We need more philosophers to resign from their university posts.
Graham Parsons, a philosophy professor at West Point, resigned from his tenured position in protest. Good for him. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded bluntly: “You will not be missed.” The question is, what exactly was Parsons’ “principled stand” — and should others follow his lead? I think they should, though not necessarily for the reasons one might expect. If more professors who insist on injecting gender ideology into the curriculum refused to teach, we might finally begin to salvage the American university.
Professors like Parsons saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality.
So, why did Parsons quit? In his own words: “I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.” He accuses West Point of “failing to provide an adequate education for the cadets” under current leadership. That’s a serious charge. Parsons blames policies linked to Trump and Hegseth for undermining what he views as essential to a proper military education.
But what does he actually mean by “adequate education”? What does he believe West Point no longer teaches? That’s the real question — and one worth examining closely.
Parsons explains his position in the New York Times: “Whatever you think about various controversial ideas — Mr. Hegseth’s memo cited critical race theory and gender ideology — students should engage with them and debate their merits rather than be told they are too dangerous even to be contemplated.”
There it is. Parsons frames the issue as a crackdown on academic freedom, where professors no longer have permission to address controversial topics or challenge prevailing orthodoxy. Educators, he argues, must now parrot the government’s message and abandon real critical inquiry. He adds that “uncritically asserting that [America] is ‘the most powerful force for good in human history’ is not something an educator does.”
But Parsons isn’t just teaching anywhere — he’s at West Point. His objection isn’t a minor complaint about classroom nuance. It amounts to a rejection of teaching American greatness and a defense of gender theory and critical race theory as serious intellectual frameworks. He calls the academy “uncritical,” but what he really objects to is any attempt to affirm America’s moral legacy. In practice, Parsons sees the affirmation of the United States as inherently disqualifying.
The result? Criticizing CRT gets framed as dogma, while embracing it becomes the default. Rather than weigh arguments, educators must now accept gender ideology and race theory as truth — and sideline any defense of the country’s founding principles.
Parsons does offer specific examples of the curriculum changes he opposes. He claims West Point interpreted directives from Trump and Hegseth not just as a rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality, but as a broader ban on using race and gender as organizing principles in the curriculum.
Parsons says department heads ordered a review of syllabi and forced faculty to revise them. “West Point scrapped two history courses — ‘Topics in Gender History’ and ‘Race, Ethnicity, Nation’ — and an English course, ‘Power and Difference,’” he writes. The academy eliminated the sociology major and shut down a black history project. Department leaders also told professors to remove readings by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other minority authors.
He then describes how these directives affected his own classroom. “One of my supervisors ordered professors to get rid of readings on white supremacy in Western ethical theory and feminist approaches to ethics in ‘Philosophy and Ethical Reasoning,’ a course I direct that is required for all cadets,” Parsons writes. He even claims the West Point debate team was barred from arguing certain positions in an upcoming competition.
These details offer a clearer picture of his true grievance. Parsons didn’t resign over routine administrative changes. He stepped down because he could no longer teach what he believes: that white supremacy and feminist critiques of ethics are essential to understanding just war theory — a subject he has written about. He wants to use critical theory to criticize America, but he won’t subject critical theory itself to scrutiny.
Parsons demands that others question everything — except the assumptions behind his own beliefs. He’s like Descartes, but with highly selective skepticism.
In one of his articles, Parsons writes, “War theorists should be much more concerned with the gender and war literature and find common ground with feminists who have treated the problem of the political standing of soldiers as a philosophical priority.” This isn’t a neutral invitation to critical inquiry — it’s ideological advocacy. Parsons seems to think his view is correct and wants his students to adopt it. He’s not interested in weighing all perspectives; he’s advancing a particular dogma.
West Point, by contrast, has begun restoring a classical standard of education. Instructors are expected to equip students to identify flawed arguments and refute them. Professors must demonstrate why certain ideas fall short — and train cadets to do the same.
Parsons wants us to believe he resigned because he could no longer teach students how to think critically. He suggests the academy is censoring dissent. On the surface, that sounds like a position many academics might support. But his resignation tells a different story. It wasn’t about open inquiry — it was about losing the ability to promote his ideology without challenge.
Let me explain what it’s like to be a conservative inside a university. I’ve been told to revise my curriculum to fit a “decolonized” version of philosophy. At Arizona State University, I was the only professor who spoke up and said that crossed the line. Where were my leftist colleagues who now applaud Graham Parsons? Where were all the philosophers who claim to care about examining every perspective? For the past two decades, philosophy departments have resembled Socratic dialogues where only one voice gets to speak.
In truth, most professors only raise objections when institutional changes threaten their own deeply held beliefs. When administrators impose leftist ideology in the classroom, faculty members who share that ideology rarely object. They don’t see it as dogma — they see it as truth. They call it justice, a necessary correction to history. But when directives come from a conservative administration, they suddenly call it censorship and resign in protest.
This creates a profound dilemma for professors like Parsons. They saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality: They may have perpetuated the very racial essentialism they once condemned. For years, they operated within a system that marginalized conservatives — just look at the partisan breakdown in university faculties. That mirror reflects something they can’t bear to see.
They became what they claimed to hate.
It is time we restored the American university to the pursuit of truth and wisdom.
Here’s my final prediction: The immediate response from these professors will be to ask, “But who gets to say what is true or wise?” And of course, that’s the most telling response of all.
That’s critical theory talking.
Philosophy professor, know thyself.
The post What happens when you tell a philosopher ‘No’ appeared first on TheBlaze.
