quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"Music Patron is correct. G & S accepted rather sizeable "retirement" buy-outs in return for allowing Judge Anderson to call a premature halt to the hearing before the professors' attorneys could cross-examine Thames. I suspect that the only reason you might be able to say they were "canned" (i.e., no longer allowed to have offices on campus) was partly that Thames himself was too pig-headed to agree to the solution & partly to prevent Thames from doing something idiotic to them in the future. The GS affair was not a victory for academic freedom, but it was not a victory for the University of Southern Mississippi. The only "victory" that Shelby Thames should be able to claim from the repercussions of his paranoiac behavior last spring is that IHL didn't fire him outright for being an idiot."

---

I agree with Music Patron and Invictus that it was a victory for G&S -- but a somewhat Pyrric victory. I do think it would be interesting to study their stuation vis ther Churchill situation because Churchill's notariety and his sometime celebrraty status have netted him a national stage and a national legal team and, (I suspect) some fair monetary resources to mount a defense.

Anderson came down to Hattiesburg specifically to cut a deal -- and he was empowered to threaten both Shelby and G&S if either party did not give in. Those of us who know G&S also know they were both worried that the administration would perform some dirty tricks -- like inventing some sleeze in order to weaken their credibility. Since their entire case was built on proferring an image of an administrator who had violated both professional and ethical standards, a successful campaign to impugn their characters and motivations would have seriously weakened their support from those who did not know them well. As it was, the administration was fairly successful at using innuendo about personal behavior and accusations of criminal behavior to very good effect. It diluted the message carried by the messengers.

Those were the days when we learned that this administration would not only play hard ball -- but it would stoop to any level of unethical bevavior to win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
" In fact, it would be fitting if someday the Liberal Arts building would become Glamser-Stringer in their honor.
NO QUARTER
Jameela"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: A rose by any other name
"I love it! The Glamser-Stringer Liberal Arts Building and the Thames Polymer Science Building on the same street. From the penthouse to the outhouse!"

---

I'm completely for that -- I bet we could get a poll going on that among the LA faculty. I bet FS would back it as well . . . .

I love it.

Well, why not?  You know, it was a student initiated movement that resulted in naming the dormitory for Oseola McCarty.  The administration (Fleming/interim) was none too keen on it because (1) the money had already been received, (2) Oseola McCarty was already dead, and (3) her actual contribution of less than $200,000 would not typically be enough for naming such a sizable building.

After this administration leaves, it might be worth seeing if a joint faculty/student initiative could name the Liberal Arts Building.  It could go a long way toward healing a few wounds. (And maybe wounding a few heels, too.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LVN
"her actual contribution of less than $200,000 would not typically be enough for naming such a sizable building. In that case, it was the symbolism of the gift which was so important, and in this case the symbolism would also be critical."

---

Yeah, I doubt that Lincoln contributed very much money to the Lincoln Memorial . . . MOst contemporary architecture in't designed to last much more than 20-40 years anyhow. We are already closing in on five years for the LAB ----

Besides, it also isn't unusual for Schools and Colleges to have names. So the building could be the G&S  and the College could be ________ name (the $$$). Or vice versa. Either one would be a fitting tribute.

We can name the bathrooms after a few prominent administrators.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Music Patron
"Get your facts straight, Albert. G/S won."

---

It is not fact; it is a matter of opinion. I don't know why you brought this up anyway. I never said anything bad about them, but because YOU brought it up, I will say this.

They both saw the writing on the wall after Thames presented his evidence at the hearing. They knew very well what was coming. Furthermore, the last I heard, Glamser was teaching out of the mall on the coast as part of Tulane's outreach program. Glamser is more than likely waiting until Thames' contract is up and he is replaced as president so he can come back. I bet he does. And if Stringer was not good friends with the high-ranking faculty at his new school in TX, he would not have gotten his position. But think about it......he had to pack up and move because he lost his job. You turn that into a win situation if you want to, but you are not fooling me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Albert
"
And if Stringer was not good friends with the high-ranking faculty at his new school in TX, he would not have gotten his position. But think about it......he had to pack up and move because he lost his job. You turn that into a win situation if you want to, but you are not fooling me."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"PS  I suppose it's always possible that Gary knew someone else further up in the TAMU administration, but that's not what got him the position.  Gary and his work are both stunningly well known, and it was only a matter of time before he was snapped up.  In any case, the mechanism was not as you surmise.  TAMU already had two noted Donne scholars and saw a chance to get another.  No one who knows Gary would suppose he'd be doing backroom deals.  He's too busy doing scholarship and encouraging colleagues to do the same.  Jameela"

---

Jameela and Foot Soldier:

Great posts. Incidently Frank IS teaching on the coast and likes it very much. I believe they came to him and actually wanted him to teach more than he is . . . .

Albert, go back and read the hearing transcript. Shelby presented every bit of evidence he had -- and it turned out to be nothing. The real losers in the whole sorry mess were the university and the students and faculty who worked with Gary and Frank.

You're my hero Ram!

Well argued.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Albert
" They both saw the writing on the wall after Thames presented his evidence at the hearing. They knew very well what was coming."

---

Albert,

You obviously haven't listened to the hearing...  or you wouldn't be saying such things about Thames' purported evidence.   Nor do you know anything about the circumstances, which have come out gradually since April 28, 2004.

The Board badly wanted a settlement, to avoid the embarrassment of having their guy Thames get ripped up on cross-examination.  The Board had zero intention of firing Thames in April 2004, no matter how badly he had performed.  (Thames subsequently used a "get out of jail free" card with the Board in August 2004, when USM dropped into the fourth tier in the US News rankings, and in December, when SACS probation was announced and the Board learned that Thames had not bothered to clue them in that it might be coming.  We don't know whether Thames has any "get out of jail free" cards left, but after being ordered by Richard Crofts to repudiate the Black Friday memo, he may finally have run out.)

Judge Anderson actually tried to get both parties to accept the same settlement before Thames testified. But Thames wanted to get up on the stand and bloviate.  Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser accepted the settlement before Thames was due to be cross-examined, but were given an opportunity to make statements of their own to counter the most ridiculous charges that Thames had made.

If G and S had not accepted the settlement, and their lawywers had ripped Thames to pieces on the stand, Thames would not have been fired.  And the Board would almost certainly have punished G and S for making Thames look worse, by upholding his decision to fire them (rather than giving them 2 years' salary on a "consultant" basis).  The Board would also have refrained from "advising" Angie Dvorak not to sue them--and a vengeful person with money and legal representation can inflict a lot of misery pursuing a completely meritless lawsuit, as AD looked ready to do.  On top of that, donations to G and S's legal defense fund had not covered all of the expenses they incurred in fighting Thames' attempt to fire them.

Meanwhile, Thames (and his most vocal backer, Roy Klumb) were furious about the settlement.  They certainly didn't act as though G and S had been "canned," or they wouldn't have gone around to the media lying about some of the terms of the settlement and badmouthing G and S, who they  knew full well had agreed not to criticize the Thames administration in public.

What did G and S accomplish?  They brought Thames and the Board a giant wave of hostile media attention.  (Have you ever seen the Marshall Ramsey cartoons that put Thames in a Dr. Evil suit?  If you haven't, you have no conception of what they did.)  They brought the USM crisis to the attention of large numbers of academics outside of Mississippi--some of whom are still following the story today, and making sure it is not overlooked. 

What happened to Thames' own henchcrew, in the aftermath of the April 28 hearing?  I early March, G and S were called into the office of Thames' "Risk Manager," Jack Hanbury; it was after they refused to answer Hanbury's questions that Thames declared them fired.  Less than a week after the hearing, Jack Hanbury was fired on the orders of the State Attorney General, after being caught ordering deans to violate the Mississippi Public Records Act (one of those deans, we are now reminded, was named Harold Doty).  Right after Hanbury was told his services would no longer be needed, the Board ordered the removal of his former law partner, Mark Dvorak.  And Angie Dvorak, who screamed that G and S had defamed her when they showed how she had misrepresented hersefl on her vita, was removed from her Vice-Presidential post in June; as of January 1, 2005, she is gone from the USM payroll for good.  She had once been considered Thames' heir apparent; he had claimed he would go to the wall to defend her honor; in the end he cut her loose to save himself.

Another consequence of the April 28 hearing and the settlement is that Thames has not attempted to fire any other tenured professors.  Clearly, the Board, fearful of bad publicity, ordered him not to try anything like that again.  Noel Polk blasted Thames in public for four months after the hearing, before accepting an offer from MSU; despite all the baiting, Thames didn't try to fire him.  It was left to Elliot Pood to make the pathetic gesture of trying to fire Polk--after he had already resigned from his position.

Despite the protection he was given by his sponsors on the IHL Board, Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser were able to weaken Thames significantly and deprive him of his "Kentucky mafia."  Today, Thames has only two major enforcers left--Ken Malone and Gregg Lassen--and with any luck, the Black Friday affair is going to buy Malone a one-way ticket out of USM.

So if you are going to make pronouncements about Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser, you'd better get your facts straight.

Robert Campbell

PS.  As others have pointed out, USM's counterparts to Ward Churchill are people on Thames' side--like Angie Dvorak and Ken Malone.