'I Love Both Institutions': Harvard Veterans Caught in Pentagon-Harvard Rift Warn of Lasting Costs

News

Jeffrey Epstein, Gerald Chan Coordinated on Proposed Tsinghua University Campus in Boston

News

Harvard Faculty Cut A Grades by Nearly 7 Percentage Points in Fall

News

Seven Harvard Affiliates Named 2027 Schwarzman Scholars

News

Public Health Faculty Slam Harvard’s Removal of FXB Center Director Mary Bassett

News

A Double-Edged Sword? Double Concentrations Create Both Pressure and Opportunity for Harvard Students

Student veterans at Harvard Kennedy School blasted a new Department of Defense directive cutting academic partnerships with Harvard, saying the move would harm military education and deepen the civil-military divide.

The Defense Department announced earlier this month that it would sever graduate-level partnerships with Harvard beginning in the 2026-27 academic year, ending programs that allow active-duty officers to pursue advanced degrees at Harvard. Veterans and military-affiliated students said the decision would limit exposure to civilian perspectives that they view as essential to effective military leadership.

The directive was issued under United States Secretary of Defense Pete B. Hegseth, who argued that Harvard’s campus culture and alleged ties to foreign entities are incompatible with the military’s values. Affiliates of the Kennedy School disputed that rationale, calling the decision politically motivated and short-sighted.

“My initial reaction was disappointment,” said Jamie R. Bromley, a student veteran at HKS.

Bromley argued that partnerships between universities and government agencies strengthen both institutions.

“I just have a strong opinion that we, as in the United States, is at our very best when education and government work together to forward different initiatives of innovation,” she said. “Severing that tie just makes everyone worse off.”

Bromley added that studying at the Kennedy School exposes military officers to policy areas beyond national security.

“When you are serving, you’re kind of in this national security and foreign policy world,” she said. “When you come to the Kennedy School, you’re exposed to so many different people who have different policy areas of interest. I think just in general, it helps them understand the broader American experience.”

Other veterans said the decision risks widening what scholars describe as the civil-military divide — the growing cultural and experiential gap between service members and civilians.

“I truly believe that partnerships between the Defense Department and Harvard are only good for both institutions,” said Bethany G. Russell, an HKS and Harvard Business School student veteran. “The military thinks a lot about this idea of the civ-mil divide.”

Russell said that only about one percent of Americans serve in the military.

“It creates a massive cultural rift between the military and the rest of civilians,” she said. “It seems like it’s only going to add to that divide going forward.”

A Department of Defense spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

The move may not be limited to Harvard. An order memorandum obtained by The Crimson stated that the Department of Defense would evaluate by Feb. 21 whether to cut ties with graduate programs across the Ivy League.

The memo also clarifies that the suspension applies only to active-duty service members in graduate programs, fellowships, and certificate programs at the University, and does not affect reservists or ROTC students.

R. Nate Powell, a student veteran at HKS and the Harvard Law School, said the move reflects ideological conflict between Pentagon leadership and elite universities.

“It’s just a continuation of the culture war kind of rhetoric that we’ve seen from the Department of Defense under the Trump administration and — given the Secretary of Defense’s personal history with the University — just kind of an expression of his animus towards Harvard University as a whole,” Powell said.

Powell questioned claims that Harvard is hostile to Jewish or military-affiliated students — assertions Hegseth has cited.

“I’m an Army vet, I’m also a Jew, and I also spend time here on campus and haven’t felt any antisemitic sentiments,” he said.

He warned that cutting ties with civilian institutions could have long-term institutional consequences.

“There’ll be a growing fissure between premier institutions of higher learning and the Department of Defense that will gradually see a declining level of civil military competency in the mid-to-upper level officer corps across the Department of Defense” Powell said.

Some students said the directive placed veterans in an uncomfortable position.

“It almost sometimes feels like you’re forced to take sides,” Russell said. “Do I side with the Department of Defense and the U.S. government, or being a Harvard student, do I side with Harvard? I really hate having this choice forced upon me, because I love both institutions.”

Faculty members echoed veterans’ concerns. Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School, said the decision would deprive military officers of a formative educational experience.

“Everyone that I’ve spoken with at HKS is sorry about this and see it as a short-sighted decision,” Walt wrote in a statement.

Walt added that the partnership benefited both sides.

“Harvard has benefited from having these men and women in our community courses; but more importantly, many see their time at Harvard as a high point in their careers” he wrote. “This destructive decision will make the Department of Defense less knowledgeable and effective in the future.”

Rep. Seth W. Moulton ’01 (D-Mass.), a Marine veteran who attended the Kennedy School on the G.I. Bill after serving four tours in Iraq, accused Hegseth of weaponizing military education policy.

“Pete Hegseth’s petty decision isn’t just about Harvard,” Moulton wrote in a statement. “It’s about silencing free speech, undermining education, and punishing anyone who doesn’t pass an ideological loyalty test.”

“As a Marine veteran, I know that exposing officers to a rigorous civilian education makes our forces smarter, more adaptable, and ultimately more effective,” he added. “Cutting off these programs will hurt the active duty, mid-career officers who have worked their entire lives to grow as leaders and serve our country better.”

—Staff writer Jen L. Phan can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X at @jenllphan.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Have a tip for The Crimson? Share it confidentially.