Whiting's Court Date - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Whiting's Court Date

Date: Sep 14, 2004

I hope it does get thrown out. She is setting a dangerous precedent. What she is trying to do to the tenure system is far worse than what some of you think Thames has done to it.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

LOL. It isn't getting thrown out, professional. Sounds like a bit of sour grapes - do you feel threatened, perhaps??

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: professional
"I hope it does get thrown out. She is setting a dangerous precedent. What she is trying to do to the tenure system is far worse than what some of you think Thames has done to it."

Nepotism is wrong. And so are you.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Melissa Whiting's aim is true, to quote my favorite troubadour. SFT and Co. will go down one lawsuit at a time. He'd better hire that extra legal counsel soon, because he's going to need it.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: professional
"I hope it does get thrown out. She is setting a dangerous precedent. What she is trying to do to the tenure system is far worse than what some of you think Thames has done to it."

Excuse my ignorance here; I feel as if I am walking into the middle of a movie, and everybody else knows what's going on.

Is someone willing to explain the nature of the Whiting suit and what "she is trying to do to the tenure system" as professional puts it?

Date: Sep 14, 2004

She is not trying to do anything to the tenure system. She was approved for promotion and tenure by the UAC and Provost, against her chair's recommendation. She had impeccable credentials and her chair, Dana Thames, turned on her - academic jealousy many say. She heard nothing (favorable or negative) from the president all summer (2002) and was not given a contract. She sued and now she has her day in court. I know it's a jury trial. I think that's the short version of it.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Wrong. She was NOT approved for tenure, and now she is trying to have the whole system changed because she feels she had a right to her employment. Her denial of tenure was not much different from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Looks to me like some(Prof.& Unprof) are now home for Ivan and trying to stir up some debate to keep from getting bored.

Oh well, the documents to be presented in court will tell the story..... Why isn't the trial in September, as was first discussed back in the summer ? Is SFT trying to delay to get an out of court settlement?

Date: Sep 14, 2004

I am confused, as is not unusual.

I understand that MW was "NOT approved for tenure." You have said that, and Swan Song said basically the same thing. The difference seems to lie in who was in favor of granting tenure and who was in opposition. SS says that (1) the UAC and Provost were in favor of granting tenure, but (2) the chair was opposed. When you say that SS is "Wrong" are you saying wrong about the first point, the second, or both?

Why do you say "now she is trying to have the whole system changed?" Unless that is part of the relief for which she has sued, that will not be "on the table" for resolution in the lawsuit, will it?

When you say that this matter is "not much different from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied," that intrigues me. You have just stated that this matter IS different, just not MUCH different. What is the difference? Do most denials take place over the recommendations of the UAC and the Provost? ( I know this may be seen as "hair splitting", but lawsuits are about nothing if not splitting hairs.)

I don't know anything about the particulars of this matter, but a jury of twelve people, good and true, are likely to start out wondering why a father ever allowed himself to be put in the position of approving or disapproving the recommendation of his own daughter. This is one of those situations where a decision maker would typically recuse himself, if only to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: unprofessional
"

Wrong. She was NOT approved for tenure, and now she is trying to have the whole system changed because she feels she had a right to her employment. Her denial of tenure was not much different from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied."

Don't people who are denied tenure get an official notification in May? Not being notified would be a big difference.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: unprofessional
"Her denial of tenure was not much different from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied."

unprofessional, you say that her denial of tenure was 'not much different' from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied." In just what way was it different?

Date: Sep 14, 2004

In the 1980's, my mother was a full-time (5 classes) English instructor at a local high school, which she had been teaching at for several years. She typically taught college prep English, although some years she would teach a class or two of non-college English. She did not teach any other subject.

At the end of her last year with that school, she recieved a notification that she would be teaching "5 courses of college prep English" the following school year. However, when contract time came, they sent her a contract giving her one class of non-college English.

Naturally, she was very dismayed, so she went to the school administration to ask what had happened. She was told that there had been "some complaints" about her and that it had been decided to reduce her teaching accordingly. When she asked questions about these complaints, she was stonewalled. The administration refused to discuss who complained, what the complaints were, or even when they were made. When she asked to see her personnel file, she was told that she was not allowed to have access to it.

She then went to the Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE), who strongly suggested that she sue the school system. When she informed them that she didn't have the money to hire a lawyer (she was widowed by this time, and I was too young to contribute financially), the MAE retained one for her. He immediately filed a federal lawsuit against the school system for violating her civil rights (refusing to allow her to "confront her accusers" by refusing to name them, or allowing her to see her personnel records) and for a violation of her contract (her "official" contract for one class of non-college English arrived late, meaning that the "letter of intent" for five classes of college prep English became her contract by default).

After years of delays, my mother won on all counts. Unfortunately, by the time it came to court, the school administration had changed, so those truly responsible were not really made to pay for it.

Although there are differences, the Whitting case does sound somewhat similar. Allowing a contract deadline to pass; promising one thing, then producing another. I just hope that it doesn't take years to come to court, so that SFT is still in the dome when the hammer comes down.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: unprofessional
" Wrong. She was NOT approved for tenure, and now she is trying to have the whole system changed because she feels she had a right to her employment. Her denial of tenure was not much different from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied."

Oh, yes she was. Her last piece of correspondence with the university before a letter from Dana's daddy was when she received confirmation of her successful pursuit of t and p. SFT dropped the ball - never notifying her for or against until he simply didn't offer a contract. Well, the jury - in Federal Court - will be the judges of that. Folks, it wouldn't have gotten this far if she didn't have a case. Chaze is her attorney, and that says volumes. SFT and cronies have played the delay game out - and their time has run out. The whole system changed??? Get real - the system "changed" when a good ole boy took over the helm at USM, and it was NOT for the better.

Date: Sep 14, 2004

"professional,"

I will apply the principle of charity, and assume you made your statements because you know very little about tenure or very little about this case--not because you approve of Shelby Thames' actions regardless of what he does.

For the most part, the regulations governing tenure at USM are the same ones that apply at most other American universities. The significant exception is the requirement that all faculty members who are continuing their employment (including those with tenure) sign a new one-year contract each summer. (As far as I know, only the Mississippi state system does things this way.)

Now here's what happened, as I understand it.

Instead of notifying Melissa Whiting that she was getting tenure or being turned down for it, Shelby Thames "pocket vetoed" her tenure by refusing to issue her a contract for the next year, and refusing to send her tenure paperwork on to the IHL Board (which actually grants tenure in the Mississippi state university system).

If Thames had officially turned her down for tenure (university presidents have the authority to do that, but they hardly ever overrule a provost's recommendation), she would have gotten a notice to that effect, by a specified deadline in the late Spring semester of 2002. And she would have gotten a final year at USM (Fall 2002 and Spring 2003) before losing her job. At least, that's what happens when a junior faculty member is turned down for tenure at any other American university that I've ever heard of.

By "forgetting" to send her tenure paperwork to the Board during the summer of 2002, and "forgetting" to issue her any contract for 2002-2003 (not even a contract for a final year), Thames violated the standard procedures for denial of tenure. He also took denial of tenure to be equivalent to firing a faculty member on the spot, in secret. Melissa Whiting didn't even know that she'd been fired, until a few weeks into the Fall semester 2002.

It was because of the Whiting case (among others) that USM faculty members, some of them tenured, were afraid that the Thames administration would "forget" to send them their contracts in July or August 2004--then fire them early in the Fall semester for not returning their signed contracts on time. It looks now as though Thames didn't attempt this Kafkaesque procedure in the summer of 2004. My inference is that Thames didn't dare, because the publicity already garnered by Melissa Whiting's lawsuit made it too risky.

Let me add that I've served as Chair of a departmental Tenure and Promotion Committee at Clemson University for five years, and I've never heard of a case in which the President or Provost refused to notify a faculty member about a tenure decision in a timely fashion. Department committees, department chairs, deans, and the provost all have strict deadlines for making their tenure recommendations, precisely because everyone knows that slipping the final deadline for notifying the tenure candidate will lead to a successful grievance against the administration or a successful lawsuit against the university.

And amongst all the tales of sinister deeds and administrative folly in Clemson's past, I've never heard a story about a faculty member being fired in secret while the administration pretended that he or she would be back the next fall.

Robert Campbell

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Do any of you have any idea why MW was not recommended for tenure by her department? I think you would all be shocked. Why don't you look into this?

Date: Sep 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Concerned
"Do any of you have any idea why MW was not recommended for tenure by her department? I think you would all be shocked. Why don't you look into this?"

Concerned,

OK, why don't you tell us?

If you do know, that won't be hard to do.

If you don't know, you're using one of the least imaginative strategies yet devised for spreading FUD.

Robert Campbell

Date: Sep 14, 2004

Oh Concerned,

Will we be as "shocked" as we were about Shelby's big NEWS about Stringer and Glamser when it was finally revealed?? Dana and cronies - give it up -- if you are bothered, it's because you should be bothered. The tide is turning . . . and your post was well . . . pretty underwhelming.

Date: Sep 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Swan Song
"She is not trying to do anything to the tenure system. She was approved for promotion and tenure by the UAC and Provost, against her chair's recommendation. She had impeccable credentials and her chair, Dana Thames, turned on her - academic jealousy many say. She heard nothing (favorable or negative) from the president all summer (2002) and was not given a contract. She sued and now she has her day in court. I know it's a jury trial. I think that's the short version of it."

I have no 'direct' knowledge of Prof. Whiting's lawsuit, but assuming that SS is correct in the above, this isn't too different from some cases I heard in my year on the UAC. We had a number of 'equivocal' promotion and tenure dossiers, in which the departmental committee voted 'yes', the chair voted 'no', the college committee voted 'yes', so by the time it got to us, it was up to the UAC to make sense out of the pattern.

Back then, the VPAA and the President usually followed the recommendation of the UAC. Of course, that was 'pre-SFT', when procedures listed in the Faculty Senate Handbook were mutually agreed upon by professors and administration, and were followed in professional deliberations. The old days . . .

Date: Sep 16, 2004

Concerned and Professional sound spooked, and they should be. MW is in no way trying to change tenure, in fact, she followed university procedures, SFT and Dana Gay Thames (it's her middle name, no kidding!!!) did not. Nepotism, guys and gals????? The UNIVERSITY advisory Council weighed in and the former provost concurred. She (MW) should have earned T and P........I'd bet the bank Professional and Concerned are in CISE...............and let's not forget what they (CISE, Dana Gay, SFT and at the time, newly appointed provost Grimes) did to M-M Sulentic, who retained Mike Adelman two years before Glamser and Striger. Bet she is watching and waiting...................why not ask both for their CVs and compare them to whom ever goes up for T and P in CISE this year? Professional jealousy (Sulentic and Whiting were publishing, networking across campus, highly involved in Service Learning, and presented at NCTE with former USM employees MJ McMahon, Asoc. Provost, and April Miller, Asoc. Dean) is what Dana Gay does best. I remember as a member of their college, CoEP, when Sulentic was a finalist for Diss of the Year Award from IRA and Dana Gay refused to publicly acknowledge. Gee, wonder about that....................why would you not give accolades to junior faculty??? I, for one, plan to be in the front row Feb 14 and my guess is Sulentic will be there taking notes. Y'all also need to look up the statute of limitations in such cases. Professional and concerned about what? Your own sorry (looking) butts!!

Date: Sep 16, 2004

Not to disagree with any of your salient points, list lurker, but I'm confused about why you are making a point of DGT's name. "Gay" was a popular middle name at one time; in fact, one of my cousins, who is probably DGT's age, has that middle name. Please, just focus on important stuff.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by list lurker: "The UNIVERSITY advisory Council weighed in and the former provost concurred..... She (MW) should have earned T and P ...... why not ask both for their CVs and compare them to whom ever goes up for T and P in CISE this year?"

Is departmental need considered in tenure decisions at the University of Southern Mississippi (e.g., the extent to which a particular faculty member's specific area of specialization or expertise fits into a department at the time that faculty member is up for tenure)?

Date: Sep 16, 2004

I'm not sure about that question absolutely -- I do know that MW was one of the few secondary ed people in the dept (most are Reading, Special Ed, and Elementary Ed) - the late Jesse Palmer was secondary ed too. MW did a very successful job teaching CISE 313 - a required course for all secondary ed content majors. She also was very successful in developing an English Ed graduate program. She chaired several successful dissertations and Master's Theses as well. She served on the Professional Ed Council and served as chair of the RADAR Committee on that. She published extensively - she had developed a class that met in the Petal Public Schools (middle and high) for preservice teachers. She was an NCTE (Nat'l Council of Teachers of English) officer at one point, she was one of the first in her dept. to develop WebCT components in her classes. She got along well with people all over campus. When I heard what happened to her, I was frankly shocked. However, in retrospect given the present climate on campus, it all has begun to make more sense. Her major detractors were DT and CRK (and I think M Richmond). Given the annual evaluations that I saw of hers, I found the treatment of her to be quite shocking. I guess we'll learn the rest of the story in Feb.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Dept. Needs
"I'm not sure about that question absolutely"

If the departmental need dimension is considered, that should be clearly stated in whatever faculty handbook in effect at the time.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

TW&PF - we may not be awarding this week but we are still evaluating - like it!

Date: Sep 16, 2004

The lawsuit is focused on contractual law and the Faculty Handbook. The argument for this lawsuit is that USM should stand by its Faculty Handbook. They'd punish faculty members who didn't abide by it - what ramifications are in it for them when they arbitrarily and capriciously decide to ignore it???

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Herald

"USM should stand by its Faculty Handbook."

I thought that too. Until I discovered the USM Faculty Handbook is useless in some important personnel matters. The Ghost of W.D. McCain must be hovering over the "mother copy" of the handbook.

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: tenure wise and pound foolish
""

The late Jesse Palmer, in the Faculty Senate proceedings, always believed in and argued for the Faculty Handbook being considered as a "contract" between the university and faculty members. I agree with you (know where you're coming from) about the ghosts of the past - but with litigation as it now stands, the "little" person has rights as well. I hope to high Heaven that she prevails - because it represents a win-win situation for faculty members everywhere. The university has terminated faculty members for failing to abide by the Faculty Handbook - they shouldn't be able to operate from a different set of principles when a faculty member follows them and They Don't. She's a pretty tough cookie who will have her day in court. I, for one, hope her the best!!!!

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: unprofessional
" Wrong. She was NOT approved for tenure, and now she is trying to have the whole system changed because she feels she had a right to her employment. Her denial of tenure was not much different from any other instructor whose tenure gets denied."

How can you, in any type of right mind, post this? If you, in fact, know the facts, you'd never post this message. Reality check!!!

You will look so silly come February. BTW, from what people tell me, SFT has desperately tried to delay these proceedings for what are now becoming obvious reasons.

Remember that SFT acted against MW in that honeymoon period when he had just become president. He really believed in his omnipotence then!!! The Emporer STILL continues to wear no clothes!!!

Date: Sep 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: duh
" The Emporer STILL continues to wear no clothes!!!"

And, frankly, some people should never be seen naked.