http://news.unm.edu/2011/04/afrl-%E2%80%93-unm-sign-educational-partnership-agreement/

AFRL – UNM Sign Educational Partnership Agreement

April 22, 2011 | By Karen Wentworth

This Wednesday January 4, 2012 the Regents announced that they unanimously selected Robert Frank to be the new CEO President  of UNM (http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/education/unm-selects-new-president) .  Of course this also fulfills Frank’s own ambition of becoming a university president to end off his career.  The faculty are not too pleased, and they saw him as a bully when he was being interviewed at UNM, and his faculty at Kent State were not too pleased with his tenure there either.  But his authoritarian ways will seem to fit with the UNM Regents, who are used to undemocratic power over the institution.

It looks like Frank will be getting a lower salary than the previous president, who got nearly $600,000 in compensation.  Still his salary will be in the high six figures (http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/01/03/news/next-unm-president-could-earn-less.html).  This article discusses the role of the competitive marketplace for university presidents, the role of search firms in selecting presidential candidates, etc.  For readers of this blog (I know you’re out there) know that I have been covering the issue of university corporatization in several articles here, including the role of the presidential search, using case studies of the University of New Mexico presidential search.  Check out previous articles on this blog for my insights.

Unlikely Frank will change anything fundamentally at UNM.  As always we will cover any goings on here.  Also, send me feedback on the new president too.

Bringing up the topic of presidential searches because it is going on at my alma mater the University of New Mexico, UNM. My thesis is that presidential searches are a symptom of the corporate university. It is worth pointing out the corporate capitalist influence of higher education, with New Mexico schools as a case study.

Recently an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal brought up the issue of the identity crisis of the University of New Mexico. Is it to be a college for everyone or an elite research university? It quoted some of the presidential finalists who want UNM to stop accepting every slacker out of high school and raise standards:

“There seems to be a lack of definition of what does this university want to be. Does it want to be a world-class, research Tier 1 university, as the flagship institution of the state … or does it want to be an institution that values access more than anything?” — Elsa Murano, former Texas A&M president

♦ UNM “has become a “neighborhood university” for local students “and your best and brightest are going off to Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State” and other schools. “It is absolutely essential those students be retained here.” — Robert Frank, Kent State provost

♦ “One of the things that I have been able to do at other universities is to help them think about what they’re best at, and how to leverage the strength they have to move to the next level.” — Elizabeth “Betsy” Hoffman, Iowa State provost

♦ “The first thing you have to do is decide where you want to be. … You have to decide what you can be the best in the world in. … I think the University of New Mexico can advance nationally, if you have the will.” — Meredith Hay, former University of Arizona provost (during 2007 search)

The editorial also stated that it said back in 2007 when there was another presidential search: “Does UNM want to continue to be the choice of students who wander out of high school with a lottery scholarship to dabble at college-level coursework? Or does it want to attract better students with the promise of a solid boost toward their ambitious goals? Is it aiming for excellence in a few strategic areas, or content to offer cafeteria-level quality across a cafeteria-like array of degree paths?”

The Journal and the presidential finalists seem to want to make UNM more elitist, to grow standards. This issue is nothing new.

I have entensively covered the presidential search of 2002 that brought Louis Caldera to that office. During that year journalist Olivier Uyttebrouck did a three part series in the Albuquerque Journal in August 2002. The first part, entitled “A School for All Seasons,” looked at UNM’s supposed “dual role,” that of a resource that teaches thousands of undergraduates, and that as a research university that helps drive economic growth. Business obviously wants to focus on research, specifically publically subsidized research they don’t have to take risks on. Others want to focus on access to education. UNM serves a unique population, in a state that is majority-minority, with a high percentage of Hispanic and Native Americans, and one of the poorest citizenry in the country. With the state of the schools many do not come prepared for college because they were not prepared in high school. Others want to raise academic standards from what they were, saying it would decrease enrollment at first but would attract students because of the higher standards. For these advocates, access is synonymous with lenient standards.

UNM has relatively open enrollment, and more students are coming in due to the Lottery Scholarship. Some, like former regent Richard Toliver, a former representative of Ross Perot’s Reform Party, say the state’s best students leave the state because of the lax standards. He wanted admission standards to be raised. It seems a better thing to do would be to improve the K-12 schools.

Another reason for the change in standards is the encouragement of research for economic development. Then president of New Mexico Tech, Dan Lopez, stated “Universities have become part and parcel of the economic engines of the state.” He and others also bemoan the lack of clarity and specialization from the Legislature that funds the schools, mainly around enrollment. He further states “what we don’t have is an overarching goal or mission that has been defined by some champion” like a governor. Like others, Lopez emphasizes the role of fundraising and political savvy from a university president.

Both teaching and research are important for higher education. But they don’t necessarily need to be emphasized one over the other. A broad education is healthy not only for careers but for critical thinking. Community colleges have an important role also. But as we will see they are affected by corporatization also.

Community Colleges Becoming Training Ground for Business

In an article in the New Mexico Business Journal in April 1997, Paula Paul writes about how community colleges are being used for specific training for business. Titled “So Don’t Call Them ‘Junior’ Colleges,” Paul writes about the importance of New Mexico’s 19 publicly funded community colleges. These institutions educate over half of all post-secondary students in the state, at a number back in 1997 at 52,000 students, likely more now. They offer associate degrees and certificates, and many use credits to go on to four year colleges. And the appropriation is less per student than at universities. For example, in that year it was $8,000 per student at UNM, while it was $4000 per student at TVI (now CNM). This is mainly because of higher salaries at universities, where professors have advanced degrees, compared to instructors at community colleges where they usually have a bachelors or masters degree.

Community colleges are also a good investment in tax revenue. The article quoted a study saying that for every $1 invested in community colleges it generated $1.65 to $1.85 in tax revenue. Bruce Hamlett of the New Mexico Commission on Higher Education says many companies began locating in the state because of the two year colleges and they having “the capacity to make sure students can get the training they need.”

Training is an important role of community colleges. Many students can began their academic careers at these colleges and transfer their credits when they continue their education at universities, but many opt not to. Many attend solely to seek training in technical or business fields that give them an associates degree or certificate geared toward a specific job. Others take a few courses for basic education or to get their GED’s. Others take classes to keep up with technological advances and new skills.

Frank Renz of the New Mexico Association of Community Colleges stated that these colleges served 165 businesses with training programs that served over 7,500 employees.

Once called “junior” colleges because they served as feeders to larger universities and colleges, now they are more community colleges that serve training more. One example of this shift is the Small Business Development Centers and these institutions. They “provide free training for business owners and would-be entrepreneurs.” Other businesses are getting directly involved in training. Intel had a partnership with TVI to allow the company to design courses for employees going into microchip manufacturing, with TVI providing the training. Another was with Mesa Airlines and San Juan Junior College in Farmington. Mesa Airlines provided instructors for classes in aviation, where students are screened by the airline and college before they are admitted to the program. 98 percent of the graduates were then hired by Mesa directly. The cost of this program at $38,000 is more expensive than other associate degree programs, and the salaries at $14,000 to $15,000 were low, even if they used it as a stepping stone to get into larger airlines. Other programs link automotive training with car dealers around the state to train auto mechanics. Environmental technology programs provide students for businesses doing environmental assessments.

Education overall is good, but one should ask what kind? Specific training programs have a risk of becoming obsolete. Someone trained in some electronics program would likely be out of a job if technology they were taught changed, while a physics education is more rounded and can adapt to new changes. Overall it shows how interests in education are directed toward business and corporate interests. Even in the lower rungs of education in the more affordable community colleges. Access to education is important in a democratic society, and education encourages critical thinking. As long as capitalist interests are involved, and society becomes more commodified, education will too.

Sources:

“Editorial: State Needs Answer: What Will UNM Be?” Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board. Sat, Dec 17, 2011. http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/12/17/opinion/state-needs-answer-what-will-unm-be.html

Uyttebrouck, Olivier. “A School for All Seasons.” Albuquerque Journal. August 11, 2002.

Paul, Paula. “So Don’t Call Them ‘Junior’ Colleges.” New Mexico Business Journal. April 1997. Volume 21 Number 4. http://www.nmbiz.com/issues/97/97_april/apr97_covers/97_apr_college.htm (accessed May 11, 2000)

“We asked the following: if President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversation, why didn’t he make some public statement to that effect? And the answer we received — from a well-meaning liberal — was the following: He said, “Would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to his board of directors?” That’s the answer! Now, I ask you to consider: if this is a firm, and if the Board of Regents are the board of directors, and if President Kerr in fact is the manager, then I’ll tell you something: the faculty are a bunch of employees, and we’re the raw material! But we’re a bunch of raw material[s] that don’t mean to have any process upon us, don’t mean to be made into any product, don’t mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We’re human beings!

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Like other universities in the state of New Mexico, as well as most public universities in the United States, the University of New Mexico is legislated to be run by a Board of Regents.  The R egents act as the governing body of UNM, and as structured are given power over almost every aspect of university life.  According to the Board of Regents Policy Manual:

“The Board of Regents is responsible for the governance of the University of New Mexico. This responsibility may be exercised only by the Board as a unit; individual Regents are without power to act separately in the transaction of University business, except when one of the Board’s officers is specifically authorized to act on behalf of the Board.

The Board’s power to govern the University includes fiduciary responsibility for the assets and programs of the University, establishment of goals and policies to guide the University and oversight of the functioning of the University. The Board vests responsibility for the operation and management of the University in the President of the University.”

It then goes into a list of 8 tasks for the Board, and ending with “The Board reserves the right to consider and determine any matter relating to the University. ” (BRPM 1.1, http://www.unm.edu/~brpm/r11.htm)

So the Regents not only appoint the President, their CEO, but they also decide the university budget, set tuition rates, determine and create degrees and programs, and overall determine daily policies of the university.

Despite this immense power they are not elected by anyone that is affected by their decisions, as they are appointed by the governor.  Furthermore they are accountable to no one except the governor who appoints them.  At UNM there is a total of seven regents, which includes one student regent, added on back in the 90′s.  All members of the Board of Regents serve a six year term, except for the student regent who serves a two year term.  The student regent, added in response to complaints of lack of student voice, is also appointed by the governor and only accountable to the governor.  The only requirement for input into the student regent is that the governor select a nominee based on a list provided by the UNM President, ” giving due consideration to the recommendations of the student body president of the university.” (http://www.unm.edu/news/Clippings/2005Clips/Jan05/18regent.htm).  In other words the President can write off the suggestions of student government in the selection of regent nominees to the governor.

Overall in the case of the selection of student and non-student regents there is no formal mechanism for input from students, faculty, campus workers, or the general citizens of the state in who gets appointed to these offices.  In fact there is really no official qualifications to be a Regent, or no requirement that they have to know something about higher education.

So who gets appointed to the board of Regents?  The appointments are made by the Goveror, and based on patronage.  The appointees, no matter if the governor is Republican or Democrat, have been, with few exceptions, business owners, stock holders, lawyers, executives, millionaire heirs, and representatives of government labs.  Most of the time they are selected from the governor’s campaign contributors or others who are well connected politically.

(Here’s a homework assignment.  Find the names of your Board of Regents or Trustees, which is public information, and match it up with campaign contributions to the governor found at http://www.followthemoney.org/ and see how much cash the Regents give to their guv.  You will see a pattern there.)

The New Mexico law requires that there be an equal number of Democrats and Republicans appointed to the board, so as to be even, but in one case former governor Richardson had his nominees change their party registration before they got appointed. (http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2006/11/political-shifts-by-nmsu-regent.html)

The law gives students, workers, community, and faculty a voice as “advisors” but no real authority.  Once again, the corporate structure of the university.

The presidential search is only one, if not the more visible, areas where one can see how undemocratic and coercive the present university power system is.  With a university run as a corporation, for corporations, and by people from that corporate world, it is done like this from its inception.  This power structure was best exemplified by former President Peck, who stated to student organizers, “you don’t seem to appreciate the division of labor around here.  We make the decisions, you go to class.”

There have been attempts to challenge the structure of the Board of Regents.  Many have pushed for elected board of Regents, so communities would have more of a say in university governance.  This would not be the end all solution, as Amerikan democracy often suffers from apathy.  But it would bring more accountability to the process.  Meanwhile the university is connected with the rest of society, and it can change if pressure is put on it.

——————————————-

The spectacle of the presidential search once again befalls the UNM community.  With UNM being the flagship institution of the state of New Mexico, many people and groups want to have a voice into who is ultimately selected as the new president.  Yet what is missed is an important point: the university president is chosen and appointed solely by the Board of Regents, who also have absolute authority over this and just about every other decision affecting the university.  The presidential search is one visible example of how the Regents exert undemocratic authority over the university acting against the interests of the rest of the community based there.

The Presidential Search: A Sordid History

“During the ’80′s, UNM had four presidents, a major financial scandal in the athletic department and a national reputation as a school run by politicians.”

-Albuquerque Journal; January 2, 1995

Previous presidential searches conducted by the UNM Regents have been rocked by scandals and allegations of secrecy.  In 1982 the Regents deadlocked on a presidential choice after a nationwide search.  An announcement was made during a football game that year that John Perovich, then interim preisdent, would be given a permanent appointment.  In 1984 the Regents conducted a secret search and offered the job to Washington bank economist John Elac, who turned it down after the appointment met much opposition on campus.  In the search process that led to the hiring of Richard Peck, the regents interviewed five semi-finalists in Dallas before bringing two nominees to Albuquerque for interviews.  This prompted Albuquerque media outlets to sue the university to make the semi-finalists names public.  The settlement of this lawsuit in 1991 was made when UNM promised to make future presidential searches public at the time any candidate is interviewed by more than one member of the search committee.

The next presidential search that led to the appointment of former provost William Gordon in 1998 was also rocked with charges  of secrecy and preselection.  To bypass the selection rules, interviews with 14 candidates were tape-recorded by individual regents on the search committee and played to other search committee members when they got back.  Since they were interviewed by only one member, the Regents argued, the names of the candidates did not need to be released, even though the interviews were played for the entire search committee.  The Regents have become experts in bending the rules to their purposes.  Needless to say, UNM was sued again, and a judge ruled that they did violate the consent degree set by the last lawsuit.  The Regents then canceled the president search.

During this time provost William Gordon was appointed as interim president.  He was also one of three finalists from that search.  Statements made by Regents hinted toward a rigged search where Gordon was preselected.  Then-Regent Penny Rembe said to the media that Gordon was their choice from the start, and thus another search was “a waste of time.”

That last search fiasco resulted in an amendment to the state Inspection of Public Records Act that says that the regents, in conducting a president search, must identify five finalists at least 21 days before they choose a new president.  In the resulting search done after this new rule was put in, they complied and released five names, of which Gordon was again a finalist.  In the end the job went to Gordon.

Newsflash: The Board of Regents Chooses the President

The Board of Regents is given legal authority to run the daily affairs of the university, and that includes choosing a president.  It traditionally hires corporate search firms to conduct searches of potential candidates.  In the 1998 search that chose Gordon the Regents spent $165,000 to hire two private companies to run those searches.

The Regents also create a search committee to help in this process.  It usually includes members of the university community, with a disproportionate number of Regents themselves involved.  Yet they are not legally bound by the search committee’s recommendations, because according to the Board of Regents Policy Manual (BRPM), “The Board will carefully consider the committee’s recommendations before taking final action but cannot be bound by those recommendations, because the Board has sole legal responsibility for appointing a President of the University. (BRPM Section 1.4, http://www.unm.edu/~brpm/r14.htm).

So why go through this whole search process if the Regents will choose the president at the end?  Because otherwise it would unmask how the community has no real voice in the affairs of the university.  In fact the balance of power of the university is spelled out in the Board of Regents Policy Manual.  One of the duties and functions of the Board of Regents is stated in the Policy Manual: “Appoint a President of the University who serves as Chief Executive Officer; and delegate authority to the President for effective operation of the University.” (BRPM, Section 1.1; http://www.unm.edu/~brpm/r11.htm).  Thus, as the university president is the CEO, the Board of Regents is the board of directors.  Just like any top-down corporation.  And in the university factory, students are products and faculty and staff are the tools.

The university is an institution that serves the interests of the system of exploitation of the world, and is structured like those institutions.  One must understand the structure of power of the university in order to change it.

In part 2, I will continue to examine the power structure of the board of Regents.  Stay tuned.

1)Douglas Baker

Provost, University of Idaho since 2005.

from his official bio:

Dr. Baker taught courses in Management, Organizational Behavior, Organizational Design, Strategic Planning, Human Resource Management and Research Methods as a Professor of Management at Washington State University where he began in 1981 as an Assistant Professor.
He has received numerous awards for teaching excellence including the Shell Oil Distinguished Undergraduate Teaching Award in 1990 and in 1984.”

“He has worked as a consultant to national and international businesses.”

–http://www.uidaho.edu/provost/biography

2).  Robert “Bob” Frank,

Provost and Senior Vice president for Academic Affairs at Kent State University in 2007.  Dealt heavily with health sciences there, and has stated it would be a priority for him at UNM too.

He got his doctorate in clinical psychology from UNM in 1979.  He also got his bachelors and masters at UNM too, and went to high school in Las Cruces.  Frank also previously worked with New Mexico senator Jeff Bingaman.  Should help him in the local angle

Also has some military connection.  According to his bio: “In 2011, Dr. Frank was appointed by the United States Department of Defense to the Defense Health Board, a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of
Defense.”

Frank is also letting it be known that he is looking for a new job.  He stepped down as provost at Kent State this year (http://kent.patch.com/articles/kent-state-provost-competes-for-university-of-new-mexico-president-s-job).  He has stated his ambitions to be a university president.  He was turned down for the post at East Tennessee State University this year after he applied to it.

He was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal: “At age 59, you tend to reassess your priorities, and I’ve long dreamed of being a college president,” Frank said in his resignation announcement in July. “Realistically, I’ve one career move left, and now’s the time to make it.””

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/12/12/news/unm-hopeful-has-improved-retention-rates.html

The faculty at UNM is not at all pleased with Frank, based on his past performance and his condescension at forums held this month at the university of New Mexico.  Here’s the Albuquerque Journal again:

A group of University of New Mexico faculty members argued Friday that two of the five presidential finalists are a bad fit for UNM and should no longer be considered.

More than 30 faculty attended a forum to debate the strengths of each finalist. They took no formal action, but almost unanimously agreed that neither Kent State provost Robert Frank nor former University of Arizona provost Meredith Hay should get the nod to be UNM’s next president…

Faculty said after talking to peers at the candidates’ home universities and listening to public forums, they concluded that Frank and Hay lack a sufficient record of teamwork with faculty to improve UNM.

Talking about Frank’s record, a Kent State professor “said he’s a piece of work. He does the bidding of the powers that be; that he’s extremely aggressive; he’s antagonistic to faculty. She didn’t know of any faculty that liked him; he just rammed stuff through,” said anthropology professor Lawrence Straus. “… He had publicly called the faculty pathetic. This is the candidate that’s unacceptable to me.”

Frank could not be reached for comment. His Kent State colleagues told the Journal the provost developed a reputation for accomplishing change, but drew protest from professors who opposed doing things differently.

Some UNM faculty said Frank, in his public forum, carried himself like a bully who was being pestered by them.

“I think he’d make a fine leader at a military academy,” said libraries professor Daniel Barkley. “I think what really bothers me the most was his really caustic approach to the faculty that asked him questions.”

3).  Meredith Hay.  Hay, former University of Arizona provost, was once considered for the job at UNM previously in 2007, and while in Arizona in between that time she alienated the faculty there.  Here’s what they say about Hay, as quoted in the Journal:

“The group expressed similar distaste for former University of Arizona provost Meredith Hay, saying she failed to communicate significant institutional changes with faculty there in the face of $180 million in budget cuts over three years.

Hay was a finalist to be UNM president in 2007 before working at Arizona, and at the time was the faculty’s top pick for the job. After recommending Hay in 2007, UNM faculty said they want to rely more heavily on proven administrative experience than the candidates’ polished public presentations. A majority of Arizona faculty who participated in a 2009 leadership survey reported “no confidence” or “low confidence” in Hay’s work as provost.” (http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/12/17/news/unm-faculty-rejects-two-finalists.html)

4).  Elizabeth Hoffman, executive VP and Provost at Iowa State University, was previously president at University of Colorado at Boulder until 2005.  She was forced to resign after pressure from right wingers during the controversy over Ward Churchill.  Hoffman made a speech warning of a New McCarthyism, so good in defending Churchill and free speech.  But also during that time it was revealed that the football department had an $800,000 slush fund to recruit potential athletes, and used it to buy sex and alcohol for these recruits.  According to the New York Times: “Reports of wild weekends, proffered sex for football recruits and sexual assault of women also fed the university’s reputation as a party school where alcohol abuse is tolerated as a part of the undergraduate culture.”  There was also many alcohol related deaths on the campus, long known as a party school.  Hoffman was accused of knowing about the culture of college sports on CU and the blind eye to its abuses, so bad for that.  Hoffman also has many corporate connections.  From her official bio:

“She is currently on the Boards of Marsico Capital Management, Smith College, the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, and the Science Center of Iowa.  Over her career, she has served on more than 20 boards, including the Board of Directors
of Target Corporation, the National Science Board, and the Space Telescope Institute Council, which oversees the management of the Hubble Space Telescope.”

5). Elsa Murano, former professor and President Emerita of Texas A&M University.  In that last job she held it for a little over one year, and resigned in what seemed like forced reasons, and had much controversy under her short term (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/06/15/0615murano.html).  Murano has many corporate and political connections also, mainly in agribusiness.  She was appointed undersecretary of Food Safety at the Department of Agriculture under George W. Bush.  She was Dean and Vice Chalcellor of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  She secured much funding, and

“In addition to her teaching and research duties, she currently serves as a member of the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, a presidentially-appointed position that advises the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development within the State Department, and serves on the Board of Directors of Hormel Foods Corporation and the Food Processors Institute Foundation.” (http://presidentialsearch.unm.edu/murano-bio.pdf)

All of these candidates are not surprising, mainly corporate and administrative hacks that will keep the status quo going.  My money is that they will choose Bob Frank, a loyal white guy who has no respect for faculty.  After all, it is the regents who ultimately choose the president.  There is no formal way that the communities of the university and the rest of the state is involved in this decision.

The Regents show their arrogance at their power by scheduling the public forums for questions and answers on the candidates right during finals week.  To guarantee that hardly any students will participate.  Along with faculty and staff too.  The final decision will be January 4, 2012.  Stay tuned.

$92 million, given to six groups.  These are the groups:

*Iraqi National Accord

*Iraqi National Congress

*Kurdish Democratic Party

*Movement for Constitutional Monarchy

*Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

*Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution In Iraq – led by Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim

Source:

-Janes Defense Weekly, 8 January 2003.  Issue 1, Vol. 39.

–

News Release

United States Air Force

Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of Public Affairs

3550 Aberdeen Avenue S.E., Kirtland AFB, NM  87117-5776

(505) 846-1911; Fax (505) 846-0423

INTERNET:  http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/News/

—————————————————–

U.S. Marine Corps Contact

Maj David Andersen

Phone:  (703) 614-2019

EMAIL: AndersenDC@hqmc.mil

Number: 2001-09

—————————————————–

U.S. Air Force Contact

CONTACT: Rich Garcia

PHONE: (505) 846-1911

EMAIL: Juventino.Garcia@Kirtland.af.mil

DE RELEASE NO. 2001-09

—————————————————————–

New Technology Drives Away Adversaries

February 22, 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A breakthrough technology, designed to project an energy beam that drives away adversaries without injuring them, is now undergoing advanced testing, Pentagon officials anounced today.

Defense officials note that this technology could save lives by driving away adversaries without having to use deadly force.

The tests are being conducted in field conditions by the United States Air Force at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.  The are using a transmitter that sends a narrow beam of energy to a test subject hundreds of yards away.  Traveling at the speed of light, the energy reaches the test subject and penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin, quickly heating up only the skin’s surface.

Within seconds, a subject feels pain that stops when the transmitter is shut off or when the subject moves out of the beam.  In conflicts, targeted adversaries are expected to simply flee.

The technology was developed by two Air Force Research Laboratory teams:  one from the laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland AFB, N.M., and the other from the Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks AFB, Texas.

The two team leaders, Lt. Col. Chuck Beason and Dr. Kirk Hackett, emphasize that the effect exploits a natural defense mechanism – pain – that has evolved to protect the human body from damage.  They point out that heat-induced pain identical to that produced by this technology can be experienced by briefly touching an ordinary light bulb that has been left on for a while.  Pain from the heat makes a person remove his finger from the light bulb before a burn can happen.  Similarly, exposures from this non-lethal weapon technology causes repel but not damage.

According to Dr. Michael Murphy, head of the biological effects research team at Brooks AFB, Texas, “We’ve done a lot of research on this technology and have shown there are no harmful health effects.  There isn’t any injury because of the low energy levels that are used.  The beam only needs to be on for a few seconds to achieve its purpose,” notes Murphy.

“This revolutionary force protection technology gives U.S. service members an alternative to using deadly force,” notes Marine Corps Col. George Fenton, director of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program at Quantico, Va.  “It was developed in response to Department of Defense needs for alternative options to the more traditional weapons that can cause serious injury or death.  A weapon like this could be particularly useful when adversaries are mixed with innocent persons.”

The project is being funded under the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.  Approximately $40 million has been spent on this technology over the past decade.

All testing is being conducted with strict observance of the procedures, laws and regulations governing animal and human experimentation.  The tests have been reviewed and approved by the Air Force Surgeon General’s Office and are conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Human Effectiveness Directorate.

Although testing is expected to continue into this summer, officials have begun examining the technology for use on a vehicle-mounted version.  Future versions might also be used onboard planes and ships.

The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program was established in 1997 under the U.S. Marine Corps to recommend, develop and field less-than-lethal weapons for U.S. armed forces.

The two Air Force Research Laboratory directorates leading this project conduct research into a variety of directed energy technologies and effects.

—————————————————–