I copied below Class SACS's post from another thread because it was so much better.  Reporter

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This morning's article in the Hattiesburg American, "Thames put USM at risk" by Amy Young makes me proud to know her, even indirectly.

Dr. Young explains why she and others are stepping up to help with the SACS problem.  My summary and translation of her words is loosely converted to because it is the right thing to do.  She clearly states that the faculty who are working diligently to get the University of Southern Mississippi off of academic probation may be doing so at great personal risk and in opposition to the Thames administration.  She acknowledges that their efforts may end up saving his floundering  presidency.  Yet she and other faculty serve because they care more about the university than any individual administration.  Wow!

More pressure on the rest of us to spread the message, Thames has failed and the faculty are indeed rising to the challenge.

Kudos Dr. Young, you are a class act.

Robert, I will keep checking to see it the electronic version ever gets online. In the past guest editorials sometimes appeared only in the hard copy and other times both.  Maybe Kevin Walters can supply this.

Amy Young,

 

You continue to demonstrate that you are a hero among heroes, many of  whom must remain nameless.

Dr. Young's full text:

Many faculty members have been asked and have already agreed to serve on committees whose purposes are to address the issues that have resulted in probation for USM by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).  In effect, faculty members are being asked to engage in even more service activities.  They agreed and will agree to be involved in SACS accreditation issues because of a deep commitment to USM, students, and higher education in Mississippi. 

 

This type of service, the “diligent, active participation of faculty members,” is essential to accreditation and success of the university.  However, meaningful engagement in important service activities has not been recognized by the Thames Administration as valuable in awarding tenure, promotion, or merit raises.  Thus, faculty members have to ask, “Should I work on those professional endeavors that are rewarded by Thames Administration (such as securing grants and contracts and “buying” myself out of teaching), or should I work diligently to help USM constructively address the issues that have resulted in probation by SACS?  If my choice is the latter, I risk denial of tenure and promotion or raises, or unsatisfactory annual reviews that may trigger a post-tenure review.”

 

Most faculty members have been basically excluded from providing input into major decisions for the entire two and one-half years of the Thames Administration.  They have had miniscule roles in formulating major goals for the university or in planning and implementing strategies to achieve goals.  Faculty organizations such as AAUP USM and the Faculty Senate have been expressing concern for two and one-half years that faculty members have been excluded from meaningful roles in determining the priorities of our university.  In this context, members of AAUP USM find it ironic that the Thames Administration is now urging faculty to help repair the probation wreckage and devote considerable time to the reaffirmation of accreditation process.

 

Why was USM placed on SACS probation?  We believe it is because the Thames Administration failed to recognize that maintaining the accreditation of our university is one of the most important responsibilities an administration has.  Simply put, the Thames Administration devoted its energies to other “priorities” such as reducing colleges from nine to five without faculty input, firing good deans who were knowledgeable about accreditation, and attempting to terminate dedicated tenured faculty.  The misjudgments and failures of the Thames Administration have put USM in jeopardy.  And then the Thames Administration has had the audacity to put a “spin” on its misjudgments and failures in order to deflect the blame to others.    

 

Despite obstacles from the Thames Administration, faculty members recognize that resolving the accreditation issues must take precedence over other challenges currently facing USM.  But as members of AAUP USM, we strongly disagree with the statement in the January 5 editorial in the Hattiesburg American that “how Thames manages the accreditation issue may well determine his future as president of Southern Miss.”  Rather, we believe how USM faculty rise to the challenge may well determine the character of our university for years to come.  We also believe that the future of the Thames presidency should have already been determined by a two and one-half year track record of missteps and controversies.  It will be unfortunate if the efforts of faculty members help to extend the Thames presidency.  Based on a two and one-half year performance, real accountability standards by the Board of Trustees would have already returned Dr. Thames to his status as a successful scientist.

 

Amy Young, I truly admire you.

I've put the entire text of Amy's editorial on Liberty and Power at

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/9495.html

It deserves to be read by a wider audience.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Sunday Comics
"Not on Scholarship was obviously referring to being conscripted to work on SACS. Not on Scholarship was obviously not referring to being conscripted to write a guest editorial. "

---

I told Moose that, but he wouldn't listen.

Could someone post this editorial?  I do not have access.  I am in Alabama.

just adding my voice to others--

Amy, this is absolutely right on the mark, and at just the right time.

Bravo.

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

IF AMY. ANNE. JAMELA, ETC CAN ALL SPEAK UP, THEN WHERE IS THE REST OF THE FACULTY? THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS. WHAT RETRIBUTION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE THEY FACED? I AM NOT A TROLL, I REALLY AM JUST CURIOUS.

If you have a solid academic reputation in your field (as I know Anne and Jameela both do, am not familiar with Dr. Young's work, but she is a bit more tied to the region) and you don't have kids in college in Mississippi, etc etc then there is a smidge more freedom for you. As an adjunct this past term, I did not breathe word one to any of my students, because I knew that teachers could be, and had been, pulled out of classes in mid-semester and never mind about the poor students. I knew that if they could get rid of Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser, I had zero protection if I had been (mis)quoted at any point.
ALUMNI 2 makes a valid point, that more people probably could speak up, but we have had this debate before. A lot of folks have already fallen on their swords, and frankly it hasn't done a lot of good. They are gone, and SFT is still here.

ALUMNI 2, it's up to YOU and your FELLOW ALUMS, and STUDENTS and PARENTS to take up the fight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ALUMNI 2
"IF AMY. ANNE. JAMELA, ETC CAN ALL SPEAK UP, THEN WHERE IS THE REST OF THE FACULTY? THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS. WHAT RETRIBUTION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE THEY FACED? I AM NOT A TROLL, I REALLY AM JUST CURIOUS."

---

One hundred percent of the Faculty Senate spoke up last spring. Ninety three percent of the faculty voting spoke up last spring. The people who have really dropped the ball are the alumni, and they are the ones who will live with the fruits of their decision for the next twenty years. Faculty members can and will move on. Over 200 already have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The Rock
"To quote LVN: "ALUMNI 2, it's up to YOU and your FELLOW ALUMS, and STUDENTS and PARENTS to take up the fight." That about sums it up.  Until the alumni start paying attention to the train wreck that Shelby has made of USM, nothing significant is going to change.  Perhaps when the alumni (and parents of current students) realize that their USM diplomas are about to worth less than a diploma from Jackson State, Delta State, Alcorn State, and other "regional" schools that somehow manage to avoid losing accredidation, they'll say something to people that matter.  I don't know what more the faculty can do at this point - it's time for the taxpayers to make their voices heard.  Or send their kids to Mississippi Valley State.....    "

---

Both The Rock and Done Enough are right.  Most faculty members are now in self-preservation mode, meaning that many are seeking ways out of USM (with an increasing number considering leaving academia for other careers rather than put up with anymore of this crap), or are at least keeping their heads low while simultaneously avoiding interaction with deans and above.   Amy Young is also right that many members of the faculty will help pull USM out of accreditation probation, but many other faculty members are tired enough of the whole charade to say "no way" - let the Administration fix it.  Never in my life have I seen such a thoroughly demoralized group of employees who have grown to hate the people they work for (the Administration and IHL Board, that is).  How many faculty members can even stomach being in the same room with Thames, Mader, Grimes, Malone, Lassen, Moore, and so on?  Not me, not any longer.  They are a disgrace not only to USM but to Mississippi, academia, and professional life in general.  When the new Administration is installed within the next year look for many of these people to be shorn of their coercive power (the only kind they have) and exposed as the cowardly know-nothings that we know they are.  Sorry for the negative tone, but I am reminded of the great Nina Simone song from the early 1960s - "Mississippi Goddam" - enough is enough.

Angeline, you implicitly set up a choice between resistance/speaking out and "self-preservation." As LVN points out, that is a necessary choice for many who have less protection (though I'm pretty sure that academic reputation is no protection here!), who have families to support, who have children in MS colleges, etc.

But I've acted as I have because, to some extent, I think that choice is a false one. What is it that we want to protect--our jobs? And what are those jobs? At what point does our work become meaningless or trivial because the principles that protected our free speech and thought have been gutted? Then it's not a job we're protecting, it's a paycheck.

I'm not discounting the importance of a paycheck, or meaning any disrespect to those who need to protect their livelihood. I've said from the beginning of this thing that those of us who feel we can speak should stand up in front of those who feel they can't. Those of us who have some modicum of safety must act to protect others.

But I am saying that it's possible to be ready to leave USM without being ready to leave the resistance. What we're defending here is not only USM, but the principles of academe, the highest values that we aspire to (and, alas, too often fall short of!): free speech, free thought, civil discourse, reasoned persuasion, collegial labor, open inquiry, the democracy of the intellect. If we don't work to preserve these values where we stand, then how can we expect to find them to find them anywhere?

As for myself, I'll still be talking if/when I walk through that open door.

NO QUARTER--not here, not anywhere.
Anne Wallace