U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (KOAA) — A month after leaked reports revealed the US Air Force Academy (USAFA) is considering widespread reductions in civilian staff and faculty, a consortium of former personnel is speaking out against the institution's direction.
In a Denver Post opinion piece signed by 92 Air Force Academy instructors, veterans, and graduates, the diverse group argued the Academy’s civilian reduction plans make them concerned for the future.
“Decimating the civilian faculty ranks in this partnership risks diminishing the U.S. Air Force Academy’s (USAFA) academic excellence and the potential of its graduates to grow into impactful thought leaders in key areas relevant to the complex and critical war-fighting, peace-keeping, and humanitarian missions of our modern military,” the letter said. “It even puts at risk USAFA’s basic accreditations in related technical fields.”
Cosigners included three retired major generals, a retired senior executive service member, four retired USAFA department heads, 12 retired colonels, and 20 retired lieutenant colonels.
Three of the cosigners sat down exclusively with News5 to speak out against the civilian reduction efforts, marking a significant crack in the base of support for the military academy decision making.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, the KOAA newsroom received a tip that Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind was seeking to cut over 100 civilian professors and downsize the civilian staff by 30% by September.
The tip couldn't be fully verified, but the next day, KOAA news partners at the Gazette confirmed and published much of the same information, citing internal communication they obtained.
“The academy currently employs 491 faculty members with 308 (62.7%) uniformed members and 183 (37.3%) civilian members, the communication said. To meet the proposed goals, 105 civilian positions would have to be cut,” reported the Gazette on April 3.
"The Dean has communicated that a reduction of our faculty body below 400 members would force us to cut some majors and cease many opportunities for cadets," the communication said, according to the Gazette.
According to sources within the Academy speaking on condition of anonymity, the original tip to KOAA could have been from a department head, since they typically receive that information first, which would mark an extraordinary leak from the upper echelons of the military institution.
The Gazette has further reported on the proposed cuts in the weeks since, and KOAA has verified much of the same information through discussions with multiple people familiar with the matter.
SITTING DOWN WITH KOAA
In the wake of the Denver Post opinion piece, three cosigners spoke exclusively with News5 to voice their concerns in the hopes of urging the Academy to backtrack on the proposed plans.
Retired Major General Irv Halter, a 1977 USAFA graduate and Academy vice superintendent from 2005 to 2006. Gen. Halter said he was the first and only two-star general to hold that position as the Academy was facing religious respect and sexual assault issues at the time, requiring another general to step in for a year.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Hal Bidlack, PhD, was an associate professor of political science and a 17-year USAFA faculty member. Lt. Col. Bidlack said he spent a little over 25 years on active duty, served as a missile operations officer responsible for nuclear weapons, and primarily taught American Government and the Constitution.
And Dr. Aaron Byerley, a 1978 USAFA graduate, current professor emeritus for the Academy’s Department of Aeronautics. Byerley retired from instruction in 2020, but said the emeritus honorary title allows him to help the Academy on a volunteer basis. Byerley was on the faculty for 28 years, with six of those as an activey duty officer, serving as the aero department head for three years.
Each former USAFA faculty and administration member spoke at length with KOAA.
Below is a summary of highlights from specific questions and answers from each interview. Some responses have been edited for clarity.
Q: I FOUND TRYING TO COVER THESE STORIES, ESPECIALLY AT THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY, MANY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OR SPEAK UP. WHY ARE YOU CHOOSING TO SPEAK UP NOW?
MAJ. GEN. IRV HALTER (RET.)
“Well, one I can. I'm a retired general officer living in Philadelphia, being a great grandfather to my granddaughter. And so I have time to pull back a little bit and look at things.
I also understand–and this I think I agree with–people inside the team need to provide their advice to the superintendent and to the Air Force leadership. They should not be spending a lot of time talking to people outside that circle.
I think that's how we know some of the things we know, or we think we know. But I also want to respect the chain of command. Again, the President is the commander in chief. It doesn't matter what I think about him personally or his performance. He is that person. And the chain of command there has to recognize that.
I will say, during the last presidency, the last administration, it bothered me that there were a lot of graduates basically encouraging cadets and others who didn't like the policies of that administration as they were affecting Academy operations, encourage them to stand up and say something about it. And I thought that's wrong.
And I told a lot of my graduate friends, we were taught there we follow legal orders. Now, if an illegal order or immoral order is being given. That's another issue. But if that's not true, these are policy issues, then you go along.
But again, I'm not thinking that I know more than the superintendent or his team. I just am yelling at them. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force worked for me at one time. He was a Wing Commander for me, and he's a great guy, and I have great respect for him.
But it's like I'm yelling to them from afar. We used to say, ‘Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.’
Don't rush into this because you will break things. And some of those things you may not be able to fix, at least not easily.”
LT. COL. HAL BIDLACK (RET.)
“Well, I'm retired. My pension is secure. If they come after my pension, that would be, I think, quite the escalation in their efforts to become more fascist.
It's important. A lot of my adult life was invested in the Air Force Academy, not as a cadet, but as an instructor there. And I see tremendous potential, did great things. And I see even more potential for the future.
I now have students who have retired. And I have students who are generals. And the notion that we can instill in them those fundamental values that are vital–not just lethality, fine–but knowing when to use it, when not to. What's right and what's wrong? What are legal and what are not legal orders?
I think those are vitally important, and I believe they're under attack now. If I were still at the Academy as a captain in a department, I wouldn't be here. It also wouldn't be appropriate because in the military, it's not appropriate for someone in the chain of command to leap out of it to the media and try to come back in.
But I'm a 67-year-old retired guy on a pension, and I think it's because of my background at the Academy and my number of years, perhaps a few thoughts I have might be useful to people in understanding the danger of what's going on.”
DR. AARON BYERLEY
“I'm worried about the cadets, both the current cadets and future cadets.
I'm worried about the Academy's ability to continue serving the country at the level it has been.
So my motivation comes from deep love, respect, and loyalty to the Air Force Academy.”
Q: WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS WITH CIVILIAN CUTS FOR PHD FACULTY, ACCREDITATION, AND COST-SAVING MEASURES?
MAJ. GEN. IRV HALTER (RET.)
"I want to be sure that we are very, very careful that we don't, for maybe no gain or maybe small financial gain, start throwing out a lot of things.
I believe there need to be changes all the time. Could some things be more efficient? Are there some things we're doing there that may not really be necessary to the mission? Good questions. Answer them.
But I would then say, whatever the answer to those questions are, make sure you explain it to everybody. Not just start making cuts.
When I was a cadet, most of our instructors were military officers. A lot of people said, 'Why can't we just do that?'
Well part of the reason they were military officers is that the Air Force was downsizing. We didn't need as many pilots after Vietnam in the Air Force, and yet, we had these talented people, and a lot of them came to the school to teach and to to lead us.
And we were very blessed by their presence. They have some of the greatest relationships, and the greatest stories, frankly, you'll ever remember is the ones that they told you there.
But by time I came back almost 30 years later as the vice superintendent, we were probably at about a 50-50, maybe a little less than that, between civilians and the military. And a lot of that was driven by the fact that the demands on operational military people, especially since the 9/11 era, have made it so that it's very difficult to put a lot of officers there.
We just don't have enough of them to do that, because we need them to do the things that they actually do for the Air Force. And I work very closely with the personnel center, trying to get more pilots there.
When I was there, there were 18 pilots on the staff, not including down at the airfield, which they didn't actually belong to the Academy.
When people are thinking about whether they wanted to fly, I mean, they were coming to see me to get career advice, instead of the people they would have normally seen in the classroom. And so I felt that was out of balance then. I still think it's out of balance.
But on the other hand, we didn't choose to go this way because we just thought it would be better to have more civilian instructors and PhDs.
It's because the reality of it is we needed to be able to tap into that resource, because we couldn't have those military officers there.
And I would say that the question I would have for the current administration there at the at the Academy is 'What are we fixing that's broken? What is going to be the result of moving this way?'
I agree, let's move to have more military people there. I think it's very important for the cadets to have people who have served in the military be a large part of their instruction and experience there.
But we do not need to do that in a six month time period. We will break things. We will lose things, and I don't see why it's so important to do it that fast right now."
LT. COL. HAL BIDLACK (RET.)
“When I first got there, it was an almost entirely military faculty. Each department had one visiting professor. A distinguished professor from a civilian institution would come for a year.
Then about the early 1990s when I was actually the executive officer to our dean, the program to bring in additional civilians came. And I admit I initially wasn't supportive of it, but I was wrong because we brought in up to about 25% civilians by the time I left.
And the civilian faculty provide several things. They provide very specific knowledge in areas where it might be difficult to find an Air Force officer with a Master's, or especially with a PhD.
Less than 1% of the Air Force has PhDs. And for a university or a college like the Air Force Academy to be properly accredited, you need a majority PhD faculty.
And in certain fields, like the engineering fields, you have ABET, which is the Accreditation Board on Engineering Technology, the American Chemical Society that certifies programs so that graduates in that program are fully certified as engineers or scientists in those fields.
In my field of political science, we, for example, brought a fellow in to be a civilian who was a fluent speaker of Chinese and a scholar of Chinese politics, which is again, difficult to find in the active duty force.
We also discovered that civilians are cheaper. One of the arguments I understand being used against in the Academy and the current attack on it is the idea that we'll get rid of civilians because they're costly.
Well, it's actually the opposite. Civilians you pay once to move there, and then they'll often stay there for a number of years. Whereas, if you're bringing a young captain with a master's degree, they'll PCS–that is, Permanent Change of Station–transfer in, they'll be there three to four years, and move on to somewhere else. And you bring someone else in.
Some of the more senior military faculty, like I was involved, got additional tours with a PhD. But you still had the coming and going of military people, far more than civilians.
And then lastly, even if you thought it was a good idea to get rid of the civilians, the idea of just coming in with a meat cleaver and hacking off 100 civilian faculty members in April–there is no way that there are enough PhDs in the Air Force–that by fall, you could pull 100 of them out of their career fields, even if they wanted to come to fully staff all the different academic departments.
So this attack on the Academy essentially means a reduction in the number of majors, a reduction in some of the types of majors, especially, I would think, in the engineering and sciences, and a reduction probably in the number of hours required to graduate.
And if the Air Force Academy is going to continue to be considered an elite university, which it has been for decades, those are not the kind of changes you want to make.
You want the place to be a vigorous, thoughtful place where young people come to have their ideas challenged, their education advanced, and their military training increased. The idea that you could do that with the fraction of the faculty with far less rigorous programs seems to be unlikely. I think the institution is in grave danger if these changes come through.”
DR. AARON BYERLEY
“The main thing is the impact on the quality of the cadet education. And the Academy has a proud reputation, which has been built over three decades. Carefully constructed, deliberately constructed partnership between military and civilian faculty members. And upsetting that would cause a severe reduction in the quality of the cadet experience, which speaks to concerns about accreditation.
The institution is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. The engineering programs are accredited by an organization called ABET. I'm familiar with both, and both of them have, as part of their criteria, that the institution must provide instructors who are qualified to teach the courses that they are assigned to teach.
And without a PhD, that's extremely difficult, if not impossible, particularly for the 300 and 400 level courses.
In the past, we've had visitors from an accrediting organization ask us ‘How in the world can you offer a world class education when an unusually high percentage of your faculty members only have a Master's of Science degree?’ And what we point to are three things.
First of all, is the institutional investment and six week-long New Faculty Orientation, led by experts in the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Secondly, the young military officers we bring in, who only have a master's degree, serve as role models for the cadets. The cadets can look at them and say, ‘I can be a young and sharp officer just like them in five to seven years.’ That's important.
The third thing is the close mentorship offered to the junior faculty by both military and civilian PhDs. And if they cut civilian PhDs, then that will greatly upset the ability to mentor those young military faculty members who only have a master's degree.
Q: DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH CONSISTENTLY SAYS THE MILITARY IS BRINGING BACK A “WARRIOR ETHOS” AND A FOCUS ON “LETHALITY.” IS THE LINE OF THINKING THAT CIVILIAN PROFESSORS CAN’T PUSH THOSE IDEAS?
MAJ. GEN. IRV HALTER (RET.)
“I believe that there is no evidence. I mean zero evidence the graduates coming out of the Academy are any less capable to do all the things that a military does.
Because they do lethal things, and I did these things, but they also do peacekeeping operations, they do humanitarian support operations, they build satellites, and they help develop the future systems.
We now have the Cyber Center that we've just opened up there. I was a contributor to that, and very proudly so, because I know that's the way combat and war is going. And that's real warfare.
I don't think we've ever lost our focus there at the Academy on lethality. And if you say that, then I say, ‘Okay, point to me where Air Force Academy graduates in the field over the last 20 or 30 years have failed us. I want specific examples that if they had just been more focused on lethality, that they would have, in fact, done a better job.’
By the way, we'll never get an answer to that, because there is no evidence to that. There is zero evidence.
I think the Secretary is focused very much on his own personal experience, and that belies his very small experience. And he can say whatever he wants, but his experience is small. I'm not saying he didn't serve well. I appreciate his service in combat, and that's fine. But that alone does not tell you what you need to be able to lead our people, our airmen, and our guardians in future."
LT. COL. HAL BIDLACK (RET.)
“I think the Secretary of Defense is quite a shallow man, and when he talks about Warrior Ethos, I suspect he means marching around and with rifles and yelling ‘Yeehaw’ every now and then.
Quiet professionalism. When I was an ICBM launch officer, I was pretty darn 'military.' I had the option, if ordered, to launch nuclear weapons at the enemies of the United States. That's a serious military ethos, but it's a quiet one with dignity and professionalism.
I have relatives throughout the military, and I'm very impressed with professionalism, top to bottom.
And this strikes me as this notion I suspect he'd love military parades. Well, military parades don't enhance military readiness. They just make certain politicians feel good about themselves.
I mean the Secretary of Defense, I'm amazed he got confirmed–because he's utterly unqualified for it–and he's making dangerous decisions. And if this carries through, he will effectively reduce the Air Force Academy and presume the other service academies to mirror administrative units, if you will, that will offer minimal education and will produce a less well-rounded officer.
You want military officers who understand, for example, legal and illegal orders. A discussion I would always have with my students at a particular point in the class was, if you see an enemy–I used Iraq at the time because we were involved, and they put an anti-aircraft gun on top of a hospital–what do you do?
And some of them would think, ‘Well, we bomb it.’ Well, no, we don't. We don't blow up hospitals. We find other ways to deal with that situation.
And that's an example of the military ethos, which I suspect Hegseth and Mr. Trump don't understand, that being a military officer has a lot more to do with what you won't do sometimes than what they think you will do.”
DR. AARON BYERLEY
“The institution has had, as one of its institutional outcomes, the Warrior Ethos. For a number of years, I have not heard of any shortcomings in our officer force who are Academy graduates, where the lack of Warrior Ethos has come up.
On the contrary, I've seen and read about a number of our graduates who've been very courageous and very brave and the acceptance of risk to their lives for the higher good of the country.
So no, I don't see where we've fallen short in that it's been a goal of ours and educational outcome of ours for a number of years.”
Q: IN HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING, DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH SUGGESTED THAT CIVILIAN PROFESSORS ARE BRINGING “WOKE IDEOLOGIES” WITH THEM TO THE ACADEMIES. DO YOU AGREE?
MAJ. GEN. IRV HALTER (RET.)
“Every time I challenge somebody that throws woke up there, I ask them to define it. And I have not yet had somebody to define it in a way that I can understand.
They how symptoms of what they think is wokeness, whatever that might be. But they can't tell you what it is kind of like. ‘Well, I know it when I see it,’ which is basically unacceptable as an answer. You can tell the Secretary of Defense I said so.
When I was there, I recall two civilian instructors, but also a lot of the military instructors I had were not in combat arms type work. They had done other things, valuable things for the Air Force.
I remember one of my history professors was an Englishman, by the way, he was a tough grader. And most of them, in fact, had not come from the Academy, because at that time the Academy was very small.
So these people had come from various universities, even if they had become officers in the Air Force. But I appreciated that breadth of experience.
And I will say I had military officers who had flown in combat, also as English instructors, who recited very moving poetry having to do with combat and the reality of what war is. And I remember those specifically because they moved me to tears and stuff I had never thought about before. All I knew was that I just wanted to fly fast and upside down.
The other thing is, we lead people who come to us from all segments of our society. This isn't about diversity. They just do because they come from all over the United States, and that's great. It's what makes us strong.
But they have also been exposed to all kinds of ideas. I grew up on a farm in a community where my family had lived for 250 years. It broke through that. Not that I'm not proud of that, and it wasn't wonderful, but I learned so much more about the world, even at the Air Force Academy.
I will point out, when we're studying there in 1975, they gave us copies of the Pentagon Papers, which two or three years before had come out in the press. And they were considered top secret things.
They gave us the book to read because the professors there said these were Vietnam veterans, and they said, ‘You need to read this because they were mad.’ You know now, is that being woke? Were they trying to be?
No, no. They were saying, this is the stuff you need to learn, because you're going to be sitting in rooms where decisions are made.
And I will tell you, especially my last couple assignments, I was in the room where it happened, especially with my last assignment at Joint Staff. I was sitting with the Chairman and the Secretary as high level stuff was being decided, and my voice was heard.
This was because I had, as had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, Admiral Mullen, who was a graduate of the Naval Academy, we're both men of character and competence, and we had a broad education that allowed us to look at very sensitive issues from all angles.
Yes, when it was time to pull the trigger, we could make sure that the Secretary of Defense and the president, if necessary, gave those orders, and we could get those things done. But our job was to work through a lot of really sticky issues, and so I think it gives you a better perspective.
Another thing, I spent 14 years of my 32 years in the service overseas, understanding, having a framework from which to approach people from other cultures. I was in the Far East, especially in Europe, where I spent a lot of time, and then in the Middle East, which I'd never expected to spend a lot of time and did.
And being able to work through, understand their perspective, not agree with it necessarily, but understand it, so that we could get things we are all trying to do together done. In both defense of their country and our country, and for a more secure world.”
LT. COL. HAL BIDLACK (RET.)
"This whole woke thing amuses me because isn't being awake a good thing? Isn’t being aware of what's going on?
I'm woke in the sense that I am aware that there are complications to any military operation, that there are conflicts around the world. My PhD work looked at environmental security issues and things like water. The availability of water will trigger some wars and it will exacerbate other wars.
Now is it woke to be thinking about whether we might be able to prevent a war by drilling wells for various villages? Well, that's not exactly a military function. Someone else would do that. But if drilling a well could keep two parties from fighting each other, isn't that better?
‘Oh, but that's woke.’ That's that socialism stuff.’ Well, the fire department, police department are also socialistic. And the US military is socialistic.
So yes, I'm woke, and I think that it's the only logical point of view to have, frankly, to be aware that there's lots of conflict in the world, and there's lots of different forces acting on you and finding the path forward that protects liberty, freedom and all the good things is a lot more challenging when you're thoughtful.”
DR. AARON BYERLEY
“I'm not sure what it's meant by a woke ideology. I do think that it's important to recognize and honor the contributions of folks from various backgrounds to completing the Air Force mission.
So if that is what they mean by woke, then that's too bad. Because I think it's important. I think that we should honor the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen. I think we should honor the contributions of women in the Air Force. So I don't know where that's coming from.
I think to lead in a complex, diverse world, you need to hear from a number of complex and diverse people from different backgrounds, different faiths, different customs. Because you may find yourself in a position where you've got to lead and situations surrounded by folks like that, our adversaries.
You also may find that it's important to work for future bosses who are different, have different viewpoints, different backgrounds than you do.
And of course, the folks who work for you may also come from very diverse backgrounds. And so knowing how to relate to those people from lots of different backgrounds and honoring their contributions, I think, is very important.”
AIR FORCE ACADEMY RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS REPORTING AND THESE INTERVIEWS
Following the interviews with the retired faculty and Air Force members, News5 reached out to the Air Force Academy with a list of questions for this report.
The Academy was given notice of the story's broadcasting so they would not be caught off guard and could respond to the claims or notions.
Below is the Academy’s response to the multiple questions asked:
Email Senior Reporter Brett Forrest at brett.forrest@koaa.com. Follow @brettforrestTVon X and Brett Forrest News on Facebook.
Brett can also communicate via encrypted apps like Signal. Due to the sensitive nature of ongoing reporting from federal actions, he is willing to take steps to protect identities.
More work happening along the I-25 Gap, what it's for
There's more work happening along the I-25 Gap and it seems unusual.
____
Watch KOAA News5 on your time, anytime with our free streaming app available for your Roku, FireTV, AppleTV and Android TV. Just search KOAA News5, download and start watching.