Anti-Trump historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat is scheduled to lecture midshipmen on “authoritarianism” next week at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, an event that is part of the Bancroft Lecture series but, in a break with tradition, will not be public.
We know of Ben-Ghiat’s scheduled Oct. 10 speech only because she announced the event, as well as a problematic partisan political agenda for her lecture, via a Substack post.
“I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet’s Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine,” Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, writes in the Sept. 4 post.
The historian abruptly transitions, writing “that brings us to today’s post, on why Donald Trump insults the military,” and drawing an explicit link between authoritarianism and Trump.
“Why does he do it?” Ben-Ghiat writes of the former president. “His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims.”
Many Americans would view these assertions as untethered to facts or experience, politically charged, and evidently calculated to fuel animosity toward one candidate in the Nov. 5 presidential election.
In her 1,000-word post, Ben-Ghiat goes on to suggest that the Republican nominee engages in “ritual humiliation,” uses people as “props,” and mirrors “authoritarians … who see people as assets to exploit and plunder for their grandiose goals.”
Toward the end, Ben-Ghiat explicitly lists several people, strategically influential to the military audience she means to reach, who “will be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.”
Many who have worked with Trump, not only when he was president but as a businessman and real estate developer, would of course push back against such assertions. Regarding Ben-Ghiat’s specific reference to Trump and his team’s showing disrespect for the military at Arlington National Cemetery, others who were there dispute the claim.
It isn’t known what limitations the Naval Academy has put on Ben-Ghiat’s Oct. 10 lecture, if any. What is known from her own words is that she intends to speak on fascism linked to Trump’s candidacy, going so far as to suggest that the military audience vote a certain way.
It looks highly probable that Ben-Ghiat’s lecture will fail to be politically neutral.
Welcoming a passionate partisan such as Ben-Ghiat to make her assertions to the midshipmen about Trump represents a perilous politicization of the Naval Academy, especially with less than four weeks before an election.
The danger derives from the necessary separation of the military and politics. Midshipmen at the Naval Academy swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution,” pledging their allegiance to a set of ideals rather than to a person or political party. This is enforced by the Defense Department’s Directive 1344.10, which explicitly states that service members shall “not engage in partisan political activity.”
The nature of Ben-Ghiat’s scheduled Bancroft Lecture casts doubt on whether the Naval Academy is in line with this Pentagon directive. It calls into question the nonpartisan nature of leadership at the academy and by extension the Department of the Navy. By allowing Ben-Ghiat’s lecture at this time, without offering opposing viewpoints, it appears that the Naval Academy is acting in a political fashion.
Perhaps it would be a different story if the Naval Academy had welcomed speakers from both sides and not so close to an election to decide America’s next commander in chief.
As it stands, the Naval Academy should retract the invitation to Ben-Ghiat to lecture midshipmen Oct. 10 or perhaps postpone the event until after the election.
If, however, the event is rescheduled, it also would be prudent to invite another lecturer to argue that Kamala Harris’ past actions and policy proposals resemble those of Marxist and socialist leaders, posing a threat to our rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Better to avoid this mess altogether. The Naval Academy can keep out of politics by taking a pass on this particular Bancroft Lecture.
In the past, guest speakers in publicly announced installments of the Bancroft Lecture series—nearly all historians at prominent universities—have been fairly nonpartisan and have not included public declarations concerning political opinions. (This generally also has been true with the Naval Academy’s Forrestal Lecture series.)
Despite past Naval Academy lectures being public, alarmingly the full list isn’t public. It is concerning that the scheduled lecture by Ben-Ghiat not only is private but apparently intended to influence Americans’ vote in the presidential race.
