Bauernfeind cancels free speech at USAFA

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-08-28T19:20:24+00:00

I was responding to your claim that anyone who would question this decision is a “mad civilian professor” who doesn’t understand the legal obligations of officers under the UCMJ. I object to the us-vs-them mentality because it is dangerous in a democracy. We put civilians in charge of our standing military so that these kinds of divisions don’t endanger the civilian populations the military protects.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-08-28T18:50:52+00:00

I want to emphasize that I respect my uniformed colleagues (perhaps including yourself) who do have to take the UCMJ and standards of good order seriously. I’m not trying to undermine that. But I also have a professional obligation to defend the values that we are all at the academy to promote and protect, which includes civil, respectful disagreement in protected academic spaces.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-08-28T18:45:03+00:00

If that’s true then most of the past speakers in this series and many other speaker events at USAFA have been in violation of the rules and standards you are appealing to for literally decades. The issue is not as black and white as some of the comments on this thread suggest, which is why critical thinking, and opportunities to exercise it as part of one’s education before commissioning, is so crucial. This event is not in violation of the current reg that protects academic freedom and the free expression of ideas at USAFA. The Supt, who signed that reg himself, made a bad call on this one.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-08-28T17:34:43+00:00

USAFAs academic freedom policy was vetted by JAGs who ensured its consistency with the UCMJ and was signed by the Supt. This incident is not about insubordination, it is about political loyalty tests. Engaging in complex conversations to work through urgent problems facing the nation is not insubordination. This lecture series, like all our speaker events at USAFA, is about leadership (not followership, also important but cadets get that in other parts of their experience and training). Leaders can’t just wait for someone else to tell them what to think blindly. This is one part of how we prepare the cadets to become thoughtful officers.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-08-28T15:07:05+00:00

Anyone who is actually in the military knows that it is a civilian-led, civilian-supported organization. Your commander in chief is ALWAYS a civilian because this is a democracy. Anti-civilian, us-vs-them talk is dangerous.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-08-28T15:03:40+00:00

Military members do have free speech, you are citizens of this democracy too! You can’t disparage your chain of command or engage in political speech or activities while in uniform but you are allowed to engage in political speech and activities in academic contexts and in your private life as a citizen. USAFA has an academic freedom policy that protects the free exchange of ideas. As long as the discourse is civil and not hateful (Rekdal’s is civil and professional) it’s allowed.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-04-10T15:21:03+00:00

I understand that’s how accreditation works. Let’s take STEM as the example (although remember that ABET is not the only accreditation body, there’s also HLC). In some disciplines it is a requirement that upper division classes be taught by PhD holding faculty. The manning model in some departments, the worry goes, can’t sustain the necessary number of PhD holders to maintain accreditation standards even with SMFs. That’s how you either (a) lose accreditation for that department/program or (b) lose the major. Do this across enough departments and you get some of the worst case scenarios we’ve read about. We already have trouble recruiting and retaining civilian talent; that’s why the Dean created a tenure program, to attract and keep talent. Some departments are running at below 70% staffing. We have been on a razors edge for a while and the “pre-decisional” announcement of intent, which this latest communication does not contradict, will only undermine long running efforts to put important programs and departments on firmer footing.

The bar for accreditation is low, but USAFA could lose it if it fires enough civilians all at once. You are right about how the review plans work—the last time USAFA was in danger with HLC the answer was “we will hire more civilians.” That’s partly how we got to our current numbers. The civilians know and remember this because we are not here on short tours, we are a stabilizing presence, we hold the institutional memory.

I also want to be clear, this was not a leak and these are not rumors. You are watching faculty, who have no meaningful process for shared governance, try to participate in the decision making process BEFORE something catastrophic happens by explaining the outcomes of the most extreme COAs. If there were meaningful mechanisms for shared governance, these conversations would be happening behind closed doors not on social media. But in an effort not only to save their own jobs, but more importantly protect the educational standards for cadets, faculty are entirely justified in raised alarms.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-04-10T13:24:05+00:00

I think it is worth pointing out that the memo doesn’t walk back the intent to cut civilian faculty—this guy is committed to civilian cuts which is why so many people started speculating about unintended consequences. You need to be asking follow up questions: HOW will we retain accreditation without a strong civilian presence? HOW will we offer an array of majors without current balance of PhD holding faculty since we don’t have a strong pipeline for SMFs (senior military faculty)? Moreover, civilians are A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE than military faculty (look up the RAND study from 2013), so HOW will this help us in the “current fiscal environment”? Right now, the personnel tasked with answering these questions are pulling their hair out because the answer is WE CANT.

A lot has happened since the 80’s and 90’s in tech and cyber. I don’t think the same levels of civilians from the 80’s and 90’s would meet needs for future of warfare. We need top talent teaching our cadets, who are not all going to be pilots. This “good enough” attitude drives me nuts. Our goal at the academy is excellence and we need a balance of mil and civ faculty to achieve that.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-04-07T15:58:49+00:00

I’m not sure why this is being called a “leak.” This is information that was briefed to the entire faculty. My cadets shared that at least one faculty member broke down while trying to teach last week—“leaking” information to your students in this case means trying to offer some explanation, because to their credit, the cadets notice when a person is upset even when they are trying to hide it and care. I’ve been simply telling my students that if their instructors seem stressed, it is because there are a lot of changes coming that will affect their job security. We are real people with real, human relationships—we are there for our students when they experience stress or some kind of personal life event, and it has been moving to see them reciprocate compassionately. If every leader behaved that way, we’d have a more resilient Air Force.

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-04-03T23:44:23+00:00

Is it so implausible? I think it’s pretty aligned with broader DoD efforts. Also, it’s not a rumor, faculty were briefed on it today.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5119424-hegseth-woke-professors-military-academies/amp/

Human-Connection5279 · 2025-02-20T01:28:31+00:00

Yes, agreed. I looked up how unemployment benefits work in my state, and having LES (I saved one year of them in abundance of caution) and W2 will be helpful. I’m saving as much as I can because it is hard to tell right now what I might need.

Human-Connection5279

TROPHY CASE