A Deeply Fractured US

[Blackadder1916]

Ok yeah, looks like this is probably going to be more broadly applicable. What a self-defeating move by DoD.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/13/politics/us-military-top-universities-tuition-assistance

The email is within JAG but refers to a Dept of War direction. Interestingly I read the caution going to the UFLEP program people as "friendly advice" warning them of the poisoned atmosphere and the possibility that their self funded schooling may not be recognized by DOD down the road.

I think the OJAG is as aghast at this as anyone (except maybe the MAGA/Trumpists that exist in all organizations down there)

From the horse's mouth (or the other end of the equine alimentary canal).

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4399812/war-department-cuts-ties-with-harvard-university/

While the War Department announced cessation of academic relations with Harvard, the secretary said in the coming weeks, the department and military services would evaluate similar relationships with other schools.

"[We] will evaluate all existing graduate programs for active-duty service members at all Ivy League universities and other civilian universities," he said. "The goal is to determine whether or not they actually deliver cost-effective strategic education for future senior leaders when compared to, say, public universities and our military graduate programs."

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ability will not out if its been formed by a decade of propaganda. Yes some may escape their indoctrination, most will succumb to it.

I must have lived a unique life. I have managed to pretty much escape, in my public and private life, religious people who are "indoctrinated". The sea in which I swim is almost entirely of university-educated people. Almost to a man/woman those whom I know to be religious have been moderate centrists and conservatives, mostly about their family lives, many liberal about bigger social issues (eg. public social welfare programs). I find it impossible to credit that my experience has somehow been unique. I concluded long ago that the idea of the narrow-minded university-educated religious zealot poisoning public discourse is a myth. The narrow-minded university-educated leftist zealot poisoning public discourse, though - plenty of those.

The fact is conservative political activism exists just as much as the political activism that the conservatives despise.

Not a chance, in the world of post-secondary education in the US.

If there wasn't conservative activism then guys like Charlie Kirk would have been out of a job. Let's call a spade a spade. The problem isn't that there is political activism in universities; the problem is that it's political activism that opposes the Right.

That framing improperly inverts the situation. Overwhelmingly, progressives advance new propositions and conservatives oppose. It is obvious by inspection that on most campuses, progressives are systematically favoured. They do not really have to contend with being shouted down by protestors or have their events cancelled because the administration fears a "security risk".

 

[Brad Sallows]

You are massively misunderstanding what the criticism is.

What people complain about is that those folks get the same SCRIT points as everybody else.

That may be the centre of your universe, particularly if your personal preference would be to adjust scores by institutional reputation. Some people just don't think the qual is worth much.

But instead of actually doing a full load of classes like any normal grad student, half their credits are from CFC.

Why wouldn't CFC work count as credits?

My American colleagues would actually get more SCRIT points for their STEM degrees or for attending more prestigious schools on recognized programs (like a Fulbright or Rhodes Scholar). I got the same points (1 pt) for my two STEM degrees as my buddy who did a part time MA at Carleton. And an even bigger complaint is Second Language is worth 4 pts on the SCRIT.

Clearly you have a beef about SCRIT scoring, but that policy is just a nudge. It isn't the fundamental principle about what kind of post-sec education should be necessary or acceptable.

You know where you see the government demanding that military officers and senior bureaucrats only attend party approved schools? Authoritarian regimes like China.

Sure, but the US government isn't demanding attendance only at party-approved schools. What they're proposing is to limit financial aid for those choosing to attend selected institutions.

 

[ytz]

Clearly you have a beef about SCRIT scoring,

I'm explaining to you the source of the complaint. If I really cared that much about getting promoted I would never never taken a sponsored PG. Was literally told by my boss, "This isn't going to help you get promoted."

That may be the centre of your universe,

See above.

Why wouldn't CFC work count as credits?

There's always been questions about rigour when translating service training to education. But also, it does seem like double counting to get credits for training that gets you promoted to then go into a degree that also helps you get promoted vs the dude who did both on their own.

Sure, but the US government isn't demanding attendance only at party-approved schools.

Sure bud..... That's why the SecDef is literally putting out videos complaining about DEI.... Guess you can only attend schools that the administration doesn't deem to teach DEI, a standard they arbitrarily decide.

And judging by our conversation here, apparently a lecture or two on the impacts of climate change is all it takes to trigger some snowflake to claim "WOKE!".

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure bud..... That's why the SecDef is literally putting out videos complaining about DEI.... Guess you can only attend schools that the administration doesn't deem to teach DEI, a standard they arbitrarily decide.

What has been reported about the policy is clear. As always, there is a universe of speculations about malign motives to be imagined.

And judging by our conversation here, apparently a lecture or two on the impacts of climate change is all it takes to trigger some snowflake to claim "WOKE!".

The absurdity of your example of the need to incorporate "climate change" into military thinking stands by itself. Attempting to recalibrate goalposts won't change that.

 

[Remius]

What has been reported about the policy is clear. As always, there is a universe of speculations about malign motives to be imagined.

The absurdity of your example of the need to incorporate "climate change" into military thinking stands by itself. Attempting to recalibrate goalposts won't change that.

We are literally shaping our defence policy in the Arctic because of climate change. We would be idiots not to incorporate it into military thinking.

 

[ytz]

We are literally shaping our defence policy in the Arctic because of climate change. We would be idiots not to incorporate it into military thinking.

And among many reasons cited for why Trump thought Greenland should be annexed. The whole scramble for the Arctic is massively predicated on climate change.

The sensitivity of folks like Brad is ridiculous. Apparently nobody above the rank of Captain should even dare to think, "What if this Climate Change thing is real? How should we do force design, plan infrastructure, etc to operate there?"

 

[ytz]

What has been reported about the policy is clear. As always, there is a universe of speculations about malign motives to be imagined.

No need to imagine shit. The SecDef gave his reasoning in the video above.

The absurdity of your example of the need to incorporate "climate change" into military thinking stands by itself. Attempting to recalibrate goalposts won't change that.

I'm not attempting to "recalibrate goalposts". Merely pointing out that there's no accounting for what will trigger hypersensitive snowflakes who think a graduate education dare not expose anybody to any ideas they aren't comfortable with.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm not attempting to "recalibrate goalposts". Merely pointing out that there's no accounting for what will trigger hypersensitive snowflakes who think a graduate education dare not expose anybody to any ideas they aren't comfortable with.

You mean like Evangelical Christians and Creationists, some times referred to in the Internet as "American Taliban"?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Why conservatism in the sense of not accepting the normal evolution of humankind doesn't work: Because nobody knows where you should draw the line where "evolution" should stop.

Look at the Amish: stopped accepting technology in the 18th century as "not being in the bible". Yet, tons of advancements in science and technology occurred between the time the bible was written and they "stopped" accepting evolution of technology. Why the 18th century then? Why not the 16th? Or the fifth? or the first century for that matter?

Right now, if humankind doesn't release itself from the bounds of religions, any of them, and "evolve" to determine what it wants to be as a society of nations and people, it runs the serious risk of soon being supplanted by another intelligent life form: Artificial Intelligence. When AI gets to the point where it can self-program to be better, more evolved and intelligent, it might decide we have no business being here considering what we have done to the planet.

 

[suffolkowner]

Why conservatism in the sense of not accepting the normal evolution of humankind doesn't work: Because nobody knows where you should draw the line where "evolution" should stop.

Look at the Amish: stopped accepting technology in the 18th century as "not being in the bible". Yet, tons of advancements in science and technology occurred between the time the bible was written and they "stopped" accepting evolution of technology. Why the 18th century then? Why not the 16th? Or the fifth? or the first century for that matter?

Right now, if humankind doesn't release itself from the bounds of religions, any of them, and "evolve" to determine what it wants to be as a society of nations and people, it runs the serious risk of soon being supplanted by another intelligent life form: Artificial Intelligence. When AI gets to the point where it can self-program to be better, more evolved and intelligent, it might decide we have no business being here considering what we have done to the planet.

I dont really think that Anabaptists reject technology. The various sects limit technology that they think diminishes community attachment

 

[Brad Sallows]

We are literally shaping our defence policy in the Arctic because of climate change. We would be idiots not to incorporate it into military thinking.

Sure; it's part of the impetus and part of the estimate. But it's not because sea levels are rising 2-3 mm per year.

Factors ought to be properly understood. For example, around the world there are communities thought to be threatened by "sea level rise". On close examination, a couple of templates often emerge: shorefront communities threatened by erosion because they meddled with natural processes by rearranging topography (often to support tourism); and river delta communities threatened not by sea level rise but by land subsidence due to their habit of drawing too much water. The security risks posed by social instability are real, and the causes are anthropogenic, but they have nothing to do with climate change - both originate from poor civil engineering habits.

 

[ytz]

Sure; it's part of the impetus and part of the estimate.

Who's recalibrating goalposts now?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The sensitivity of folks like Brad is ridiculous. Apparently nobody above the rank of Captain should even dare to think, "What if this Climate Change thing is real? How should we do force design, plan infrastructure, etc to operate there?"

That's your argument, not mine. If you're going to criticize my position, don't reframe it into a strawman. Otherwise, you're just arguing with something you made up in your own head.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I dont really think that Anabaptists reject technology. The various sects limit technology that they think diminishes community attachment

View attachment 98475

Good god! (figuratively, for the god part here) Somebody actually took the time to compile a table!

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not attempting to "recalibrate goalposts". Merely pointing out that there's no accounting for what will trigger hypersensitive snowflakes who think a graduate education dare not expose anybody to any ideas they aren't comfortable with.

The administration objects to the possibility that people attending schools will somehow be tainted with the ideas of progressive activists, but those conditions exist at almost all post-sec institutions.

The pre-eminent factor, which I suppose most people are overlooking, is the administration's desire to deny federal funding support (in any form) to institutions that are determined to hold onto and promote policies like affirmative action for enrollments. As with other matters, they are picking on particular targets; Harvard is one. As with other matters, the core underlying aim is muddled by poor absurd inflammatory communication, which sets off bonfires of "AHA!" everywhere.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Who's recalibrating goalposts now?

I'm not. I never denied militaries ought to think about "climate change" (construed broadly). You used sea level rise as a specific example of why they should, and I commented on the specific absurdity of the example.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Right now, if humankind doesn't release itself from the bounds of religions, any of them, and "evolve" to determine what it wants to be as a society of nations and people

Dispensing with religion might not be the best way to reach that goal. Religion is exploited for conflict and other self-serving agendas, but it also provides guardrails that people don't have to be educated and intelligent enough to reason their way into, even if a solution for the is/ought problem were around the corner.

If there is no life after death, how should a person react to anyone else trying to impose constraints on how he lives that one life?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If there is no life after death, how should a person react to anyone else trying to impose constraints on how he lives that one life?

Are you saying that religion imposing constraints on how one lives one's own life is OK, but,. without it one would have to, somehow, have to figure out how to react to someone else's attempt to do so? No!

The way to react is easy: F... Off! Let me do as I please, as long as it is legal under the laws of the country where you live and you have a democratic say into the laws of that country. There are straightforward, easy to accept, rules of basic morality outside the "ten commandments' (most of which are useless, and the others universal, with or without religion), such as the Golden Rule: Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT want done to you.

 

[ytz]

I'm not. I never denied militaries ought to think about "climate change" (construed broadly). You used sea level rise as a specific example of why they should, and I commented on the specific absurdity of the example.

So to be clear. You are triggered and went back and forth because of "sea level rise". That's enough for you to think American senior officers should stop being sent to graduate programs at Ivy League schools?

Do you get why this is ridiculous?

And let's be clear, SecDef didn't say some programs. He said all programs. From doctors at Johns Hopkins to nuclear engineers at MIT.