The Public Affairs Office of the United States Military Academy gave false information to a left-leaning news outlet (ProPublica) that Pete Hegseth, nominee for SecDef, had not applied to West Point. While this could be an accident, we think it is indicative of the deeper politicized rot at the institution.
How It Started
Hegseth provided his acceptance letter to (p)rebut the hit piece (“SecDef Nominee Claimed Acceptance But Didn’t Actually Apply”).
Digging deeper, we found that the source of the denial was the PA Division Chief:
That “spokesperson” was Theresa Brinkerhoff, the Public Affairs Division Chief.
In other contexts, Theresa said this:
“We receive approximately 1,200 media queries a year, everything from obtaining a photograph for publication or fact checking West Point information to arranging a full-blown, multi-hour national television program,” says Theresa Brinkerhoff, Public Affairs Division Chief for the United States Military Academy. Public Affairs’ mission is to communicate and promote the overall USMA mission…
However, before releasing the resources of the Academy to external media for their own readership or viewership, Public Affairs considers how the media will shape public sentiment of West Point in four specific areas: 1) as the premiere leadership development institution; 2) as a national symbol of selfless service; 3) as a cultivator of character growth; 4) and as a community that is dedicated to excellence. “Everything we’re about impacts at least one of these four areas,” says Brinkerhoff.
That makes it sound like statements to the press are very carefully vetted, researched, and controlled. So what happened?
Now, we don’t really know what happened. Maybe Admissions didn’t know how to query their class data for classes of 2004 or 2007. Maybe it was in fact a malicious omission–after all, if Hegseth hadn’t kept his letter, how would he have proven that he didn’t lie?
West Point Is Politicized
After we started this site, we submitted additional FOIA requests for better info – more on nominating source, cadet performance, additional steps of admissions through nominations, offer extensions, and candidate acceptance of offers. Our requests were rejected.
Oh, and then we got legal logo takedown notices.
And it wasn’t just us. Other people have messaged and at least one has had credible, reasonable data requests stonewalled and rejected.
We can only think that this is because the data shows things that West Point doesn’t want on public display.
And if there are things that West Point doesn’t want the public to know, then West Point is not impartial. It has a point of view, and because the topics the data addresses are politicized, it has a specifically political point of view.
And if West Point has a political point of view, then it is entirely reasonable that it would try to run disinformation about the unpopular (at DOD) SecDef nominee, when it thought it had a good chance of not getting caught. After all, surely no one would keep an acceptance letter from 30 years ago!
It doesn’t matter whether it’s the particular General in the driver’s seat at the time. There is an unaccountable, unjust, and progressive woke element driving policy and actions at West Point.
This is unacceptable. West Point’s reputation and its efficacy are severely harmed by this politicization. USMA used to be an elite school, an aspirational goal and pathway to honorable service. With discriminatory admissions, ideological leadership, and events like these, it is becoming a has-been.