Speakers at the U.S. Naval Academy rarely make headlines, let alone attract controversy. But that was before the academy invited Ruth Ben-Ghiat to give its annual Bancroft lecture.

A historian with a long anti-Trump published presence, Ms. Ben-Ghiat intended to link her talk on “militaries under authoritarian rule” to presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Such a lecture, however, would violate a long-standing ban on election inference by military personnel. With Congress demanding answers on why Ms. Ben-Ghiat was invited, academy leaders finally acted. However, they merely postponed the lecture.

That she was anti-Trump is beside the point. It would also be unacceptable to invite a speaker who was equally critical of Vice President Kamala Harris. The Naval Academy should not engage in partisan discourse.

The Defense Department’s Directive 1344.10 states that “members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity.” It further states that active-duty members shall not use official authority to “affect the course or outcome of an election.” For the professors involved, the Hatch Act prohibits government employees from engaging in political activity “in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”

Bancroft lectures are approved by the provost and superintendent. As such, they would violate this act by inviting Ms. Ben-Ghiat, whose long record of anti-Trump and Republican conspiracy theorizing would be reasonably understood as partisan.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an anomaly. More has come to light that demonstrates the academy’s wayward path toward “woke” ideology and away from doing its duty to train the best naval officers possible.

For example, at least two civilian professors at the Naval Academy have required midshipmen (Naval Academy students who are also active-duty Navy) to state their preferred pronouns. They even imposed their chosen pronouns upon their midshipmen, forcing them to state them despite their contradictions to biological sex. Such professors abuse their students plainly and simply.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agrees. Its recent decision in Meriwether v. Hartop makes clear that these professors violated the midshipmen’s rights. Nicholas Meriwether, a professor at Shawnee State University, had refused to use a student’s preferred pronoun, and the court ruled that the university violated his free speech rights. Another case in federal court ruled the same way concerning an Ohio school district compelling speech.

But this isn’t surprising. Diversity, equity and inclusion ideology has been officially glorified at the Naval Academy for several years. This is facilitated though the “brigade dignity and respect executive officer,” who is responsible for “all dignity and respect initiatives involving midshipmen,” including apparatchiks assigned in “each battalion, company, extracurricular activity, and varsity/club sports team.”

These officers work for the “diversity officer,” a government-hired staff position at the academy. They have the role that communist commissars had in the old Soviet Union to ensure that students adhere to discriminatory DEI doctrines, doctrines that destroy important military principles such as unit cohesion, esprit de corps and shared loyalty and commitment.

In a hopeful turn, many members of Congress have taken notice and demanded an explanation from Naval Academy leadership.

In an Oct. 3 letter to Vice Adm, Yvette Davids, superintendent of the Naval Academy, GOP Rep. Keith Self of Texas stated that service academies are “not arenas for political debate; they are publicly funded institutions charged with training future military leaders to serve under any administration.”

On Oct. 9, 17 members of Congress, led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, Virginia Republican, signed another letter to Vice Adm. Davids.

They stated: “Our military service academies, as publicly funded and government-operated institutions, are intended to train future military leaders to serve the United States with honor and distinction, regardless of who holds the position of Commander in Chief. The partisan politics that Dr. Ben-Ghiat espouses has absolutely no place in our military.”

Important questions remain unanswered. What is the process for vetting Bancroft speakers? How does the Naval Academy ensure speakers reflect the Academy’s impartiality on politically sensitive topics? And how does it define academic freedom in the context of remaining politically neutral?

Among the members of Congress petitioning the academy, two are alumni: Rep. Nick LaLota (class of 2000) and Rep. Mike Garcia (class of 1998).

Yet some members of Congress who are Naval Academy alumni have not weighed in: Rep. Christopher Deluzio (class of 2006), Rep. Mikie Sherrill (class of 1994), Rep. Jake Ellzey Sr. (class of 1992), Rep. Scott Franklin (class of 1986) and Sen. Todd Young (class of 1995).

The Naval Academy must refrain from conduct that might lead voters to perceive it as politically partisan. Moreover, the longer caustic DEI activities persist and are embedded in the curriculum, the more ingrained they will become, becoming behaviors incongruent with naval training, tradition and mission.

The public deserves to know and be confident that its Naval Academy is properly training future officers and not involving itself in partisan politics.