding of the contemporary educational landscape.
Furthermore, the suggestion that this is about preventing “DEI for MAGA trash” seems to miss the broader implications. The policy isn’t just about inclusivity or diversity initiatives; it’s about limiting access to higher education at top-tier institutions for military personnel, regardless of their background or political leanings. It’s a blanket restriction that punishes all service members who might seek to benefit from the academic rigor and specialized knowledge offered by these universities.
Ultimately, this policy risks weakening the military by actively discouraging its most ambitious and intellectually curious members from pursuing the highest levels of education. It fosters an environment where conformity is valued over critical engagement, and where intelligence is viewed with suspicion rather than celebrated. The long-term consequences for military readiness, strategic thinking, and the overall effectiveness of our armed forces could be significant and detrimental. The idea that a military needs to be “dumbed down” to be effective is a dangerous and misguided notion.