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.
In April 1995, University maintenance crews spent two days cleaning “walkways, benches, plazas and walls on campus,” working to remove not dirt or debris, but simple sidewalk chalk. The chalk drawings, according to a report from The Daily Princetonian, consisted of “pro-gay messages” written by hand during Pride Week. After the removal, advocates were rightly in uproar. Following the incident, the University, claiming that the discrepancy had transpired because of “cross-office confusion,” clarified its chalking policy — it was henceforth banned, in all cases.
Three decades on, chalk at Princeton has found itself relegated to dusty trays in classrooms and lecture halls. Hardly anyone — students, activists, artists, campus organizations, candidates, schoolchildren — chalks University grounds anymore. Simply put, the University’s ban has worked. But the question remains: Why is Princeton so afraid of chalk?
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
The University has implemented a new limit on the number of Undergraduate Student Government (USG), Graduate Student Government, and Council of the Princeton University Committee (CPUC) student representatives allowed to attend faculty meetings.
In an email to student leaders obtained by The Daily Princetonian, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Ian Deas wrote that the new changes will go into effect at the Sept. 14 faculty meeting and each constituency will be able to send a maximum of two observers to a meeting. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty do not specify the number of observers permitted from the student governments or CPUC.
