It was billed as a culture war eruption waiting to happen — but when Pete Hegseth unleashed his blistering critique of Harvard’s decision to hire a drag professor in its gender and sexuality program, what erupted was much more than political theater. Hegseth’s fiery denunciation of courses like RuPaulitics: Drag, Race, and Desire and Queer Ethnography has escalated into a nationwide confrontation over what higher education is becoming — and who gets to define scholarly legitimacy.

The Spark: Harvard’s New Appointment
In early October 2025, Harvard University announced that it would bring in Kareem Khubchandani, better known by his drag persona LaWhore Vagistan, as a visiting professor in its Studies of Gender and Sexuality program. Among the courses Khubchandani is slated to teach are RuPaulitics: Drag, Race, and Desire — apparently centering on the cultural impact of RuPaul’s Drag Race — and Queer Ethnography, exploring the lived experiences and performative dimensions of queer identity.

As news of the hire spread, reaction came quickly — from campus to cable. For many in academic and queer studies circles, the move was celebrated as a bold step: integrating performance, identity, and scholarship in a field long wrestling with the boundaries of culture. But for critics, especially in conservative media, the appointment represented exactly what they saw as the worst excesses of modern academia — performative activism masquerading as serious inquiry.

Hegseth’s Declaration: “This Isn’t Education, It’s a Circus!”
Not one to shy away from confrontation, Pete Hegseth wasted no time weaponizing the controversy. On syndicated radio and television appearances, he dismissed the hire with scorn and derision. “Harvard is turning classrooms into drag stages,” he declared in one segment. “This isn’t education — it’s a circus!”

Hegseth framed the controversy in stark terms: he argued that taxpayer-subsidized institutions were sacrificing rigor for spectacle, replacing lecture halls with lip-sync battlegrounds. He painted the decision as symbolic of an ideological takeover — one that prioritized identity politics over objective knowledge.

His criticism tapped into a broader narrative he has pushed for years: that elite universities are “factories” for left-wing indoctrination. During past interviews, he has declared his intention to return his degree to Harvard, protesting what he sees as the “poisoning” of minds in institutions he once lauded.

Lines Drawn in Academia
Hegseth’s rhetoric provoked swift counterreactions. Supporters of Khubchandani’s work pointed out that drag as performance is a legitimate form of cultural and aesthetic analysis — one that has deep roots in queer literary theory, performance studies, and critical race theory. They emphasized that RuPaulitics and Queer Ethnography are not frivolous subjects, but disciplines that interrogate identity, power, and representation.

In academic circles, debates have flared about what constitutes rigorous scholarship. Critics of Hegseth accuse him of misunderstanding the methodology of cultural critique, claiming he reduces nuanced work to superficial spectacle. Defenders argue that scholarship has always evolved, and that marginal voices and controversial topics are essential to intellectual progress.

Some on the left see the controversy as a reactionary backlash — a symptom of unease at universities trying to expand the boundaries of discourse. Others caution that polarizing statements like Hegseth’s further deepen the chasm between public perceptions of academia and the internal work scholars do.

Public Pressure, Institutional Response, and Fallout
As the rhetoric intensified, Harvard found itself under pressure. Alumni, donors, and board members began asking how such a controversial hire aligned with the university’s mission. Some conservative donors threatened to pull funding; others called the appointment a threat to Harvard’s prestige.

Harvard’s public statements were cautious. The university affirmed its commitment to academic freedom and diversity of thought, and noted that visiting professor positions often bring experiments in pedagogy. But it refrained from directly defending the specifics of Khubchandani’s persona or course content.
Meanwhile, social media became a battleground. Hashtags such as #LaWhoreAtHarvard and #CancelTheCircus trended alongside #AcademicFreedom and #LetThemTeach. On one side, critics circulated screengrabs of provocative performance art, questioning how such material could belong in a classroom; on the other, advocates posted lectures and essays illustrating how drag can serve as critical inquiry into gender and performance.

The Stakes: Identity, Authority, and the Future of Higher Ed
Beyond the personalities and provocation lies a deeper conflict — about authority in academia, about who gets to decide what counts as scholarship, and about the role of identity in educational institutions.

Hegseth’s attack rests on a foundational claim: that universities should preserve a more classical model of scholarship — reasoned debate, empirical inquiry, and universal knowledge. He argues that performance, especially drag theatrics, undermines rather than enhances that tradition.

But others counter that models of knowledge have never been static. Humanities, social theory, and cultural studies have long embraced interdisciplinarity, performativity, and subjective critique. To reject them wholesale, they argue, is to deny intellectual progress.

Moreover, the controversy raises questions about access and representation. If universities silence disruptive or provocative voices under pressure, does that risk stifling innovation and dissent? Conversely, if any aesthetic or identity-based work is accepted without critique, does the integrity of academic institutions erode?

The Irony of the Spectacle
Ironically, Hegseth’s denunciation generated more attention for Harvard’s new hire than the announcement initially received. Even those skeptical of drag studies found themselves watching interviews, reading course descriptions, and debating fundamental questions of pedagogy. The spectacle he decries became the news — and perhaps, the point.

Khubchandani himself responded to critics with a measured tone, emphasizing that drag is not just performance but inquiry. He pointed out that many performance artists, anthropologists, and queer theorists have long used the stage to critique society. His persona, he asserted, is a method — a way to destabilize bias, expose norms, and invite reflection.

Beyond Outrage: What Comes Next
As the dust settles, the fallout may have lasting consequences. Key scenarios to watch include:

• Donor and Board Responses: Will Harvard’s benefactors demand reversals or reaffirmations of mission? A shift in funding or governance could reshape the university’s trajectory.

• Academic Precedents: Other universities may watch closely — will they shy away from provocative hires, or lean in? This moment could set a tone for how identity disciplines evolve.

• Public Opinion vs. Scholarly Autonomy: The broader public may increasingly view disciplines like gender studies, queer theory, or performance studies as illegitimate. If rhetoric like Hegseth’s prevails, institutions might curtail funding or platforms for controversial work.

• Media Strategy and Narratives: Both sides will battle over framing — is Harvard embracing creative pedagogy or abandoning academic seriousness? Is Hegseth defending tradition or stifling progress?

• 

Conclusion
When Pete Hegseth yelled that Harvard had turned classrooms into drag stages, he ignited a culture war — but he also exposed the fault lines already running through higher education. The clash isn’t merely about one hire or one set of courses; it’s about the future of universities themselves: will they remain guardians of classical knowledge, or become arenas for contested identity and performance?

In this moment, the authority of academia is on trial before the public gaze. And the question looms: can institutions adapt without losing legitimacy, or will critics like Hegseth succeed in recasting contested scholarship as mere spectacle?

As Harvard’s faculty, students, and critics brace for what comes next, one thing is clear: this is more than a controversy. It’s a reckoning over who defines knowledge in an era when culture, identity, and performance refuse to stay in the wings.