IHL web... - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 12, 2005

IHL web...

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Newman
"I'm hearing that SFT and Klumb are working as hard as they can to keep SFT in office. They are designing a Myles Brand-style "no tolerance" policy that will win back a couple of voters. They are setting this up so Robin Robinson can champion it, and, as a female, trump Virginia Shanteau-Newton. "

They haven't had a no tolerance policy in place already?

Looks to me like someone on the Board should argue quite simply is that "no tolerance" will end up meaning "no action." A university whose main administrator is tied down like Gullivar in Lilliputia isn't going anywhere --

Of course, if the aim is to intentionally further weaken the university then that reasoning works well.

I think Croft is the wild card here. Something in his recent statements and actions suggest to me he actually has integrity and isn't about to let this university get trounced anymore --

His public statements about what kind of actions are appropriate/inapproriate at a university suggest he has a pretty firm idea of what a university ought to look like and that what he is seeing here runs counter to his expectations. He's already cited both his own experience in academia and that of collegues . . . .

I think he's marshalling his case.

I hope.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

hello Newman! Please explain in more detail.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" here. Something in his recent statements and actions suggest to me he actually has integrity and isn't about to let this university get trounced anymore --
"

Unfortunately, Crofts isn't a trustee. Crofts is an employee of the board, same as Shelby.

This is beginning to beg the question, "What is so all-fired important about keeping Shelby Thames in office?"

If you can answer this question, I think you'll be able to kick over the house of cards. Hint: I've been telling you what the reason is for almost a year. But in case you've missed it -- A "controlling minority" of the IHL board wants to put "Miss'ippi Southern" in its place.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Unfortunately, Crofts isn't a trustee. Crofts is an employee of the board, same as Shelby. This is beginning to beg the question, "What is so all-fired important about keeping Shelby Thames in office?" If you can answer this question, I think you'll be able to kick over the house of cards. Hint: I've been telling you what the reason is for almost a year. But in case you've missed it -- A "controlling minority" of the IHL board wants to put "Miss'ippi Southern" in its place. "

Invictus my dear!

Well, I have had that feeling since I was in the state for a few months . . . but I'll admit to going back and forth on it as it just seems both outlandish and also hard to fathom that every Board member for the last twelve years could keep such a conspiracy secret . . . I'm still in favor of a different version of this: the board does have a kind of heirarchy of univisities in mind that is less contra USM and more about creating a coherant (in their view) university system in which program duplication is minimized and each universitiy has a fairly clear identity which it can use to attract students (i.e. Ol Miss is the "ivy league prep old money school", State is the Technology and Ag center; USM is the "service" school; the "W" is the liberal arts small university; and then of course there are all those historically black colleges and universities that having been labelled such can now be safely left alone).

Just a theory.

Date: Feb 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Unfortunately, Crofts isn't a trustee. Crofts is an employee of the board, same as Shelby. This is beginning to beg the question, "What is so all-fired important about keeping Shelby Thames in office?" If you can answer this question, I think you'll be able to kick over the house of cards. Hint: I've been telling you what the reason is for almost a year. But in case you've missed it -- A "controlling minority" of the IHL board wants to put "Miss'ippi Southern" in its place. "

And you are right about Crofts -- but I think he carries a lot of weight potentially because the Board has so clearly screwed up and he actually seems to be intent on aggressive action . . . he may not have any direct authority but he can certainly call the Board to take its responsibilities eriously -- after all, he has nothing to lose here except his own personal integrity. I doubt he wants to emerge from this thing tainted . . .

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" A university whose main administrator is tied down like Gullivar in Lilliputia isn't going anywhere -- "

Mr. Wonderful please take note of this wonderful quote.

No Quarter!

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Originally posted by: Let Freedom Rinng

Originally posted by: stephen judd
" A university whose main administrator is tied down like Gullivar in Lilliputia isn't going anywhere -- "

Mr. Wonderful please take note of this wonderful quote.

Duly noted, LFR

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"

Unfortunately, Crofts isn't a trustee. Crofts is an employee of the board, same as Shelby.

This is beginning to beg the question, "What is so all-fired important about keeping Shelby Thames in office?"

If you can answer this question, I think you'll be able to kick over the house of cards. Hint: I've been telling you what the reason is for almost a year. But in case you've missed it -- A "controlling minority" of the IHL board wants to put "Miss'ippi Southern" in its place.

"

Invictus: The IHL may well wish to put USM in its place but that plan, at least nationwide, has backfired. Very, very few people know or care that Mississippi has more than two schools. To most readers of the chroncile and to most people I come across outside of Mississippi there are only two schools in this state: ole miss and state. Therefore, for most readers of the Chroniclel the events of the past two years that have gone public are thought to have happened at Ole Miss or maybe at State. Very few people read the paper carefully. After all what college wanted Churchill to speak and had to cancel? Was it Hobart or Hamilton or did you ever know? My point is that all people remember is mississippi, and after that they just assume ole miss. I venture to say most faculty from ole miss in their travels are now all too familiar with the question: "Arent you guys the ones with the crazy president?" Or, "isnt that the place where the president fired the two professors?" II would love to know how many times Khayatt himself has been asked why he tried to fire two profs for example.

My point, then, is that whatever damage the IHL may wish to do to USM they have probably to their surprise only managed to convince most of the academic world that Ole Miss or State has an out of control administration. Either they still dont realize how that plan backfired and damaged the national reputation of both ole miss or state or, and this is my own two cents, they really dont care about reputation at all. From my perspective the past two years is a result of a far simpler story: money. Someone is getting rich at the public's expense because, in fact, there is no outside monitor to put an end to it.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

USM's troubles were entirely unnecessary had IHL listened to the faculty in the first place, or even in the second place. If most any other profession (e.g. medicine, law) expressed the type of knowledable objection that the USM faculty espressed, their governing board would have hopped on the case immediately. Our IHL, on the other hand, sat on the egg until it hatched. And my what a big ugly bird has surfaced.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"And you are right about Crofts -- but I think he carries a lot of weight potentially because the Board has so clearly screwed up and he actually seems to be intent on aggressive action . . . he may not have any direct authority but he can certainly call the Board to take its responsibilities eriously -- after all, he has nothing to lose here except his own personal integrity. I doubt he wants to emerge from this thing tainted . . .
"

One possible "solution" would be for the board to fire Crofts.

It's obvious he doesn't know how to stay in his place & IIRC, that was really what was Horace Fleming's downfall. It's just as easy to see the board deciding that Crofts is a P.I.T.A., standing in the way of their "hierarchical" plan to consolidate a status quo that has been outdated since around 1960.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Invictus,

Whoa!

No one could mistake the Board's meaning, if they decided to fire Crofts.

But how long will it take the Board to get out of the headlines, if they do that?

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"But how long will it take the Board to get out of the headlines, if they do that?"

About two days.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Invictus,

Surely if the Board "addressed" the Thames problem by firing Crofts, USM would be boiling over for the rest of the spring semester.

Once everyone who could leave got the hell out of town, then a depopulated USM, about to be socked with deaccreditation, might not be considered terribly newsworthy.

But it would take some time to get there.

How badly does the Board want a deaccredited USM?

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Judd is right. It's not a conspiracy against USM but it is an effort to define the universities in the state. He's definitions rightly reflect the thinking of the board.