Another excellent letter to the HA - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 2, 2004

Another excellent letter to the HA

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"Academics must be main focus LETTERS Why should I vote for the bond issue? This bond issue will only help improve athletic facilities at the University of Southern Mississippi. It seems to me that we only care about USM athletics. USM will go out of its way to be the best at every sport no matter what the cost. It's too bad that USM won't take the time to make improvements in academics. Evidence of this can be seen in the drop in rankings, the hiring of unqualified professors and the release of our experienced professors. People must understand that we can't have it all. Academics must be the main focus. After all, isn't that what a university is all about? Yet we focus more on the building of our athletic facilities and ignore the decline of our education. If this is what's going to happen, then I will get my education elsewhere. Jason Alexander, Hattiesburg "

If the truth were known, I'll bet Jason's view is very similar to the view of most (but not all) college students (at USM and elsewhere). I once asked a class to indicate the reason(s) underlying their college selection. Only one student cited the athletic program. Academics, finances, and convenience were among those listed. But athletics was not even in the running.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"Academics must be main focus LETTERS Why should I vote for the bond issue? This bond issue will only help improve athletic facilities at the University of Southern Mississippi. It seems to me that we only care about USM athletics. USM will go out of its way to be the best at every sport no matter what the cost. It's too bad that USM won't take the time to make improvements in academics. Evidence of this can be seen in the drop in rankings, the hiring of unqualified professors and the release of our experienced professors. People must understand that we can't have it all. Academics must be the main focus. After all, isn't that what a university is all about? Yet we focus more on the building of our athletic facilities and ignore the decline of our education. If this is what's going to happen, then I will get my education elsewhere. Jason Alexander, Hattiesburg "

This is making my old gray head spin. Isn't this a specious argument? What will be gained by faculty members if the bond proposal is defeated? Will additional university monies be available for salary increases, or hiring additional professors, or new equipment? I don't see the connection, but this writer and others before him imply that it's an either/or choice. I see nothing inconsistent about supporting improvements to athletic facilities and emphasizing academic excellence. It's done routinely at Tier 1 universities all over the country. What am I missing here?

AE

Date: Nov 2, 2004

3 Tiers????

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
" This is making my old gray head spin. Isn't this a specious argument? What will be gained by faculty members if the bond proposal is defeated? Will additional university monies be available for salary increases, or hiring additional professors, or new equipment? I don't see the connection, but this writer and others before him imply that it's an either/or choice. I see nothing inconsistent about supporting improvements to athletic facilities and emphasizing academic excellence. It's done routinely at Tier 1 universities all over the country. What am I missing here?"

Austin Eagle is right in the sense that simultaneous support of athletics and academics is not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is done routinely at Tier 1 schools. The problem at USM, AE, is that academics at USM leaves much to be desired. It is not a Tier 1 school. It is barely a Tier 4 school (currently ranking way towards the bottom of the heap). Any available funds should be used to bring USM out of the academic quagmire into which it has been pushed.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Austin Eagle

"It is done routinely at Tier 1 universities all over the country. What am I missing here?"

Originally posted by: Emma

"3 Tiers???? "

What a great line, Emma! You need your own TV comedy show. If there were a weekly humor award on this message board, you're the one!

Date: Nov 2, 2004

AE, don't take it personally. We respect you and your wise postings. But one line in your most recent posting was just too good to ignore. Emma bravely took on the challenge.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"3 Tiers???? "

Emma,

Clever, and true with respect to the tier difference, but I still fail to see the connection. The pursuit of excellence in both areas isn't mutually exclusive, particularly when the monies come from different "pots". What, if any, is the correlation between the defeat of this bond proposal and the availability of additional funds devoted to faculty salaries and benefits?

As I understand it, should the bonds go down the toilet, you've still got the same inept Thames administration, manipulating the same operating budget. From my distant perspective, this seems more like symbolic opposition to an project supported by Thames, than an effort to advance the cause of academic excellence at USM. I've got no vote, but would hate to see the proposal defeated if the subtext is to spite Shelby.

AE

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Straight Man
"AE, don't take it personally. We respect you and your wise postings. But one line in your most recent posting was just too good to ignore. Emma bravely took on the challenge."

Take it personally? Heck, I'm honored, and my hat's off to Emma. Keep 'em coming.

AE

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Austin Eagle

What am I missing here?:"

Shared governance, national searches, an effective tenure system, numerous faculty members who have departed, and a caring IHL.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"What am I missing here?"

A full football stadium.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

High faculty morale.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Oak
"Shared governance, national searches, an effective tenure system, numerous faculty members who have departed, and a caring IHL. "

Oak,

I'm not unsympathetic to these concerns. You're all expressing legitimately held opinions, which I share, that the Mississippi IHL and the present administration are not committed to advancing academic excellence at USM.

That is not the question I pose. Do you think, or are you suggesting that in the event of the defeat of this bond proposal, tax revenues from the community will be directed, or re-directed, to USM for faculty raises, additional professors, library holdings, lab and computer equipment? Do you believe that a bond defeat will somehow yield a kinder gentler Thames administration and a caring IHL? The way I see it (and I welcome your efforts to correct my thinking), if the bonds are approved, USM is improved in a small, abeit non-academic way. If the bands are defeated, no athletic facility improvements are made, no additional funds are available for academic purposes, and nothing whatever changes with respect the the IHL, Thames' corrupt administration, shared governance, or oppression of the faculty.

I just don't view this battle, if it is a battle, as having any bearing on your expressed concerns unless some separate bond proposal is contemplated which produces the same tax revenues and sets them aside for new academic facilities. By now the die is cast. I'm just trying to understand the thinking. Whatever is decided is OK by me, and when in Hattiesburg, I eat all my meals out. I'm sorry if I seem obtuse, and thanks for your patience.

AE

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Oak
"Shared governance, national searches, an effective tenure system, numerous faculty members who have departed, and a caring IHL. "

Mr. Wonderful, I nominate the list of the missing.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
" Oak, I'm not unsympathetic to these concerns. You're all expressing legitimately held opinions, which I share, that the Mississippi IHL and the present administration are not committed to advancing academic excellence at USM. That is not the question I pose. Do you think, or are you suggesting that in the event of the defeat of this bond proposal, tax revenues from the community will be directed, or re-directed, to USM for faculty raises, additional professors, library holdings, lab and computer equipment? Do you believe that a bond defeat will somehow yield a kinder gentler Thames administration and a caring IHL? The way I see it (and I welcome your efforts to correct my thinking), if the bonds are approved, USM is improved in a small, abeit non-academic way. If the bands are defeated, no athletic facility improvements are made, no additional funds are available for academic purposes, and nothing whatever changes with respect the the IHL, Thames' corrupt administration, shared governance, or oppression of the faculty. I just don't view this battle, if it is a battle, as having any bearing on your expressed concerns unless some separate bond proposal is contemplated which produces the same tax revenues and sets them aside for new academic facilities. By now the die is cast. I'm just trying to understand the thinking. Whatever is decided is OK by me, and when in Hattiesburg, I eat all my meals out. I'm sorry if I seem obtuse, and thanks for your patience. AE"

AE - you are, of course, correct on all counts. I am unable to refute anything you say in your post. On the other hand, I am irrefutably correct on all counts too. Our respective views are not mutually exclusive. It's just that I am puzzled why USM administrators, former administrators, or alumni would openly and aggressiely support a bond referrendum which would largely support the athletic facilities when so many of USM's academic facilties are in such a primitive state.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"
Oak,
I'm not unsympathetic to these concerns. You're all expressing legitimately held opinions, which I share, that the Mississippi IHL and the present administration are not committed to advancing academic excellence at USM.
That is not the question I pose. Do you think, or are you suggesting that in the event of the defeat of this bond proposal, tax revenues from the community will be directed, or re-directed, to USM for faculty raises, additional professors, library holdings, lab and computer equipment? Do you believe that a bond defeat will somehow yield a kinder gentler Thames administration and a caring IHL? The way I see it (and I welcome your efforts to correct my thinking), if the bonds are approved, USM is improved in a small, abeit non-academic way. If the bands are defeated, no athletic facility improvements are made, no additional funds are available for academic purposes, and nothing whatever changes with respect the the IHL, Thames' corrupt administration, shared governance, or oppression of the faculty.
I just don't view this battle, if it is a battle, as having any bearing on your expressed concerns unless some separate bond proposal is contemplated which produces the same tax revenues and sets them aside for new academic facilities. By now the die is cast. I'm just trying to understand the thinking. Whatever is decided is OK by me, and when in Hattiesburg, I eat all my meals out. I'm sorry if I seem obtuse, and thanks for your patience.
AE"

You are correct Austin Eagle. The situation reminds me of the last adventure in "Animal House". The frat house facing utter defeat executed a completely senseless and stupid act of defiance resulting in the sabotage of the homecoming parade. Of course, that was the end of the movie and the members left both college and town. Could a vote against the bond issue be one last act to get the IHL, Governor, public, state or nation to notice that things are not right here? I wonder who will be leaving this university and town in 2005?

At least tonight we will see the bond outcome and listen to the spin by all concerned.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: TheFrat
" Could a vote against the bond issue be one last act to get the IHL, Governor, public, state or nation to notice that things are not right here?"

TheFrat - I can't imagine any circustances under which the IHL, the Governor, the state, or the nation would give a hill a beans about a local bond issue outcome.

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Oak
"AE - you are, of course, correct on all counts. I am unable to refute anything you say in your post. On the other hand, I am irrefutably correct on all counts too. Our respective views are not mutually exclusive. It's just that I am puzzled why USM administrators, former administrators, or alumni would openly and aggressiely support a bond referrendum which would largely support the athletic facilities when so many of USM's academic facilties are in such a primitive state. "

Oak,

OK, I've got it....sort of. I agree that every complaint and concern that you've voiced is completely legitimate and should be remedied, beginning with a change in the administration. So I concur that you're "irrefutably correct" on all counts. The rub for me is the notion that supporting a bond issue that has no adverse impact on any of your concerns is somehow antithetical to supporting improvement of academic facilities. In other words, supporting the one does not preclude supporting the other. I'm really not arguing with you and hope I don't sound as though I am. I don't live or vote in Hattiesburg so the only personal impact I'll see is higher restaurant and motel bills. I just cling to the belief that whenever the opportunity to improve USM arises, be it in academics or athletics, it should be seized. That's all. I'll not be exercised whatever the bond outcome and again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten me. Perhaps we can discuss "strategerie" more at the coming out party.

AE

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle ". . . supporting the one does not preclude supporting the other."

AE - agreed. And yes, we will meet at the big party. And, as one of this board's wiser posters said a week or two ago, let's hope that it occurs before hell freezes over!

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Oak
"AE - It's just that I am puzzled why USM administrators, former administrators, or alumni would openly and aggressiely support a bond referrendum which would largely support the athletic facilities when so many of USM's academic facilties are in such a primitive state. "

Oak,

Upon further reflection I believe you've identified the nut of the matter. If these folks you mention, Lucas et al, are the prime movers behind the bond issue, and have some sort of PR or lobbying machine in place, then perhaps they should be approached with the proposition that they marshall these same resources to raise funds for academic facility improvements. They'd be hard pressed to refuse, having just backed improvements to the stadium, or so I'd think. Then again, I'm not on the scene and don't know them or their motives.

By the way, just to satisfy my own personal curiosity, how were the many improvements to the athletic facilities at Ole Miss and MSU funded? Was this state money, or some other source such as bonds? It seems there's a precedent here somewhere. I just don't know what it is. Isn't this the place where Invictus interjects an appropriate Dylan quote?

AE

Date: Nov 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"Isn't this the place where Invictus interjects an appropriate Dylan quote?
AE"

Something is happening here, but I don't know what it is.

<crosses self />
<clicks high heels />

Date: Nov 3, 2004

AE: I respect your posts and always look forward to reading what you have to say. I remain your humble fellow smartass poster.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"AE: I respect your posts and always look forward to reading what you have to say. I remain your humble fellow smartass poster. "

Emma,

Thanks. You've made my day. And might I add that in my opinion, in these trying and often grim times, we can never have too many smartasses. Keep up the good work.

AE

Date: Nov 3, 2004

Emma, Austin Eagle. Neither of you guys ever struck me as a smartass. Your message board postings have never suggested that.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

Taxes are in effect a zero sum option. No new taxes is why this bond failed. If there are to be new taxes what about books for the library: current budget is shot, no profs can order books. what about new dorm for the women? what about renovating classrooms? In short, one bond bill and an increase in taxes can support one kind of physical plant improvement or another. To think that this election cycle we can increase taxes for a new locker rooom and then make the case for yet another tax again for more improvements wouldnt fly even if the whole state were democratic. No new taxes: these three words and the relization that taxes would go to a locker room and not books, buildings or dorms tell you why the community voted against it.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: I know a smartass when I see one
"Emma, Austin Eagle. Neither of you guys ever struck me as a smartass. Your message board postings have never suggested that."

Better a smartass than a dumb one...

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: I know a smartass when I see one
"Emma, Austin Eagle. Neither of you guys ever struck me as a smartass. Your message board postings have never suggested that."

Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt. I'm no smartass by design (and I doubt Emma is either--she's just extraordinarily witty), but I do have an unconventional sense of humor which doesn't always wear well. It's heartening to know that my occasionally inappropriate remarks haven't come across as mean-spirited, particularly since I'm a true admirer of those of you in the trenches at USM. When I do feel that overwhelming need to assume the mantle of smartassedness, I always try to do so in the guise of my various message board alter egos.

AE

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
" When I do feel that overwhelming need to assume the mantle of smartassedness, I always try to do so in the guise of my various message board alter egos. AE "

Posting under multiple assumed names? I am SHOCKED.

Date: Nov 3, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Polyonymous
"Posting under multiple assumed names? I am SHOCKED."

Moi? I certainly didn't confess to that. That post was undoubtedly planted by the evil Dr. Goebbels to foment unrest and undermine my credibility. I would never think of doing anything of the sort.

AE :

Date: Nov 3, 2004

Me either!