A judge in the United States District Court Southern District of New York issued a decision this month in favor a law professor suing West Point as part of a class-action lawsuit alleging his rights and other civilian professors’ rights to free speech had been violated by a policy requiring West Point faculty to get approval before speaking publicly outside the academy.
The lawsuit, brought by Tim Bakken, centers around an Academic Engagement Policy put in effect on Feb. 13, 2025, according to the lawsuit.
The policy requires military and civilian faculty to get approval before speaking publicly, and reads: “Department Heads are the approval authority for engagements with any audience external to USMA [referring to West Point] that are within faculty members’ disciplinary areas of expertise while on duty or when using any USMA affiliation or branding.” The policy says that engagement that require approval before speaking includes journal publications, media interviews, podcasts, blog and social media posts, and conference presentations.
According to the court's judgement, the policy also prohibited Bakken from sharing his opinions and beliefs with students in the classroom, which District Court Judge Cathy Seibel also declared unconstitutional for civilian professors. Bakken said it also restricts his ability to speak as a private citizen.
According to the lawsuit, faculty members' failure to comply can lead to disciplinary action, including termination.
Tim Bakken, has been a civilian professor of law at West Point Academy for over 25 years and is one of the longest serving law professors there, according to a lawsuit filed in 2025.
Bakken explained part of the reason he brought the lawsuit was because he felt the academic policy would diminish the credibility of West Point, since the public would know all information was being censored.
“Anybody who heard their speeches or read their writings would justifiably think that I don't know whether I'm getting what this professor believes is the truth. And I'm not saying anybody knows what the truth is, but we certainly try to engage in a process to obtain the truth. And therefore, if I can't believe what this professor is saying is one's belief of what is true then that leads to a lack of credibility not only with the professor but also with the institution,” Bakken said.
Bakken said censorship policies at military academies like West Point ultimately end up hurting national security.
“When you have a rule that says you can't speak without prior approval of a military administrator, the cadets who will become generals learn to speak according to a party line and that party line means that those people who will become generals and admirals will learn that conformity and blind loyalty and groupthink are the ways to go. And without even knowing it almost, people will not use their critical thinking abilities,” Bakken said.
Bakken said he also has previously written that what he thinks are America’s failures in past wars since World War II, largely were caused by generals and admirals who did not tell the public whether the wars could be won or if they couldn’t be won.
Bakken said that despite the District Court’s judgement issued on Sept. 8, he has been ostracized by his colleagues. Bakken said he thinks many professors are afraid to talk to him because of the repercussions despite the court’s ruling.
“Despite the judge holding the policy unconstitutional, there's still the informal fear that people experience because there are many ways that people can be under scrutiny, even if they have a formal right to talk," Bakken said. "Even though that formal right now exists, there are many formal ways people know that they can be in a position to suffer consequences. And a result as the result is that they continue to remain silent. And therefore it will take a long time for professors or anybody in that situation to learn again to speak freely according to one's conscience.”
According to the District Court judgement, West Point may still seek appellate review.
