Political activism at service academies
The public mostly remains oblivious to political activism at service academies, wrongly assuming that merit, equal opportunity, and service-over-self-ethos compose the foundational principles of training. Occasionally, as with the recent “Duty, Honor, Country” controversy at West Point, the public sees the internal trappings at U.S. military academies and the power superintendents wield to transform the foundations of these institutions.
Service academies have few safeguards to mitigate the implementation and prioritization of programs, however disruptive and destructive. Opportunities to inform the graduate community of their scope and nature are similarly limited. The Air Force Academy (AFA) Association of Graduates/ Board of Directors (AOG/BOD) comprises elected and appointed graduates, who ostensibly represent the alumni, whose recommendations and insights should be aggregated and transmitted to the superintendent. AOG members provide the AFA with critical financial support, and it is not unreasonable for the superintendent to receive periodic updates regarding opinions from the graduate community. The experiences and knowledge of 47,000 alumni, who graduated from the first class in 1959 until now, provide a valuable resource for the AFA administration.
The intimate association between the BOD and those it represents was strained when transparency and accountability diminished. The BOD’s unbalanced support of DEI initiatives, silence regarding scholarship eligibility based on race and sexual orientation, failure to denounce overt racial discrimination against white male cadets, and refusal to explore the linkage between unusual deaths and serious injuries suffered by cadets during the mandatory Covid vaccine program led many in the graduate community to believe that the BOD abandoned its independence to serve as an unquestioning advocate of administration policy.