My son has been interested in military history since he read a book about the Civil War at the age of 10. His interest eventually blossomed into a decision to pursue a Ph.D. with the goal of teaching at a university. Currently, he's a graduate student working on his master's degree.
But his dream may not be achieved ... at least not in the way he thought it would play out. Why? Because the academic world is increasingly reducing its support of military historians. The discipline is considered archaic.
What he is sadly discovering is that many institutions of higher learning take a jaundiced view of "traditional" fields of history -- which is to say military, diplomatic, imperial, and political history. Some professors like to tell students that these fields are outdated and racist.
For example, look at the demographics of one well-known West Coast university's history department: it has no diplomatic historians, no military historians, and just a couple of political historians. Probably 50-75% of the faculty espouse overtly Marxist paradigms, with perhaps only one who could be called slightly conservative.
The French Revolutionary historian isn't really concerned much with the French Revolution, instead focusing solely on things like "material culture" (dresses and theater, etc.). The department's Civil War historian does not actually study the war part of the Civil War, instead focusing on the "memory" of the Civil War (i.e., why history remembers Grant to be a drunkard and how grave markers and monuments were designed after the war). If one wants to learn much about big events, important leaders, or causes and effects of major events and policy, it'd be best for them to look elsewhere.
In general, some universities will balk at hiring (for example) a medievalist because that field tends to focus on "history from above"; that is, kings, administrators, clergy, and nobility. There is a precedent for such an objection. Several years ago, a large Midwestern university received an endowment for a chair in military history. But the department delayed the hiring for a few years because much of the faculty felt uncomfortable hosting a military historian. And when a military historian was finally and reluctantly brought on, they ensured his specialty was deemed politically correct and acceptable to other faculty members.
Last night, my son shared that he will probably need to move to another university to achieve his goal. Those choices are limited, however, and he may ultimately decide to pursue other interests. It's a shame that his career choice might not occur due to a political agenda. He would have been a great professor. Fortunately for my son, he's young and bright enough to see this now, so he can make a career correction if warranted. He will be disappointed, but I am confident that he will be okay.
Parents need to be aware of what is happening, as these university agendas are already impacting your college-age kids. At his university, his department chairman is asking the grad students to develop "sexier" class titles and content. My son has noted that if you want a picture of where American society is heading intellectually, just look to the academies. They do the indoctrination.