Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
The Sky’s the Limit: Researching surface impacts to improve the durability of aircraft
Associate professor Ibrahim Guven, Ph.D. from the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering is conducting a research project funded by the Department of Defense (DoD) that explores building aircraft for military purposes and civilian transportation that can travel more than five times the speed of sound. Guven’s role in this project is to consider the durability of aircraft surfaces against elements such as rain, ice, and debris. His research group is composed of Ph.D. students who assist with the study and has collaborated with other institutions, including the University of Minnesota, Stevens Institute of Technology and the University of Maryland. Why did you get involved with this research project? The intersection of need and our interests decides what we research. I’m interested in physics and have been working on methods to strengthen aircraft exteriors against the elements for 12 years. We started with looking at sand particle impact damage, and then we graduated from that to studying raindrop impact because that’s a more challenging problem. Sand impact is not as challenging in terms of physics. A liquid and a solid behave differently under impact conditions. The shape of the raindrop changes prior to the impact due to the shock layer ahead of the aircraft. Researching this impact requires simulating the raindrop-shock layer interaction that gives us the shape of the droplet at the time of contact with the aircraft surface. Unlike with sand, analyzing raindrop impact starts at that point, which requires accurate modeling of the pressure being applied. As the aerospace community achieves faster speeds, there’s a need to understand what will affect a flight’s safety and the aircraft’s structural integrity. That need is what I’m helping to fulfill. Were there any challenges you and your research group faced while working on this study? How did you overcome them? Finding data was hard. I’m a computational scientist, meaning I implement mathematical differential equations that govern physics to write computer code that predicts how something will behave. My experiments are virtual, so to ensure that my models work well, I need experimental data for validation. However, conducting experiments on this problem is extremely challenging. That’s the roadblock. Currently, we refer to data from the seventies and eighties. Beyond that, this kind of information is not available. We are working to generate data that my computational methods need for their validation. An example is the nylon bead impact experiment. Some researchers found that if you shoot a nylon bead at a target, it leads to damage similar to that from a raindrop of the same size. It is much easier and cheaper to shoot nylon beads compared to the experiments involving raindrops. However, this similarity vanishes as we go into higher velocities. How do you typically gather data for a project of this nature? We are working with a laboratory under the U.S. Navy. They can accelerate specimens to relevant speeds, meaning they can shoot them into the air at the desired velocity. A colleague at Stevens Institute of Technology also came up with a droplet levitator. He uses acoustic waves emitted by tiny speakers to play a certain sound at a certain frequency to create enough air pressure to suspend droplets midair. To an untrained eye, it looks like magic. They levitate droplets and use a railgun to shoot our samples at the droplets. Our samples hitting the droplets are stand-ins for the aircraft surface material. Once this is done successfully, they shoot a sample with high-speed cameras that can take ten million frames per second. As a result, we get a good, high-fidelity picture of this impact event. That is the type of data I’m seeking, and this is how I get it from my collaborators. What was your overall experience working with the students in your research group? I like to think it was positive. I try to be a nice advisor and give them space to explore, fail, and bring their own ideas. Even if I feel like we’re at a dead-end, I step back and let them figure it out. My role is to help them grow. Teach them, train them and help them along the way. That’s the experience. Did you notice any personal changes in your students during this project? Yeah, I have. When they’re just out of their undergraduate programs, confidence is lacking sometimes. You see them become more sure of themselves as they learn more and more. Often, regardless of whether English is their native language or not, writing is a big issue for every student. How one presents ideas in written form is a persistent problem in engineering. I see the most growth in that area. Again, an advisor has to be a guide and also have patience. Eventually, after working on multiple paper drafts, I can see tremendous improvement. You must allow them to see their shortcomings. It’s important to work with students to refine how they frame a problem, explain it to a wide audience in concise terms, and use neutral language without leading them to certain conclusions. Why do you think that this research is important? Somebody has to do it, right? I believe that I’m the right person because of my background. Personally, I think if this research makes for safer travel conditions, and if I have something to offer, then why not? If we can accurately simulate what happens in these conditions, we can use our methods to test out designs for damage mitigation. For example, we can perform simulations with different surface materials for the aircraft to see if using a different material or layered coating system leads to less damage. In a bigger picture, we’re working on a very narrow problem in our field, but we don’t know how useful that’s going to be in 10, 15 or 30 years from now. Whatever we study and put out there in terms of publications, it may help some other researcher in a different context many years later. This could be space research, modeling an atmosphere on a different planet, or something that is related to our bodies. There are parts of physics in this problem that do not necessarily only apply to high-speed flight. It could be many different things. One has to understand that what is studied may seem obscure today, but because the universe is more or less governed by the same physics, everything should be put in a theoretical framework, done right and shared with the community. People may learn things that could become relevant in the future. It’s not uncommon. What is another subject that you plan to study? The next natural step is coming up with strategies to mitigate damage in these scenarios. If avoiding a risk is not an option, can we actually come up with a solution? We have to determine how to modify an aircraft’s design to prevent a catastrophe. Another extension of my research would be to examine the landing of spacecraft on dusty planetary bodies. During landing on Earth, aircraft approach and reach the ground very smoothly. On the other hand, a spacecraft comes down slowly and needs a lot of reverse propulsion for a soft landing. As it does, it kicks up a large amount of dust, which blows back and hits the spacecraft. Taking into account the damage that occurs due to particle impact is a direct connection to my work. This again is an open area, and because we have ambitions to have a permanent presence on dusty places like the moon and Mars, we have to nail down the concept of landing safely. That is where my research could help.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. The oil-rich states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have a lot going for them: wealth, domestic stability and growing global influence. In recent months, these Gulf kingdoms also appear closer to something they have long sought: reliable U.S. support that has become stronger and more uncritical than ever, just as Iranian power in the region has significantly degraded. In Donald Trump, the nonelected Gulf Arab monarchs have an ally in Washington who has largely shed previous American concerns for democracy and human rights. That the American president made his first scheduled international trip of his second term to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE only underscores their international clout. Additionally, the popular overthrow of the Assad government in Syria and Israel’s war against Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Yemen have served to greatly weaken Tehran’s perceived threat to Gulf Arab interests. Yet, as an expert on Middle Eastern politics, I believe Gulf Arab countries must still navigate a regional political tightrope. And as the Israeli targeting of senior Hamas leaders in Qatar on Sept. 9, 2025, shows, events by other Middle Eastern actors have a nasty habit of derailing Gulf leaders’ plans. How these countries manage four particular uncertainties will have a significant effect on their hopes for stability and growth. 1. Managing a post-civil war Syria In Syria, years of civil war that had exacerbated splits among ethnic and religious groups finally ended in December 2024. Since then, Arab Gulf countries, which once opposed the Iranian-allied government of Bashar Assad, have been pivotal in supporting new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. They successfully lobbied the U.S. to drop sanctions. In addition to sharing mutual regional interests with Sharaa, the leaders of Gulf Arab states want a Syrian state that is free from internal war and can absorb the millions of refugees that fled the conflict to other countries in the Middle East. Gulf states can support postwar Syria diplomatically and financially. However, they can’t wish away the legacy of long war and sectarian strife. Israeli attacks on Syrian soil since Assad’s fall, as well as recent outbreaks of fighting in the Sweida region of southern Syria, underscore the ongoing fragility of the Syrian government and concerns over its ability to contain violence and migration outside of its borders. 2. The challenge of regional politics Syria illustrates a broader policy challenge for Gulf states. As their wealth, military strength and influence have grown, these countries have become dominant in the Arab world. As a result, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have invested billions of dollars in efforts to influence governments and groups across the world. This includes the mostly authoritarian governments in the Middle East and North Africa, such as Egypt’s. But here, Gulf states are torn politically. If democratic systems form elsewhere in the Arab world, this could encourage Gulf citizens to push for elected government at home. Yet overly coercive Arab governments outside of the Gulf can be prone to popular unrest and even civil war. Propping up unpopular regional governments risks backfiring on Gulf Arab leaders in one of two ways. First, it can entice Gulf states into protracted and damaging wars, such as was the case with Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s failed military intervention in Yemen against the Houthis. Second, it can drive a wedge between Gulf states, as is seen with the current conflict in Sudan, in which the Saudis and Emiratis are backing rival factions. 3. Watching which way Iran will turn Always looming behind complicated Middle Eastern politics is Iran, the historically powerful, populous, non-Arab country whose governing Shiite Islam ideology has been the chief antagonist to the Sunni-led Gulf Arab states since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Opposing Gulf Arab and American strategic interests, Iran has for years intervened aggressively in Middle Eastern politics by funding and encouraging militant Shiite groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. An assertive Iran has been especially a thorn in the side of Saudi Arabia, which strives to be the dominant Muslim majority power in the region. Dealing with Iran has required careful balancing from Qatar and the UAE, which are more directly exposed to Tehran geographically and have maintained relatively stronger relations. Given this, Gulf countries may silently welcome the decrease in Iran’s military power in the wake of Israel’s recent war against Iran and its allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, while also fearing further Iranian-Israeli conflict. At the same time, a less powerful Iran runs two types of new potential dangers for Gulf states. Should Iran become more unstable, the resulting turmoil could be felt across the region. In addition, should Iran’s military, policy and economic turmoil lead to a new political system, it could disturb Gulf countries. Neither a Muslim majority democratic government nor a more hard-line nationalist variant in Iran would sit well with nearby Gulf monarchs. Conversely, concerns that the Israeli and U.S. bombing of Iran may actually lead to increased Iranian determination to pursue a nuclear program also worry Gulf leaders. 4. Living with Israel’s military assertiveness Israel, the unquestioned military power and sole nuclear weapons state in the region, has long posed particularly deep political dilemmas to Gulf Arab states. The current challenge is how to balance the immense global unpopularity of the Israeli government’s war in Gaza – including among Gulf Arab citizens – with common strategic interests the Gulf states hold with Israel. Gulf Arab leaders face domestic and regional pressure to show solidarity for Palestinians and their aspirations for statehood. Yet Gulf rulers also share strategic goals with Israel. Along with opposition to Iranian influence, Gulf states maintain strong military links to the U.S, like Israel. They also appreciate the economic and other security value of Israel’s high-tech products, including software used for espionage and cybersecurity. This helps explain the UAE’s 2019 decision to join the short list of Arab states with full diplomatic relations with Israel. Hamas attacked Israel in 2023 in part to stop Saudi Arabia from following suit – something that might have further sidelined Palestinians’ bargaining power. Indeed, moves toward open Saudi diplomatic recognition of Israel were stopped by Hamas’ attack and the global backlash that followed Israel’s ongoing devastation of Gaza. Gulf leaders may still believe that normalized ties with Israel would be good for the long-term economic prospects of the region. And Bahrain and the UAE – the two Gulf Arab states with diplomatic relations with Israel – have not backed away from their official relationship. Yet expanding open relations with Israel further, and taking in other Gulf states, is unlikely without a real reversal in Israel’s policy toward Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank. All this is more true in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s attack in Qatar – the first time Israel has launched a direct strike within a Gulf Arab state. That action, even if ostensibly directed at Hamas, is likely to exacerbate tensions not only with Qatar but place increasing stress on the calculus allied Gulf Arab countries make in their dealings with Israel. Tricky way forward for Gulf Arab states These challenges underscore an inescapable truth for Gulf leaders: They are hostage to events beyond their control. Insulating them from that reality takes regional unity. The Gulf Cooperation Council, nearly 45 years old, was established precisely for this purpose. While it remains the most successful regional organization in the Middle East, the GCC has not always prevented major rifts, such as in 2017 when a coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia cut ties with and blockaded Qatar. The conflict was resolved in 2021. Since then, the six members of the GCC have worked together more closely. No doubt, rivalries and disagreements still exist. Yet Arab Gulf leaders have learned that cooperation is useful in the face of major challenges. This can be seen in the recent collaborative diplomatic approaches toward Syria and the U.S. A second lesson comes from the broader Middle East. Key issues are often interdependent, particularly the status of Palestinians. Hamas’ attack on Israel, and the resulting destruction of much of Gaza, resurfaced the deep popularity across the region of addressing Palestinian needs and rights. The monarchs of the Arab Gulf would like to maintain their unchallenged domestic political status while expanding their influence in the Middle East and beyond. However, even when Gulf leaders wish to be done with the region’s challenges, those challenges are not always done with them. Isabella Ishanyan, a UMass Amherst undergraduate, provided research assistance for this article.
#ExpertSpotlight: The Day That Redefined America: 9/11 and Its Lasting Impact
September 11, 2001 marked a pivot in American history—a day when the nation’s sense of safety was shattered, and its collective identity reshaped. The attacks triggered sweeping changes in security, government authority, social behavior, and even cultural cohesion. Today, the legacy of 9/11 lives on in how we remember, govern, and connect. A Nation in Shock—and Unity On that fall morning, the U.S. witnessed a tragedy that killed nearly 3,000 people and devastated the nation’s psyche. In the immediate aftermath, grief turned into solidarity—as most Americans tuned into televised coverage, felt sadness, anger, and fear, yet paradoxically came together in an extraordinary show of patriotism and trust in institutions. In the months that followed, confidence in government reached levels unseen in decades—fueled by mourning, resolve, and a collective desire to heal. The Rise of “Homeland Security” & Executive Power Almost immediately, the U.S. government unleashed legal and structural transformations. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed just weeks later in October 2001, significantly expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers for domestic security—raising ongoing concerns about civil liberties. Alongside this, the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, bringing together 22 agencies to coordinate security against future threats and reinforcing a new era of national vigilance. Economic Shock and Air Travel Overhaul The attacks triggered immediate economic consequences: U.S. stock markets plunged, airlines and insurers suffered heavy losses, and GDP forecasts were revised downward. Meanwhile, the aviation sector underwent a rapid and lasting modernization in security protocols and flight routing. Notably, Canada’s Operation Yellow Ribbon absorbed diverted flights in the chaos, highlighting international cooperation amid crisis. Legal Precedents and Global Conflict Congress quickly approved the broad-ranging Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enabling the U.S. to pursue adversaries globally—a mandate that has since been interpreted far beyond its original context, shaping nearly two decades of “forever wars.” These legal expansions—and the accompanying conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq—signaled a new global posture that redefined American foreign policy. Remembering, Serving, and the Legacy Continues In the years since, public memory of 9/11 has evolved—from solemn remembrance to proactive service. Patriot Day, proclaimed a national day of mourning and service, now encourages millions of Americans each year to volunteer in honor of those lost and the unity felt afterward. These acts of service continue to reflect the enduring spirit of resilience and community. Connect with our experts on the history, significance, and lasting impact of 9/11 on American life and policy. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
Viqtory Media recognizes Georgia Southern University as a top military-friendly college
Georgia Southern University continues to be a leading institution in providing military-connected students with exceptional opportunities, earning the 2025-2026 Top Ten Military Friendly® distinction by Viqtory Media. The University achieved gold recognition for its support of military students, veterans and families as they pursue their academic and career goals. “At Georgia Southern, we are deeply committed to honoring the service and sacrifice of our military-connected students by providing them with a student-centered experience rooted in flexibility, support and excellence,” said Alejandra Sosa Pieroni, Ed. D., Executive Vice President for the Division of Enrollment, Marketing and Student Success. “This continued recognition as a Military Friendly School reflects the intentional work of our faculty and staff to ensure that service members, veterans, and their families have the resources they need to succeed in the classroom, in their careers, and in life.” Georgia Southern is used to being named a Military Friendly School, having earned this distinction for 13 consecutive years. Military-connected students at Georgia Southern have access to a variety of services and flexible academic programs both on campus and online. Select graduate programs, including the MBA, are conveniently offered at the Army Education Centers on Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield. In addition, all three campuses and offices located at the Fort Stewart and Hunter Airfield Education Centers feature resource centers to assist military students, veterans and families. “Georgia Southern University is dedicated to providing the best service to our service members, Veterans and their families,” said William Gammon, director of Military and Veteran Services. “We consider it a privilege to serve this special student population. The continued recognition as a Military Friendly School is a testament to our dedication to our military services and their families.” The annual Military Friendly School list is compiled by Viqtory, a service-disabled, veteran-owned company, with input from the Military Friendly Advisory Council, a group of independent experts in higher education and military recruitment. The list is published in the May and October issues of G.I. Jobs magazine and can be found at www.militaryfriendly.com. Visit Georgia Southern’s website to learn more information about the Military and Veterans program: Looking to know more about Georgia Southern University and it's programming and support for military-connected students — simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
4 out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.
LSU Veterinary Teams Recall Courage, Loss, and Lasting Change from Hurricane Katrina Animal Rescues
From that tragedy came transformative change, with new animal evacuation protocols and policies, including the creation of the federal Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act, which requires state and local disaster plans to include provisions for pets and service animals. LSU School of Veterinary Medicine played a pivotal role in this evolution. In the days and months after Katrina, LSU Vet Med faculty, staff, and students worked alongside state officials, military units, and volunteers from across the nation to rescue, treat, and shelter thousands of animals. Two decades later, Katrina’s scars remain, but so does the resilience of the people and animals who lived through it. Their stories serve as a reminder that in even the darkest moments, compassion can spark lasting change. Rescue in a War Zone Dr. Jenny Sones (then veterinary student): I had been working at LSU Vet Med for five years when Katrina hit. LSU Vet Med put out an ‘all hands on deck’ call to employees. All of our hospital wards were turned into an ER. We opened our homes to complete strangers who came to help. It was organized chaos. Many animals came to us looking like corpses with a heartbeat because they’d been in the flood waters so long. I worked all day at LSU Vet Med, where we saw the sickest, most injured patients, and worked at Lamar Dixon evenings and weekends. Twenty years later, the images are so vivid in my mind. I took a horse trailer on a rescue mission into New Orleans with two students and a state veterinarian escort one week after Katrina hit. The scene looked like a war zone, helicopters everywhere, buildings burning, gunshot sounds. Every area we saw was looted. The stench was awful. There were people on the overpasses who had been there for a week. We were there to rescue animals. Military, Louisiana National Guard, and police brought the animals to us where our trailer was parked on an overpass. We picked up a few strays on our way out. The animals we rescued were so scared. Some had been in the flood waters a long time and were soaking wet and foul smelling. Their skin was sloughing off and they were emaciated. Amazingly, none of the dogs, cats, or horses were aggressive—maybe because they were in shock or they were grateful. We treated them all at Lamar Dixon, washed them with Dawn dishwashing soap and applied betadine. Sick ones were transported by trailer to LSU Vet Med. They were very dark times and very good times too. We were able to get the New Orleans French Quarter mules out to Lamar Dixon. Their caretaker crew stayed with them. They hooked up the mules, still in good shape because they weren’t in the flood waters, and they gave workers short rides around the Lamar Dixon grounds. It was such rewarding work. We were exhausted but in the best way. It would have been easy to get caught up in the devastation if we didn’t focus on our purpose to help animals. You can’t fix everything, but you can fix what’s in front of you. If you can survive the devastation of Katrina, you can survive anything. From Classroom to Crisis Dr. Jenny Sones (then veterinary student): In August 2005, I was starting my second year of veterinary school at LSU. I had no idea that life was about to change so drastically. School was cancelled, and electricity was out most places except at the vet school. My colleagues set up temporary housing in our study rooms and other places throughout the vet school. We then began to learn of the effects of Katrina on our veterinary species—dogs, cats, horses, and more. These precious creatures were the reason why we studied, crammed, and signed up to endure the rigors of veterinary school. It was time to close the books and help! Although we were not licensed veterinarians yet, we were keen to provide aid in any way we could. I, along with lots of my classmates, volunteered at Parker Coliseum on the LSU campus, where displaced small animals were seeking refuge, and at Lamar Dixon, which became the shelter for large animals and small animals. We spend many hours doing anything we could, cleaning litter boxes, refilling water bowls, changing bedding, administering medications, and assisting the heroic volunteer veterinarians working tirelessly to treat the injured, sick, and rescued. Lots of important lessons were learned during Katrina. Many animals were not reunited with their owners. That's when I learned the value of microchipping to permanently identify animals, gained an appreciation for animal search and rescue, and the value of quick response. (Sones is now CSU Equine Reproduction Laboratory reproduction specialist.) Mapping Rescues by Hand Ashley Stokes (former faculty member): It was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced. I was researching and teaching at LSU Vet Med in 2005. LSU Vet Med stepped up in so many ways. We started receiving calls from citizens and local authorities at the vet school almost immediately after the storm. They needed help with resources—animal rescue, food, and water. They had to leave New Orleans quickly. I particularly remember a call from someone from south of Belle Chase, La., who had left horses, cattle, and two dogs in the house and needed help. It was surreal to see the devastation, houses floating, there in the Delta. We were making real-time decisions to help their animals. They’d lost so much, and for some, their animals were all they had left. We put a paper map of Louisiana on the wall and put pins in the locations that called for assistance. We covered all of New Orleans and surrounding areas, including the north shore and extending west to Baton Rouge. We took the callers’ information and sent teams of staff, students, and volunteers to different locations with donated trailers, hay, water, and other resources for rescue. We continued rescues for months after the storm. We were there for people for the long haul. The whole experience was transformational in my life. What I learned from Katrina became part of my own career and what I continue to do. There were beautiful moments, especially seeing how resilient and helpful people could be. I saw every day how the community came together and were absolute bright lights. Positive came from tragedy. (Stokes is now dean of UC Davis College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences.) The Boxer on the Third Floor Dr. Neil Henderson (alumnus): When Katrina hit, the Louisiana Veterinary Medical Association sent out a request for help from veterinarians. I got to the Lamar Dixon Center on Day 5 after Katrina hit. St. Bernard Parish was where I spent most of my time helping. It was literally destroyed. One day, while we were making our rounds, a man came running up to me and said that he just remembered that while the storm was coming through—he was on the third story of a building looking out of the window—he noticed a dog swimming around frantically with nowhere to go. He opened a window for it with the hopes that it would swim inside the building to safety. Seven or eight days later, with the temperature well into the upper 90s, the man came up to me and asked me to go into the building to see if I could find the dog. I did not have much hope but went anyway. There, on the third floor of the building, I found the dog, a boxer, alive. She was in surprisingly good shape. The man was ecstatic to see the dog and could not believe that it made it inside the building to safety. I stayed for five days helping animals, and my late father (Dr. Robert Henderson, class of 1977) came after that for five more days. (Henderson is the owner of the Pine Ridge Veterinary Center in Stonewall, La.) Article originally posted here.
Charli Carpenter, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the Human Security Lab, is available to discuss a recent survey she led of U.S. military members and veterans that found a real-time drop in their trust in the president’s nuclear launch authority that occurred during the recent Iran crisis. Carpenter and colleagues Grace Bernheart, Joseph Mara and Zahra Marashi recently published an article on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explaining what their findings mean and why they are important, and Carpenter also appeared on the podcast The Fire This Time to discuss the survey. To speak with Carpenter about the survey, contact her via her ExpertFile profile here.
Nibir Dhar, Ph.D., director of the Convergence Lab Initiative and professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, was recently appointed to the Virginia Microelectronics Center endowed chair. This position gives Dhar the opportunity to shape future scientists and engineers, as well as pursue breakthrough research at the College of Engineering. “It’s more than an academic role,” said Dhar. “It’s about preparing students for complex problems they’ll solve in industry and defense.” Dhar teaches semiconductor and infrared device courses while researching next-generation materials for real-world applications. He also explores AI’s ability to improve human-machine interactions. With his accomplished background and experience at national defense labs, Dhar bridges classroom theory with practical engineering challenges his students will face in their careers. “It feels incredible to be recognized this way. Virginia Commonwealth University truly values faculty who pour themselves into student success and university growth. What really drives me is knowing I’m helping build the next generation of problem-solvers. That’s where the real satisfaction comes from.” said Dhar. This promotion encourages Dhar to make bigger strides for research development that will transform both teaching methods and how technology advances in military and commercial sectors.
Taming "The Bear": Villanova Professor Examines Workplace Toxicity in FX's Acclaimed Series
In the latest season of FX’s award-winning series “The Bear,” lead character and chef Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto finds himself at a crossroads. A culinary genius, Carmy has successfully overseen the reinvention of his family’s Italian beef shop as a high-end restaurant—shepherding a dedicated, if unpolished, crew of sandwich makers into a world of haute cuisine, fine wine and elevated service. However, over the course of this transition, his exacting standards have contributed to a culture of anxiety, dysfunction and resentment in the workplace. Despite staff members’ professional and personal growth, tempers still flare like burners on a range, with Carmy’s obsessive attention to detail and single-minded pursuit of perfection spurring conflict. By season’s end, grappling with the fallout from a mixed review seemingly influenced by the back-of-house “chaos,” the chef is forced to confront a complicated and thorny question: Am I getting in the way of my own restaurant’s success? Carmy’s dilemma, while fictional, reflects the very real challenges many modern businesses face when excellence is prioritized at the expense of psychological safety and workplace harmony. Per Manuela Priesemuth, PhD, who researches toxic work climates, aggression on the job and organizational fairness, the warning signs are all too frequently overlooked in high-pressure environments like restaurants. “Some high-stakes industries have a characteristic of having toxic behavior more accepted,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “When it’s more accepted or normed, it’s a real problem.” As she explains, workers in the food service industry, much like medical professionals in an operating room or military personnel in a combat zone, have a tendency to view measured communication and thoughtful interaction as a luxury or even, in some cases, a hindrance. Essentially, there’s a common misconception that working with an edge—yelling orders, avoiding dialogue and berating “underperformers”—gets the job done. “In all of these high-stakes environments where it’s thought there’s leeway to talk negatively or disparagingly, people are mistaken in the productivity result,” Dr. Priesemuth says. “It actually changes for the better in positive climates, because people who are treated with dignity and respect are better performers than those who are mistreated.” To Dr. Priesemuth’s point, research increasingly shows that workplace culture, not just talent or technical ability, is an essential driver of organizational success. In an environment like Carmy’s kitchen, where pride and passion often give way to personal attacks and shouting matches, the on-the-job dynamic can effectively undermine productivity. What may begin as an intended push for excellence can instead result in burnout, high turnover and weakened trust—outcomes that are especially problematic in collaborative, fast-paced industries like hospitality. “There’s even evidence that abusive behavior in restaurant settings can lead to food loss,” shares Dr. Priesemuth. “So, there is a sort of retaliation from the employees who are going through this experience, whether it’s measured [in profit margins] or impact on the customer.” In order to prevent these less-than-ideal outcomes, businesses should take steps proactively, says Dr. Priesemuth. More specifically, they should clearly articulate their values and expectations, considerately engage with their staff’s opinions and concerns and consistently invest in their employees’ growth and development. In the world of “The Bear,” a few of Carmy’s managerial decisions in the second season could be seen as moves in the right direction. At that juncture, he was leveraging his industry connections to provide his restaurant’s staff with the tools and training necessary to thrive in Chicago’s fine dining scene, building skills, confidence and goodwill. “If you give people voice—such as input on the menu, for example, or more autonomy in completing a certain task—it boosts morale,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “It helps people feel that they have input and that they are valued members of the team; it’s this sort of collaborative, positive relationship that increases commitment and performance.” Establishing this type of work culture, grounded in open communication, mutual respect and a shared sense of mission, takes concerted effort and constant maintenance. In situations in which toxicity has already become an issue, as it has in Carmy’s kitchen, the task becomes decidedly more difficult. Typically, it demands a long-term commitment to organizational change at the business’ highest levels. “Adjusting the tone at the top really matters,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “So, if the owner were to treat their chefs and waiters with the dignity and respect that they deserve as workers, that also trickles down to, for example, the customer.” A leader’s influence on workplace morale, she contends, is nuanced and far-reaching. When those in charge model a lack of empathy or emotional distance, for instance, a sort of toxicity can take root. Likewise, when they repeatedly show anger, animosity or frustration, those same feelings and attitudes can have an ingrained effect—regardless of a staff’s talent or ability. Given the outsized role owners, supervisors and managers play in shaping organizational culture, Dr. Priesemuth further notes, “Leaders must also feel that they’re being supported. You can’t have someone who’s exhausted, works 80 hours a week and has relationship and money issues and expect them to say, ‘What are your problems? What do you need?’” In many ways, her insights speak directly to the struggles Carmy faces and prompts throughout “The Bear’s” run. At every turn, he’s dogged by family and relationship troubles, mounting financial pressures and unresolved trauma from a past role. Ultimately, as would happen in real life, his difficulty in healthily processing and addressing these issues doesn’t just harm him; it affects his staff, manifesting itself as a need for control and a crusade for perfection. “There are spillover effects from your own personal life into your job role. In the management field, that has become increasingly clear,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “Whatever you’re going through, whether it’s from an old job or something personal, it will automatically spill over into your current work life and your interactions. And, vice versa, what’s happening to you at work will [impact you off the clock].” In dramatic fashion, the fourth season of “The Bear” concludes with Carmy acknowledging as much. Determining that there are other aspects of his life desperately in need of attention, he surrenders the reins of his business to chef de cuisine Sydney “Syd” Adamu and maître d’hôtel Richard “Richie” Jerimovich, appointing them part-owners. While the soundness of this decision remains a subject for the show’s next season, Carmy justifies the move with a blunt admission: “It’s the best thing for the restaurant. We have to put the restaurant first… I don’t have anything to pull from.” In the end, in both “The Bear” and management studies, there’s an understanding that building healthy and productive work environments requires active engagement and positive reinforcement on the part of leadership. In a sense, creating a strong work culture is shown to be a lot like preparing a phenomenal meal; it’s a matter of attentiveness, patience and care. Without those ingredients, the result could very well be a recipe for disaster.
Supreme Court Takes Action on Transgender Law
On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee could ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. This decision is expected to not only affect those in Tennessee but those across America. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has upheld anti-transgender laws. President Trump requested that transgender individuals be removed from the military, which the Supreme Court granted on May 6, 2025. This ruling has gotten mixed reactions to those rejoicing and others enraged. Bill Lee, Tennessee governor, reminds others that, "Protecting children is a fundamental responsibility that we take seriously...this [bipartisan legislation] lawfully safeguards young people from irreversible, life-altering medical decisions." Time will tell how this decision made by the Supreme Court will affect other similar cases that will appear before them. Dr. Mark Caleb Smith is the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. Mark is available to speak with the media regarding the Supreme Court and their decision. Simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview.
