Academics at USAFA implodes in a misguided political rush to purge “wokeness”

by Thomas Bewley (This is the full version of this article; an abbreviated version, published in the Denver Post on 11/17/25, is available online here.)

Photos: (center) SecDef Hegseth articulates, on 1/14/25, his views on eliminating “just more civilian professors that came from the same left-wing, woke universities that they left, and then try to push that into the service academies”, anticipating a subsequent “recruiting renaissance” (the opposite of which has actually happened at USAFA), to (left) Sen Tuberville, on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, who responds with his own negative reflections on “woke universities”. (right) USAFA Superintendent Bauernfeind articulates, on 3/26/25, his own thoughts regarding civilian professors.
Credits (play the clips!): Tuberville questions Hegseth about his nomination for SecDef and Tuberville questions service academy superintendents about civilian faculty

Just a year ago, we spoke of academic excellence and modern US Air Force (USAF) and US Space Force (USSF) relevance at the US Air Force Academy (USAFA) as if it was imprinted in our DNA. Indeed, for decades, USAFA truly attracted and retained the “best and brightest” military and civilian/veteran thought leaders and cadets (themselves, the future leaders of the USAF and USSF), to participate in a vibrant educational exchange open to critical analysis and debate on the key militarily-relevant issues of the day. To name a few, today:

• Autonomous systems (e.g. drones) in warfare: how they are rapidly changing how wars are fought, their benefits, their possibilities, their vulnerabilities, and the ethics and legality of their use by the “good guys”.

• Key engineering and operational aspects of modern crewed, remotely-piloted, and autonomous aircraft, spacecraft, missiles, and munitions, used together in combat in a collaborative fashion.

• Agile methods for the development and acquisition of new ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and weapons systems, both offensive and defensive, without vendor lock.

• Modern tough & light structural materials with reduced RCS (Radar Cross Section).

• Supply chain vulnerabilities for strategic materials and integrated circuits.

• Technological challenges and unique capabilities of directed energy weapons and secure communication channels.

• Advanced radar and optical imaging and tracking systems.

• Real-time battlespace management and cyberspace operations.

• Space domain awareness, and new strategies to avoid, and to deal with, a possible Kessler catastrophe.

• The economic, historical, religious, and racial origins of persistent World Conflicts, and how such perspectives might be spurred to change (albeit, often, slowly).

• Minors in the languages of our most significant potential adversaries.

In short, USAFA was, and must remain, strictly apolitical, focused on key USAF and USSF relevant topics like ISR and RCS, not DEI or CRT or the lack thereof. Nor, the win/loss record of a football team. Nor, playing soldier in the woods (bromides like “crucible” and “forging” notwithstanding).

A deep understanding of such intricate issues facing the modern USAF and USSF are critical to winning our next war if/when called upon - and even more importantly, deterring such future (peer, near-peer, and asymmetric) wars - with the most advanced and deadly weapons systems ever devised by man, while minimizing US, allied, and noncombatant casualties. Referring to these complex subjects more generally, simply as “STEM” or “Social Sciences”, often trivializes the importance and complexity of a modern USAFA education in these critical subject areas, likening them to a simplistic continuation of monotonous and unenlightening high-school training. They are decidedly not that, and as a nation concerned for its own national security, we can not afford to let a USAFA education devolve to that.

In a Denver Post article on 4/30/25, together with 91 cosigners (including retired generals, colonels, and other military thought leaders), I warned that, as a Distinguished Visiting Professor (DVP) at the US Air Force Academy in DFME (that is, the department that delivers the popular Mechanical Engineering and Systems Engineering degree programs at USAFA), I was witnessing, first hand, leadership instituting a major shift away from academic excellence, with many key thought leaders already beginning to leave USAFA (resigning, early retiring, …). I spoke up publicly regarding the majority sentiment surrounding me at the time, as a visiting professor from UC San Diego, because those in uniform, and those who depended on USAFA for their livelihood, could not.

What I failed to emphasize sufficiently in my article in April is the transient nature of excellence in cutting-edge educational programs, like those at USAFA, in the absence of leaders who provide thoughtful academic stewardship to maintain and continuously renew them. As reported extensively elsewhere, in the time since, this exodus (first of civilians/veterans, and now of active duty military) has greatly accelerated. Backfilling these substantial losses with primarily military personnel with adequate technical backgrounds has largely proved fruitless, in large part because so few such military personnel are actually available (and, can be removed from their other essential jobs in the USAF/USSF for a tour at USAFA), but also because this ongoing exodus of talent at USAFA is by now broadly known.

Civilian university presidents are generally well compensated, and for good reason. They set the academic tone, expectations, and policies of an entire educational institution, and their actions in this role are meticulously scrutinized by the public. They appoint the best departmental leadership that they possibly can, demand that these leaders do the same when recruiting and retaining individual faculty, and take responsibility when problems arise. Notably, day-to-day, a good university president boldly steps aside, and relies on departmental leadership and senior faculty to develop a vibrant Academic Senate responsible for debating and instituting their joint academic vision. They do not attempt to micromanage such complex educational operations from above based on their own limited domain-specific expertise, while obscuring their various decisions under NDAs. USAFA has, this year, spectacularly failed to shepherd its own educational reforms in such a transparent, distributed manner, which must place trust in its own senior faculty.

By virtue of my former position as a DVP in DFME, I am acutely aware of its specific challenges. In 2024, DFME had 24 talented instructors (counting both active duty military and civilian/veterans, working together closely in a highly effective partnership). Today, there are 15.

By this time in 2026, by my (careful) count, at most 9 (!) will remain, with possibly two new captains (with MS degrees and no teaching experience) joining. Of course, there will also be no new DVPs in the Mech or Systems areas (in 2024, there was one in each), due to the major cutbacks in the DVP program recently implemented by USAFA. In the fall, DFME teaches 12 different courses to 600+ unique students (many of whom are themselves enrolled in 3 or 4 DFME courses). The Systems Engineering major is eviscerated, with only one (!) dedicated instructor remaining by next year.

Losses in various other key academic departments are similar, and adequate replacements are nowhere to be found. This coming spring, Astronautics is facing the loss of seven (!) PhD faculty (one Col, five LtCols, and one 30-year civilian), each with decades of relevant space systems development and teaching experience.

Coupled with the present hiring freeze, numbers like this are simply intractable, and options at this point are quite limited. (With these numbers, e.g., there appears to be no other viable choice besides absorbing Mech into Aero by summer 2026.) Accordingly, class sizes are markedly increasing, and individual instructor availability and job satisfaction are substantially decreasing.

Also telling: multiple parents whom I know personally, themselves USAFA grads and/or current or recent USAFA instructors, are now recommending to their own children and extended family to go to the USNA or AFROTC programs at top civilian universities instead of USAFA.

The zeitgeist within Fairchild Hall is grim. Cadets and potential future cadets are aware, and largely share the same general mood. The “best of the best” of each incoming class are accepted into the Martinson Honors Program; of the 30 incoming cadets accepted into this distinguished program this year, 20 of them (!) ultimately decided to go elsewhere.

In short, the question being asked at USAFA is no longer one of academic excellence, but has shifted quickly to an investigation questioning academic adequacy, as certified by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) accreditation board, as reported in the Denver Post on 11/10/2025. Regardless of the outcome of this ongoing HLC investigation into academic adequacy at USAFA, however, as a nation we must demand a return to academic excellence at USAFA, to operate “far, far above” its (accredited) academic and military competitors, as failure is not an option. We must “aim higher”.

[Notably, if USAFA loses its HLC accreditation, it can no longer participate in NCAA division 1 sports. My own view is that the defense of our nation in today’s rapidly-changing threat environment, and the military-relevant education of the future USAF and USSF officers who will secure it, is far more important. However, if the prospect of USAFA being suspended from participation in such sporting events provides the public further impetus to demand a halt its current academic implosion, so be it.]

The Board of Visitors (BoV) is an advisory group charged with steering USAFA leadership when it veers off track. Brett Forrest, Kent Murphy, and I (and, of course, several others) attended the BoV meeting on 8/7/25, and KOAA recorded the entire meeting on video; the HLC should demand to watch this video. Though there was ample discussion of football, rugby, DEI, CRT, and other anecdotes and political distractions, there was zero critical discussion by the BoV members of the proverbial elephant in the living room: that is, how vibrant educational programs on the essential military-relevant subjects of the day, as itemized above, can possibly continue at USAFA, in view of the massive ongoing exodus of its most talented civilian/veteran and military instructors.

A viable path forward.

A radical change in the direction of USAFA is now needed, to pivot and refocus, and talented new civilian/veteran instructors must be aggressively recruited, whose interests align with the key pacing items defining the future of the USAF and USSF. The DoD must recognize USAFA education as a national strategic priority, and allocate adequate financial resources (~$10M from the $150B DoD plus-up in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill) for this to happen. For those interested in the specifics of how such a refocusing might happen, I pushed a highly detailed “blueprint for the efficient and mission-focused modernization of academics at USAFA” to my substack on 6/30/25, outlining a logical (yet, admittedly, painful) consolidation of departments and majors at USAFA in light of new USAF funding priorities and realities, with the elimination of many majors with low enrollment and/or reduced military relevance, noting that AFROTC at top US civilian universities remains a very viable option for future officers interested in those other majors. My purpose in introducing this “blueprint” was simply to start an open discussion, which was thus far absent. Though specific aspects of this blueprint should be vigorously debated and, likely, substantially modified, this public discussion itself must begin somewhere, ASAP.

Such a recovery must start at the top, as the USAFA community at large has unfortunately lost confidence in its current leadership. A viable path forward seems to be as follows:

• identify and appoint a new (military 3-star) Superintendent,

• eliminate the largely ceremonial (military 2-star) Vice Superintendent position,

• create a new long-term (civilian, Senior Executive Service officer) Provost position, to work closely with the USAFA Superintendent, and report directly to the Secretary of the Air Force, and

• retain the (military 1-star) Dean of Faculty position, and fill this position, vacant since May (!), asap.

To this new Provost position, an accessible long-term civilian faculty member must be appointed who is well familiar with the existing USAFA educational programs, and the unique challenges involved in delivering them. Excellent candidates for such a civilian Provost position are readily available, such as the current and former ARDI chaired professors at USAFA. This restructuring of leadership will bring an independent, education-oriented, mission-relevant perspective to the Superintendent’s office, with a focus on longer-term academic continuity (from one military superintendent’s 3-year tour to the next), as well as transparency and accessibility by cadets and faculty alike.

Finally, a new “blue ribbon” panel of sorts, with a bold new vision and the authority to implement it, must be formulated from the ground up, as the current BoV has established itself as a politically-focused rubber stamp on the status quo, as mentioned above. Such a panel should be composed of apolitical luminaries on modern military thinking who no longer have a horse in the race regarding their own military promotions or reelection campaigns. Recently retired experts in their respective areas, such as Will Roper and Frank Kendall, seem appropriate and hopefully available.

Can USAFA dig itself out of the hole it now finds itself in, and become the focused high-tech War College that America needs to secure its future in the present rapidly-changing threat environment? Possibly. However, it will take adequate funding, substantial will (structural changes are hard!), major refocusing of the academic programs that USAFA offers, and a reformulation of the leadership and advisory panel organization that deliberates and affects these changes. Working together with the Senate Armed Services Committee, HLC is now in a unique position to demand these things on behalf of the American people. It may well be the most challenging and impactful action that HLC has ever undertaken.

Author Bio: Bewley is a full professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at UC San Diego, where he specializes in the research and teaching of autonomy, robotics, numerics, and the forecasting of extreme weather. He spent the ’24-’25 academic year as a Distinguished Visiting Professor (DVP) at the US Air Force Academy (USAFA).