Incredulous wrote:

---

Regardless of the merits of the conflicts in Business, this will make things a bit easier for the new dean.

---

Incredulous,

As I read your post, I have to wonder, "What is (s)he talking about?"  I'm seriously interested to know why Frank Mixon's departure will "make things a bit easier for the new dean?" 

Will Mixon's departure make it easier to maintain research productivity?  No.  There's no way a dean can lose his or her most research productive faculty member and have this claim be true.

Will Mixon's departure make it easier to put high-quality instructors in the classrooms in Greene Hall?  No.  Mixon has been recognized as one of the CoB's best instructors, and any replacement who is hired will be an uncertain proposition. 

Will Mixon's departure make it easier to attract young faculty to Economics?  Only is they don't care about national reputation.  Mixon is the only faculty member in Economics with a respected national reputation; others may claim to have a national reputation, but nobody in Econ can approach Mixon's reputation.  People at Tier 2 schools who have never met Frank have asked me about him.  They ask because he publishes his research in quality scholarly outlets that are recognized as such at quality universities.  The Econ department no longer has a truly nationally-recognized researcher on its faculty.

The only way Mixon's departure will make it easier on the new dean is that the new dean will have one less free-thinking, intelligent, and outspoken faculty member to deal with.  This will only be a good thing if the new dean is interested in bringing in more USM grads to the faculty and rebuilding the culture of corruption that flourished in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, the culture that rewarded faculty who were loyal to administrators instead of rewarding faculty who were doing good teaching, research, and true service.

Unless you're against faculty governance and transparency in administration, there's not a good way to spin this departure.

Or maybe you wish to clarify your statement?

Postscript:

I'm not going to come on here and parry with you.  If you think losing a faculty member with Frank's qualifications is a good thing, then there's little hope that you possess the qualities necessary to engage in a meaningful discussion.  If, however, your comments had some other meaning, then I'd still be glad to read them.

The CoB's major problem is that its operating model is flawed in a way that is counter to academic principles.  At the CoB, administrators give orders and faculty are expected to follow them without question.  Faculty who question administrative decisions, irrespective of how little faculty input was considered during those decision making processes, are labeled as pariahs and are the targets of administrative retaliation.

In principle, administrators are supposed to exist to make faculty members' jobs easier, to handle the paperwork and the truly administrative functions that make the organization move forward.  In reality, CoB administrators wield their administrative authority to keep all the workers in line and moving toward the goals set by administrators.  Publicly disagree with a dean's or chair's decisions and you might find yourself teaching four courses, four preparations, five days a week, days and nights, at Stennis, Gulf Park, Jackson County, and Hattiesburg.  Of course, this type of behavior is clearly and directly in opposition to the principles of faculty governance.

I say again: There is no positive way to spin Frank Mixon's departure unless you think that administrators' orders should never be questioned or scrutinized.