Your Cart is Empty
Joseph Gonzalez
‘28
A topic of recent debate in the media and on college campuses is the Pentagon’s decision to sever ties with several Ivy League and elite universities. This includes Princeton University. This move follows Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s characterization of these institutions as “ Woke Breeding Grounds.” The goal is not to prevent these men and women from attending college but instead to direct them towards institutions more ideologically aligned with the viewpoints of the current administration. While this is the administration's prerogative, as someone who has served in both the Marine Corps and the Army as an infantryman, and am now a Princeton student myself, I am skeptical about this move.
Active-duty military members should not be barred from educational choices if given the opportunity, especially at a time when attending college can determine your future, and where you have gone to school matters. It is also a blow aimed at the wrong people.
One of the most troubling assumptions behind this policy is that military personnel are somehow uniquely vulnerable to ideological indoctrination. It must be assumed that they will simply accept whatever worldview dominates a campus without question, or else why implement a policy like this? These are the leaders tasked with thinking critically and making the right decisions even under the most stressful circumstances. This policy does not reflect the trust and respect the country bestows on these men and women, whose sacrifices we are usually reminded of during periods of conflict. They may be the last people on earth who need to be protected from “woke” ideology. It stifles speech to assume that these institutions will indoctrinate members of the military, instead of recognizing their experiences and viewpoints as potential sources of positive change.
While I believe the Ivy League institutions have earned the criticism they receive for political bias and for excluding conservative and other heterodox viewpoints, I also believe that those who value free speech and viewpoint diversity should be particularly cautious when the federal government starts deciding which institutions service members can or cannot attend. That is a form of heavy-handed government intervention. It should concern all those who value limited government and freedom of thought. There is no doubt that elite universities have, in many cases, created the conditions for this backlash. However, recognizing the problem is not the same as endorsing every government response to it.
Conservatives in particular should understand the danger of allowing the federal government to decide which schools are acceptable and which are not. It can become another tool of bureaucracy and political enforcement, and such decisions are likely to be reversed by the next administration, thereby punishing only those currently serving. Universities will survive. Politicians will move on. But active-duty service members who plan their futures around educational opportunities may be the ones left paying the price. This is what makes the policy so shortsighted.
There is a deeper contradiction here. The same people who rightly criticize universities for suppressing speech and viewpoint diversity should hesitate before endorsing a government policy like this. The answer to ideological gatekeeping on campus cannot be ideological gatekeeping by the state. For those who believe that these institutions are beyond reform, this measure seems to suggest that even members of the military will succumb to prevailing orthodoxy. In the quiet corners of a study hall or after class, students and professors alike will ask for opinions on topics that may seem taboo to discuss aloud. Those service members would be welcome additions and could only broaden the conversation to include more diverse viewpoints and perspectives.
I am especially sensitive to this because I went from a GED to community college and then transitioned to Princeton. I know firsthand what education can mean for someone whose path was non-traditional. I also know that higher education, despite its flaws, can open doors that might otherwise remain shut. For service members, that opportunity matters all the more, because it often comes after years of sacrifice and the delay of one's own life’s ambitions. Those in the military know that they cannot wear the uniform forever. I also believe it makes the most sense to put your life on the line in defense of this nation when you can have something to look forward to.
Policymakers and citizens alike should be careful that the costs of this new policy do not fall most heavily on the men and women currently serving. They have already pledged their lives on a dotted line; it would be nice to see that name on a vaunted institution's degree.
Joseph Gonzalez '28 is an Army and Marine Corps combat veteran and transfer student from Brentwood, NY, majoring in History. He is a PFS Writing Fellow.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
