NOEL POLK fired??? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 9, 2004

RE: RE: RE: NOEL POLK fired???

Date: Sep 9, 2004

What in the world would the grounds have been for firing him?!?!? Writing letters to Shelby??? Speaking out freely??? Ya know, if they HAD fired him, it may have been the straw that broke the (Shelby) camel's back. It would be nuts to fire another tenured professor. Of course poor judgement didn't prevent them from trying to fire Frank & Gary......

No Quarter!

Date: Sep 9, 2004

Sorry guys, since I posted my note a minute ago, I found the answer to my question on another thread.....but I still say

NO QUARTER!!!

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: In the know
"If my understanding is correct, Inside Observer, all the Council of Chairs did is request that the two professors who had been removed from the classroom be put back in the classroom until the hearing. If that is correct, I'd judge that to be an embarrasingly low level of support. "

I think the level of support was actually quite high, if you operationalize it by the anger, bewilderment, shock, depression, and disgust that many of these men and women experienced. You, I think, would operationalize it as a behavioral response, such as walking off the job and calling the HA, filing suit, or cutting the brake lines on SFT's Navigator.

Where there seems to be little empathy on this thread is the degree of powerlessness and helplessness these lower level administrators also experienced. Recall that SFT is in the Dome today despite a vote sponsored by AAUP, a vote of no-confidence by the FS, a vigorous letter writing campaign, campus protests, and a vote for the President's resignation. Administrators I know tried to convince SFT to back off, but to no avail. Personal attacks on the COC (I am neither a Dean or a Chair), really serve no purpose at this time. However, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it.

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Inside Observer
" I think the level of support was actually quite high, if you operationalize it by the anger, bewilderment, shock, depression, and disgust that many of these men and women experienced. "

Inside Observer, for a chair or a dean simply to feel angry, bewildered, shocked, depressed, and disgusted is not what I consider a high level of support. I am aware of only one public statement, that being in the HA by your provost who indicated he was troubled by the process. Perhaps if other administrators had stepped forward publicly the outcome might have been different.

Date: Sep 9, 2004

You're beating a dead horse. There was not the support at the IHL level to make a difference at the time. Good people willing to lay down on their swords when it would not have mattered meant that USM would have had some more dead soldiers and nothing more. You are not the only one who is frustrated. Stay focused and let the evidence mount.

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Slow Burn
"Stay focused and let the evidence mount."

<CYNICISM>:And when hell freezes over, there'll be somebody in Jackson who cares about evidence.</CYNICISM>:

<OBLIGATORY DYLANISM>

How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.

</OBLIGATORY DYLANISM>

Date: Sep 9, 2004

How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Inside Observer
"Personal attacks on the COC (I am neither a Dean or a Chair), really serve no purpose at this time. However, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it.

Insider Observer, I think I initially overlooked some things in your post which warrant a response. For that I apologize. You referred to "personal attacks on the COC." Who attacked the COC? Read my post again and you will see that it was most certainly not me. Regarding your suggestion that some sort of action on my part would make me "feel better" about myself: do you really believe that my motive for stepping forward to defend two maligned colleagues would have been that of making me "feel better about myself?" I hope you did not attribute such a motive to your courageous faculty colleagues who did speak out when Stringer and Glamser were pinned to the wall. S&G received very strong support from the AAUP, from the Faculty Senate, and from the greater USM faculty. Nonethelsss, it is my opinion that some higher-level administrators appeared to remain publicly silent, leaving those two men hanging in the wind, whereas a strong public outcry from those administrators might have aborted the process and altered the outcome.

Date: Sep 9, 2004

One true thing is this. During all of Shelboo's posturing last spring, when he repeatedly accused F & G of being "criminals" and of lacking "red-blooded male[ness]" because they refused to relinquish their rights under the law and "come out and fight" (and let him crucify them in the kangaroo court of public opinion), NOT ONE administrator who had known and worked with them--no department chair, dean, vice-president, provost, or president (including the one officed in McCain library, whom both of them had faithfully served for two-and-a-half decades), had the courage publicly to utter the simple disclaimer, "I have known these professors for years, and I don't believe they are crooks." The degree of pusilanimity exhibited by these people is one of the more heartbreaking revelations of the entire sordid episode. And there is no reason to think Noel would have fared better.

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: In the know
"Insider Observer, I think I initially overlooked some things in your post which warrant a response. For that I apologize. You referred to "personal attacks on the COC." Who attacked the COC? Read my post again and you will see that it was most certainly not me. Regarding your suggestion that some sort of action on my part would make me "feel better" about myself: do you really believe that my motive for stepping forward to defend two maligned colleagues would have been that of making me "feel better about myself?" I hope you did not attribute such a motive to your courageous faculty colleagues who did speak out when Stringer and Glamser were pinned to the wall. S&G received very strong support from the AAUP, from the Faculty Senate, and from the greater USM faculty. Nonethelsss, it is my opinion that some higher-level administrators appeared to remain publicly silent, leaving those two men hanging in the wind, whereas a strong public outcry from those administrators might have aborted the process and altered the outcome. "

Wait a second. YOU called the response of the COC "embarassing." Read it again. Your post wasn't a defense of Frank and Gary or other faculty. Indeed, others on this thread have labeled the entire spectrum of administrators at USM cowards. Another snide comment here was the "Blowing in the Wind" reference. Give me a break. Slow Burn had it right. If you believe a "strong public outcry from the chairs and deans," whatever that means, would have "aborted the process," you are either extremely naive or idealistic. SFT had his caboose hooked firmly to the Hanbury express, which was heading down the tracks full speed and ready to run over any bodies that got in the way, and Klumb's Bums were not about to listen to a bunch of whiny and lowly chairs any more than they listened to the FS or AAUP. I do wonder about the motives of some of the posters on this thread. Frank and Gary do not need any defense at this point. So why malign an entire group of faculty who serve in the capacity as chair? What is your motive, In The Know?

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: IO
"If you believe a "strong public outcry from the chairs and deans," whatever that means, would have "aborted the process," you are either extremely naive or idealistic. SFT had his caboose hooked firmly to the Hanbury express, which was heading down the tracks full speed and ready to run over any bodies that got in the way, and Klumb's Bums were not about to listen to a bunch of whiny and lowly chairs any more than they listened to the FS or AAUP."

Right on, IO! It wouldn't have mattered who objected. The only ones who could have changed things last spring weren't going to listen to objections, nor were they interested in evidence, except the "evidence" confabulated by Hanbury et al.

Which was my point up threat: Don't wait for evidence to mount, because unless it's evidence that will interest a federal prosecutor. The IHL board members fall into 2 groups: those who don't care & those who believe (perhaps correctly) that Mississippi cannot afford 3 "comprehensive universities."

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Unqualified Arnold
"Incorrect inference Arnie. Our Dean took the position for one important reason--SOMEONE needs to do it, and that someone needs to be a person who is willing to walk away (or be terminated) on a moment's notice. Do you suggest that we should operate our colleges with no chairs or deans? That merely proves that your muscles are between your ears, you Girlie Man. "

I did not suggest that we should have no deans or chairs. And the deans are clearly not willing to walk away or be terminated on a moment's notice. If they were willing to do that, they would have had the balls to say something when G & S were fired. No, I think they are clinging to their jobs, willing to do what Shelboo wants. Perhaps some of them are working behind the scenes to improve things--but if so, they certainly aren't being successful.

We need a philosophy prof. or ethic specialist here, not an actor/politician like me. The basic question is, how does one act for the most moral good when stuck in an institution that is fundamentally corrupt? (And you thought I was just muscle-bound!)

Date: Sep 9, 2004

Are the people who are helping to keep the ship afloat acting for the greater good (teaching a bunch of youngsters something they need to know) and trying to preserve USM for some better day by-and-by? Or are we just prolonging the misery and enabling those in power to stay there with our help? I ask this as a person who cares about USM but is not invested in it to the extent many of you are. Am I helping or hurting? Whatever the answer, I don't think I'll be back after this term. It's just too depressing and the money's too bad.

Date: Sep 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: New Adjunct
"Are the people who are helping to keep the ship afloat acting for the greater good (teaching a bunch of youngsters something they need to know) and trying to preserve USM for some better day by-and-by? Or are we just prolonging the misery and enabling those in power to stay there with our help? I ask this as a person who cares about USM but is not invested in it to the extent many of you are. Am I helping or hurting? Whatever the answer, I don't think I'll be back after this term. It's just too depressing and the money's too bad."

Teaching the youngsters something they need to know is just about the most noble thing you can do. (And if I ruled the world, all adjuncts would be paid properly and get decent benefits.)

Date: Sep 10, 2004

What I heard:

(a) In early-August Polk tells his chair he is not returning
(b) chair reports to dean soon after
(c) all wait for Polk to submit resignation
(d) he does not
(e) school starts; Polk, by his request, has no classes
(f) still no resignation (Polk is waiting to hear from State)
(g) Sept: English chair Andrea Ball steps down
(h) Sept: with no Eng chair, Pood gives Polk letter saying he has violated contract.
(i) Sept: Polk formally submits resignation

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: IO
"Wait a second. YOU called the response of the COC "embarassing." Read it again . . . What is your motive, In The Know? "

'IO' - It was 'Inside Observer' whose comment about about chairs and deans was "I think [their] level of support was actually quite high, if you operationalize it by the anger, bewilderment, shock, depression, and disgust that many of these men and women experienced." 'In the know' responded by saying, 'for a chair or dean simply to feel angry, bewildered, shocked, depressed, and disgusted is not what I consider a high level of support." It appears, 'IO,' that 'In the know' has a higher level of expectation for chairs and deans when one of their faculty members is unjustifiably under assault, than the expectation that you or 'Inside Observer' have. If a "feeling of bewilderment, etc." is all you expect from your administrators under the horrible situation the two professors faced, it might be best if you not move into an administrative position until you understand there are times when a good administrator must stand up for for what is right even at their own expense.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Kate Smith
"What I heard: (a) In early-August Polk tells his chair he is not returning (b) chair reports to dean soon after(c) all wait for Polk to submit resignation (d) he does not(e) school starts; Polk, by his request, has no classes(f) still no resignation (Polk is waiting to hear from State)(g) Sept: English chair Andrea Ball steps down(h) Sept: with no Eng chair, Pood gives Polk letter saying he has violated contract.(i) Sept: Polk formally submits resignation "

Corrections:

a) Not sure about the exact timing of this...he says he kept his chair informed "over the summer"

b) I'm not sure if or when this happened (if it did, it has not been reported)

g) it's Angela Ball (I'm just a stickler for the facts!)

i) Polk submitted his resignation on August 31 (7-8 days after school started)

My understanding is that contracts are due August 31, therefore Polk followed the guidelines to the letter. If the administration wants to have signed contracts in hand before school starts, then perhaps they should change their deadline.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Right on, IO! It wouldn't have mattered who objected. "

Invictus, my friend, I have to disagree with you here. While you may be right about it not mattering who objected (in the long run, that is), I think a response in favor of G/S would have sent a clear message that administrators are FACULTY, too (something many of them seem invested in telling us over and over again as long as it serves their purposes). FACULTY at USM were in solidarity last spring in ways we couldn't have imagined. It is unfortunate that FACULTY in administrative positions did not join with their voices.

Believe it or not, Shelboo is FACULTY, too. He has delusions of grandeur, of course, but in the end tenure must mean something to him or he wouldn't still be in the tenure system.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

Kate,

You need to reverse the order of the last two items.

It makes a slight difference.

Robert Campbell

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: IO
" Another snide comment here was the "Blowing in the Wind" reference. "

Sorry if I was snide. I was just following Invictus's Dylanism with another. I actually was thinking of the IHL board that collectively seems quite adept at pretending not to see. (And who -- I suspect -- would ignore any protest.)

From my position of anonymity, I would be hard pressed to criticize anyone who failed to take a public stand that would jeopardize his or her own employment.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

In other words, Kate's list should read:

(i) Aug 31: Polk formally submits resignation

(h) Sept 2: with no English Dept. chair, Pood gives Polk letter saying he has violated contract.

Readers might also want to ask whether turnover in the Department Chair position really had anything to do with Pood's attempt to fire Polk.

It's squirrelly enough that the IHL Board insists on annual contracts for tenured faculty. Even more squirrelly is a deadline for returning the signed contract over a week after classes start. As long as August 31 is the official deadline, you can't blame Noel Polk or any other faculty member for sticking to it. But this deadline has made it easier for Shelby and minions to play games with contracts in the past.

Robert Campbell

Date: Sep 10, 2004

this is the first time in my over 20 years at USM that the deadline for contracts to be signed was as late as it was. i was told that was because the raise process took so long. in the past contracts had to be signed before classes began.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Invictus, my friend, I have to disagree with you here. While you may be right about it not mattering who objected, I think a response in favor of G/S would have sent a clear message that administrators are FACULTY, too"

truth4usm,

Very well put, truth. USM is the first academic postion for many of our faculty members. This will continue to be the case as experienced senior faculty move on to greener pastures and are replaced by new and inexperienced ones. If the new ones hear deafening silence from their administrators, they will come to believe that this is the way are at all universities. That is definitely not the case. I am confident that the Vanderbilt chairs and deans, for instance, would not put up with USM's academic follies for a New York minute. I'm not at all suggesting that it happen at USM, but I've seen valuable university administrators voluntarily step down over far less than has happened at USM. Invictus, you've been an extremely strong and wise poster in the past, but I'm afraid you're way off base on this particular matter. Deafening silence in the face of disaster sends a more powerful and negative message to new faculty members than does a Howard Dean scream. Deafening silence from university administrators also sends the wrong message to the community and to our governing board.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Arnold Schwarzgnome
And the deans are clearly not willing to walk away or be terminated on a moment's notice. If they were willing to do that, they would have had the balls to say something when G & S were fired. No, I think they are clinging to their jobs, willing to do what Shelboo wants."

Of course the deans didn't take a stand on the G-S debacle. That's why they were hired. Anyone who thinks the new "crop" of deans are anything more than a bunch of marginally qualified figureheads specifically hired because of their willingness to function as Thames sycophants is in denial or smoking too much loco-weed. Why else would a university with world class aspirations, or more accurately, pretensions, employ individuals of such little distinction ? The mockery of a "nationwide search" could not have yielded a more pathetic assortment of yes men. When I survey the assemblage of USM's new deans, sadly, I see only the Keystone Cops.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

In summary. Folks here seem to be astounded that all levels of administration here did not riot during the last year's debacle. The reasons cited are:

1. Every single one of them is a toady just lusting for their paycheck.

2. They are spineless Shelby-whipped cowards.

Could this be true? That every single chair, director, dean, assistant dean and so forth on this campus, even those that preceded SFT's annointment, is scum?

For those academic and scholars out there, think a bit more creatively. What other factors could have been responsible for this behavior?

Hypotheses above are incorrect, because many I know were on the verge of saying screw it--you make more money buying your summer on grants than you do with a piddly admin stipend. Others were cranking up the copier to get the CV out (yes, people who were already being actively recruited by Tier Is). Why stay for this nonsense then? The range of balls and "gives a s-t" varies across admin types. It is not a one shoe fits all scenario (unless you are into stereotyping).

Other hypotheses:

1. Learned helplessness.

2. A last gasp at protecting your people during a nightmare scenario.

3. Lies and manipulations by the Dome sucker-punched these folks.

Feel free to add to the list.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Inside Observer
"Could this be true? That every single chair, director, dean, assistant dean and so forth on this campus, even those that preceded SFT's annointment, is scum?"

Of course not, Inside Obvserver. Stepen Judd is a notable exception. Isn't he a department chair? He did and said the right things. Surely there are more of those types in USM administrative positions who spoke out. There are, aren't there? If there are not others, then USM is deeper in the dungheap than I had imagined. If you recall the Nazi invasion of Poland, France, Czechoslovikia, etc. Some spoke out. Some did not. After the war the citizens remembered. Many at USM will remember the current era - who spoke out, who did not.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Person of Interest
"Of course not, Inside Obvserver. Stepen Judd is a notable exception. Isn't he a department chair? He did and said the right things. Surely there are more of those types in USM administrative positions who spoke out. There are, aren't there? If there are not others, then USM is deeper in the dungheap than I had imagined. If you recall the Nazi invasion of Poland, France, Czechoslovikia, etc. Some spoke out. Some did not. After the war the citizens remembered. Many at USM will remember the current era - who spoke out, who did not. "

Angela Ball spoke out.

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Inside Observer
"In summary. Folks here seem to be astounded that all levels of administration here did not riot during the last year's debacle."

Let me ask it another way. As lowly, relatively powerless Assistant, I did what I could to help F&G. I voted no confidence on both issues, I joined AAUP and attended every meeting and rally, I donated a few hundred dollars to the legal defense fund, I wore a ‘I support F&G’ tag 24/7 for the months leading up to the ‘trial’– which I also attended, I sent non-anonymous letters to the board and HA. If I can do those things given my vulnerability, and with my limited means, power and influence, isn’t it fair that I’m curious as to what Dean Pood did?

Date: Sep 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tinctoris
" Let me ask it another way. As lowly, relatively powerless Assistant, I did what I could to help F&G. I voted no confidence on both issues, I joined AAUP and attended every meeting and rally, I donated a few hundred dollars to the legal defense fund, I wore a ‘I support F&G’ tag 24/7 for the months leading up to the ‘trial’– which I also attended, I sent non-anonymous letters to the board and HA. If I can do those things given my vulnerability, and with my limited means, power and influence, isn’t it fair that I’m curious as to what Dean Pood did? "

From what I understood, Dean Pood hid under his desk for the better part of the Spring Semester.