Tuberville's proposal for academy athletes to go pro undermines duty
Sen. Tommy Tuberville recently said he would pursue new rules in this year's National Defense Authorization Act to allow military academy athletes to defer their active-duty commitments to pursue professional sports.
'When appropriate, these cadets and midshipmen should graduate and commission with their classes, then defer their service obligation until their professional sports-playing careers are complete,' Tuberville said in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week.
Tuberville, a former football coach, claims it would enhance recruitment and raise the academies' national profile. As of this writing, Tuberville has not released a formal proposal. Nevertheless, on the surface, such a proposal may appear to be a creative recruiting tool. In reality, it represents a fundamental erosion of the principles upon which our service academies were built: duty, honor and service to the country. Tuberville's proposal doesn't strengthen the academies; it undermines their very reason for existence.
A taxpayer-funded academy education comes at a steep cost — over $400,000 per graduate for the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Air Force Academy in 2015, according to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report. But the real investment isn't just financial. It's the four or more years spent cultivating officers through education and training. That investment is made with a singular expectation: service. When that commitment is broken, it's not just money lost — it's leadership, readiness and the very purpose of the academies.
Tuberville's proposal also sends a troubling message that a sworn obligation can be postponed, not for hardship or higher service, but for personal gain and public attention. This opens the door to a dangerous precedent, not just for athletes but for any cadet with a lucrative offer in hand.
Would we allow a tech prodigy to break their commitment to join Google or Apple? Would we let an aspiring actor, model or influencer delay their service to chase those pursuits? If not, then why carve out special treatment for athletes? The cadet who studies day and night to become a brilliant engineer or cyber expert doesn't get to leave early for Silicon Valley. Why should a quarterback or power forward get a pass?
Supporters often point to exceptions made for Rhodes Scholars or Olympic athletes, but these scenarios are fundamentally different. Olympians compete on behalf of their country, while Rhodes Scholars study to better serve it. In both cases, the mission remains aligned with national service. Professional athletes, on the other hand, are entertainers. They don't wear a uniform to represent the nation, they wear a jersey to represent a brand.
Still, some argue that allowing academy athletes to go pro could boost recruiting and raise the military's public profile. But that claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny. We've seen similar promises before with NASCAR sponsorships, drag racing teams, esports and soldiers participating on the television program 'America's Got Talent.' These flashy efforts consistently lack clear measures of effectiveness, often turning into expensive gimmicks rather than genuine recruiting tools. Many of these programs have been criticized for poor oversight and unclear results.
Even if these athletes were placed in the reserves to 'serve,' what would that service look like? Will they be missing games to attend monthly drills or two-week annual training? Would games and brand appearances count as recruiting duty? That's not military service. The notion that high-paid athletes can fulfill a military obligation by simply being visible is an insult to those who actually wear the uniform.
And let's be honest: What credibility would they have as recruiters? Is a second lieutenant or ensign who deferred their active duty service the right voice to inspire prospective recruits? Imagine the message: 'You should totally sign up. The military is great — just not great enough for me to follow through on my commitment.' Contrast that with someone like David Robinson, a Naval Academy graduate who completed his active duty service before going pro, or Alejandro Villanueva, an ROTC graduate who deployed to Afghanistan before joining the NFL. Both men served with distinction before stepping into the spotlight. Their credibility as public figures and potential recruiters was earned through experience, not handed to them through legislative exceptions.
If we want athletes who serve, then let them serve. Let them commission, lead troops and earn credibility through experience — not exceptions. That credibility is exactly what made Robinson and Villanueva effective ambassadors for military service. They honored their commitments — and that's the model we should champion: service first, without shortcuts or exemptions.
The integrity of our commissioning process, the example we set for future leaders and the core value of service before self are all at stake. This isn't about punishing athletes. It's about protecting the institution, the investment and the promise every cadet makes when they raise their right hand. These commitments are not placeholders — they are sacred, and they must be honored.
Ken Segelhorst is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and former assistant professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he directed MX400: Officership, the superintendent's capstone course. He is also a fellow at the Simons Center for Ethical Leadership and Interagency Cooperation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
19 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Bradshaw: College classrooms remain spaces for ideas not ideology
In the fall of 1970, I was a Army veteran of the 101st Airborne Division enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley. The protests were loud, the slogans blunt, and the politics tense. I wasn't there to protest. I was there to study. While others were debating American imperialism on Sproul Plaza, I was deep in constitutional law and political theory — preparing for the rigors of law school. I never felt silenced. Professors were tough but fair. Students had their causes, but classrooms remained spaces for ideas, not ideology. Fifty years later, the American college campus is again in the spotlight — for reasons less academic. Parents worry their children will face litmus tests. Students ask if admissions offices want confessionals or credentials. The truth, as usual, is more complicated. Most high school seniors applying to selective colleges this fall don't need a lot of advice on how to polish their personal essay or list extracurriculars. What they need is what's missing from most guidance offices: the hard, often uncomfortable realities about how top-tier admissions actually work. Here are a few things students — and their parents — ought to know. 1. The Ideology Panic Is Overblown — But Strategy Still Matters: Yes, there are loud political skirmishes on campus. And yes, a few faculty members have become activists with tenure. But the people reading applications aren't professors. They're admissions officers. Their chief priority isn't ideological purity — it's institutional prestige. They are looking for students who will enhance the school's brand, contribute visibly, and ideally donate generously later on. That means your student can write an essay on social justice — or on rebuilding a motorcycle engine — as long as it's compelling. Political alignment is less important than intellectual substance. At Harvard, a thoughtful conservative from Indiana still stands a chance — if he doesn't try to game the system by pretending to be someone he's not. 2. Excellence Still Wins — but It Has to Be Distinct: Top colleges routinely reject students with 4.0 GPAs and perfect test scores. This isn't a conspiracy. It's oversupply. What wins isn't just academic performance but differentiation. Admissions officers look for what researchers call a 'spike' — a student with demonstrable, often rare, excellence in a focused area. An Intel science finalist, an Olympic-level cellist, a published author — these applicants stand out. Not because they're well-rounded, but because they're sharp-edged. The days of trying to be captain, president, volunteer, and valedictorian are over. Focus beats breadth. 3. Legacy and Money Still Buy Access — Quietly: Despite frequent denials, legacy status and donor connections still tilt the field. A 2023 working paper from Harvard researchers revealed that legacy applicants were admitted at rates several times higher than their non-legacy peers, even when controlling for qualifications. 'Need-blind' admissions doesn't always mean aid-blind decision-making. At many institutions, full-pay applicants enjoy subtle advantages. No high school counselor will say this outright—but students should understand that the playing field, while not rigged, is hardly level. 4. Recommendation Letters Are an Untapped Resource: Most students default to teacher recommendations, often from their 11th-grade English or history teacher. These are fine. But the best letters often come from outside the classroom: a mentor from a summer research lab, a supervisor at a startup internship, or a coach who has worked closely with the student for years. Admissions officers want specifics. 'John is responsible and hardworking' is generic. 'John built a solar-powered irrigation system using his own algorithms' is not. 5. Social Media Is a Portfolio — Not Just a Risk: Students are told not to post anything online they wouldn't want a dean to see. Good advice. But here's what they don't hear: social media can also help. A well-produced YouTube series on political philosophy or a blog that analyzes Supreme Court rulings shows initiative and thought. Colleges appreciate authentic intellectual curiosity — especially if it's public. A 2022 Kaplan survey showed that 36% of admissions officers had reviewed applicants' social media. For a few, it helped. 6. Campus Is Still a Place for Ideas — If You Show Up for Them: The loudest students often dominate headlines. But most undergraduates aren't professional protesters. They're trying to learn. And most professors, even on politically active campuses, still reward clarity of thought, not conformity. At Berkeley, my views weren't always in line with the majority. No one cared. Because I showed up prepared, wrote rigorous papers, and engaged the material. That dynamic still exists, though it requires a thicker skin and a sense of proportion. 7. Prestige Is Overrated — Outcomes Aren't: Finally, the most underrated truth: many students chasing Ivy League names would be better served at public honors colleges, strong liberal arts schools, or universities where they can stand out. Law schools, med schools, and employers care far more about what students do with their education than the name on the diploma. A focused, debt-free graduate from UT-Austin or Michigan can outpace an ambivalent Ivy Leaguer with a bloated résumé and a drained bank account. If you're a high school senior, don't try to play a role. Be sharp. Be real. If you're not marching across campus in protest, that's fine. If you are, make sure you can defend your cause with reason. But either way, show the admissions committee something they can't ignore. Because at the end of the day, what top colleges want most is not an ideology — but a mind that's awake.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Olympic leader Bach got 10% raise in 2024 payment that trails far behind soccer's elected leaders
GENEVA (AP) — The International Olympic Committee paid its president Thomas Bach $350,000 in 2024, the Olympic body said Friday — a 10% raise for his final full year in office after a two-year freeze. The payment, or 'indemnity' in Olympic language, revealed in its annual report is small compared to soccer bodies that, like the IOC, are based in Switzerland and count annual revenue in billions. Bach on Monday will formally hand over to President-elect Kirsty Coventry, who will start an eight-year initial term as the Olympic body's first female leader and first from Africa. The IOC has classed the 71-year-old Bach as a volunteer on a full-time executive mission who 'should not have to finance activities related to his function from his personal savings.' Bach, who also gets living allowances, was paid from 12% to 15% what soccer gives its top elected officials. FIFA paid its president Gianni Infantino $5.2 million in taxable salary and bonus last year, plus other expenses. Infantino also is among the 109 IOC members and so can claim $7,000 each year for office costs and $450 daily allowance when on Olympic business. The two-time Olympic champion in swimming left her job as sports minister of Zimbabwe after winning the seven-candidate IOC election in March. Bach's annual payment has been decided by the IOC's ethics commission on the stated principle 'the president should not financially benefit from his position.' The German lawyer held a series of business consultancies and board of director seats before being elected in 2013 to lead the IOC. The IOC paid Bach 225,000 euros ($259,000) in 2020. It rose to 275,000 euros ($317,000) in the year of his re-election, 2021, then was frozen for each of the next two years. ___
UPI
a day ago
- UPI
South Korea says defense spending 'very high' compared to U.S. allies
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called for NATO members and Asian allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington on Wednesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo SEOUL, June 20 (UPI) -- South Korea's Defense Ministry said Friday that its defense spending as a share of gross domestic product is already "very high" compared to other U.S. allies, as Washington calls for NATO members and Asian countries to increase their military budgets. "Among major U.S. allies of the United States, South Korea has a very high ratio of defense spending to GDP," the ministry said in a message to reporters. "We have continuously increased our defense budget in consideration of the serious security situation, including North Korea's nuclear and missile threats." "South Korea will continue to make efforts to secure the capabilities and posture necessary for the defense of the Korean Peninsula and peace and stability in the region," the ministry added. In 2024, South Korea spent $47.6 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, on defense, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. That share is higher than Britain's 2.3%, France's 2.1%, Germany's 1.9% and Japan's 1.4%. Seoul's statement suggested concerns over remarks by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this week calling for a "new standard" for allies in NATO and Asia to spend 5% of GDP on defense. "We expect NATO allies to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense or defense-related investment," Hegseth said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday. "We now have a new standard for ally defense spending that all of our allies around the world, including in Asia, should move to," Hegseth said. "It's only fair that our allies and partners do their part. We cannot want their security more than they do." Hegseth also called for Asian countries to increase their spending in remarks at a defense forum in Singapore last month. "It doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to [spend 5% of GDP] while key allies in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea," he said at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue. The defense spending issue looks to be a potentially contentious topic at next week's NATO Summit in The Hague. NATO countries committed to a goal of 2% of GDP in 2014, which two-thirds have reached, but U.S. President Donald Trump has long called for an increase and has been demanding the 5% figure since his reelection. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said last week he expected the allies to agree to the 5% target. "It will be a NATO-wide commitment and a defining moment for the alliance," he said in a speech at Chatham House in London. However, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez pushed back on the proposal, which must be agreed to unanimously, in a letter to Rutte this week. "For Spain, committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive," Sanchez wrote Thursday, according to El Pais. "It would move Spain away from optimal spending and would hinder the EU's efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem." South Korea's newly elected President Lee Jae Myung has not confirmed whether he will attend the NATO Summit, which will be held on June 24-25. His office had anticipated a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of last week's Group of Seven meeting to discuss tariffs and defense cost-sharing issues, but the U.S. president departed early.
