Outcomes from IHL meeting Thursday - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Outcomes from IHL meeting Thursday

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Great post GH. Great

If you are right with all the scenarios, and I'm not sure there are not several more, then we will indeed NOT reject the conspiracy theory.

I think you have hit it on the head. Some scientists refer to such as "revealed preference." The IHL will reveal their motives like you say by their actions, and SFT will be here still, though with wings clipped more, even after his FOURTH back fatal mistake discussed by the board.

I'd give a ten percent chance for SFT being gone by the end of next week, but not zero.

On this board, we have many well intended folks of high intelligence and "logic" who believe in the inner goodness of humankind, and just have a hard time countenancing (spelling LVN?) such illogical things as a conspiracy of such horror by public officials right in front of our eyes.

I think the proof has already been made manifest in the board's actions already with SFT's prior THREE fatal, presidency-ending errors. The SACS blunder, after faculty had publically warned of this for two years, would have ended a term, given SFT's past problems, in any other state university in any other state in the United States or any other nation. I am excluding small private schools like Bob Jones University or large ones of the quality of U of Phoenix.

I know Myron and Steven have always had this problem seeing the obvious.

I hope you are wrong, but I see none of the two alternatives occuring with this board and Klumb presiding.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

i vote for come combination of 3-6. i personally think he'll be gone no later than July 1. the board has to find a replacement if they want to fire him. if they think grimes should be fired, and since when does the board fire someone lower than the president?, there has to be someone in mind for that position. right now, we can't go through SACS with no president and/or provost. SACS won't be happy with that either.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i vote for come combination of 3-6. i personally think he'll be gone no later than July 1. the board has to find a replacement if they want to fire him. if they think grimes should be fired, and since when does the board fire someone lower than the president?, there has to be someone in mind for that position. right now, we can't go through SACS with no president and/or provost. SACS won't be happy with that either. "

SCM, friend,

The IHL Board would not fire Grimes, SFT would be told to "distance" himself form Grimes resulting in his removal........

Date: Feb 13, 2005

green hornet--i agree that the board won't fire grimes. i suspect thames will scapegoat him and have him step down. as i've said on other threads, i'm not sure jay will be upset. from those i know working with him, he's stressed. the issue is who replaces jay if he is forced out?

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Just my twisted observation, but either of the last two options would not "completely disprove" the conspiracy theory, as GH suggests. Rather, firing Thames immediately or not renewing his contract could simply be manuevers to obfuscate the conspiracy. Right now, if Thames has fallen out of private favor with the arch-conspirators (e.g., Klumb), it is because he has been too obvious about what he's doing.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

Invictus,

While I see how either of the last two alternatives could be consistent with a conspiracy, there are two problems with that kind of explanation for either such actions by the Board.

First, for the Board to either fire Thames or announce that he is a lame duck, in the service of furthering the conspiracy, requires subtlety and foresight that the pro-Thames faction seems rather short on. Where will they find someone to wreck USM quietly, if Thames is out, his associates are off the scene or discredited, and those who demanded Thames' removal remain highly suspicious of most of the people whom the Board might install in his place?

Second, conspiracy theories can become unfalsifiable. Acting as expected, if the theory is true, is taken as evidence for it; acting the opposite way from expected is taken as proof that the conspirators are trying to cover their tracks and throw people off. Do you really want to say that no action by the Board could show that the conspiracy theory is false?

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 13, 2005

I thought conspiracy theories are by definition unfalsifiable!

I also think you may be trying to over-intellectualize this morass, Robert. It's virtually impossible for a native Miss'ippian to figure out, so I'm sure it looks like half-cooked gumbo to someone on the outside looking in.

I'm bAAAck has described the "conspiracy" rather nicely in another thread. As "IB" points out, its really less of a "conspiracy" per se than an old, deep-seated attitude about USM's proper "place" relative to other universities in the state.

Don't underestimate the anti-USM, pro-SFT forces. They might not seem all that smart but obfuscation isn't a strategy that smart folks generally employ. What they will do is whatever they think at the moment will maintain their sweet status quo. If Klumb becomes convinced that Shelby is diverting too much attention to USM (I think other posters have alluded to this), then he may decide to jettison Shelby & go with a weaker president or at least some outsider who will take 3-4 years just to figure out which way is up in the through-the-looking-glass political environment of Mississippi.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

invictus--i have resisted your theory, but i'm becoming more and more convinced. but i've heard a variation for the 20+ years i've been here, so maybe you're preaching to the converted when it comes to me.

Date: Feb 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"invictus--i have resisted your theory, but i'm becoming more and more convinced. but i've heard a variation for the 20+ years i've been here, so maybe you're preaching to the converted when it comes to me."

Oh dear. SCM, it's not a theory because as Robert pointed out, it's not falsifiable. It's a religious belief. I'm glad the catechism is starting to sink in

I can remember the night that my family went to the dome to watch the students burn the hedge that was trimmed into the letters "MSC" (later replaced by a "USM" hedge). I was a little squirt, I guess, 4th or 5th grade. In retrospect, it may have been the worst thing to happen to the institution, because it made folks aspire to do something that a lot of other folks didn't want them to achieve. It also upped the ante all around. (Anybody who thinks that schools as small as MVSU, MUW, DSU or ASU really ought to be called "universities" has a somewhat different worldview from my own.)

Date: Feb 14, 2005

theory schmeory. i've heard it for years, tried to resist, but i'm becoming more converted. at least in my discipline i'm going to fight like all get out. (i watched blue collar comedy tonight and could have used different words but decided to use language consistent with my doctorate)

Date: Feb 14, 2005

Invictus,

You know your way through this half-cooked gumbo, and I don't.

Still, if Klumb et al. have to jettison Thames, how likely are they to choose the right kind of weak president who will steer USM off the collision course with SACS but, after a short pause, resume quietly weakening it from within?

Isn't there a chance they'll screw up and appoint a president who actually builds USM up?

They've been disappointed before, haven't they?

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 14, 2005

MANY of the faculty and staff have been "stressed" by this whole procedure. They do not get much sympathy or special treatment........and never any golden parachutes. Their reward is just more work correcting the mistakes of others.

Date: Feb 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Stressed?
"MANY of the faculty and staff have been "stressed" by this whole procedure. They do not get much sympathy or special treatment........and never any golden parachutes. Their reward is just more work correcting the mistakes of others. "

AMEN!

Date: Feb 14, 2005

and i heard from someone that shelby's "i'm having a good time" comment did not sit well with them. faculty and staff aren't having a good time as they work through SACS.

Date: Feb 14, 2005

I think it is likely to be scenarios no. 5 or no. 7. Do you guys really think that Klumb is ever going to back down?

Date: Feb 14, 2005

Klumb does need 6 other Board members to support him.

If the conspiracy theory is true, he still has a majority of the Board backing whatever action he decides to take.

If, on the other hand, 6 or more of them are sick of the bad publicity Thames keeps bringing them, it won't be up to Klumb any more.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 14, 2005

kick

Date: Feb 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Klumb does need 6 other Board members to support him."

The board should be ashamed of itself if a vote on this matter is anything less than unanimous.

Date: Feb 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: No board member left behind
"The board should be ashamed of itself if a vote on this matter is anything less than unanimous."

Unanimous in favor of academic freedom and a new day for USM.

Date: Feb 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Still, if Klumb et al. have to jettison Thames, how likely are they to choose the right kind of weak president who will steer USM off the collision course with SACS but, after a short pause, resume quietly weakening it from within?"

I think that would be their ideal course of action, but they don't have to jettison Thames & quite honestly, I don't expect that they will.

Isn't there a chance they'll screw up and appoint a president who actually builds USM up? They've been disappointed before, haven't they?
"

I suppose that might happen, but again, I don't expect IHL is going to replace Shelby in the short run or at the end of his current contract. In the final analysis, he is being very successful at doing exactly what he was hired to do: decimate the faculty, demoralize the departments that were encroaching on sacred liberal arts turf & privatize the enterprise. Except for the fact that Shelby has gotten in the papers a bit more than most of the board would like, he has exceeded all expectations. Four more years of him & USM alumni will be talking about getting to the point where the university can rival Jackson State. At that point, he will have achieved what 30 years of IHL wrangling has been unable to accomplish.

At that point, the IHL board can honestly say (as Carl Nicholson is reported to have said after Shelby was coronated), "We fixed USM."

Date: Feb 14, 2005

Without stating the obvious, Nicholson was referring to "neuter and spay", not "repair"

Date: Feb 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Klumb does need 6 other Board members to support him."

I don't know what the exact by-laws are, but I don't think there are enough trustees solidly in the anti-Thames camp to even bring a motion up for a vote. Remember, the actual majority of the trustees don't care what happens to USM. They just wish all the bad press would go away & if Crofts promises to "coach" Shelby & Shelby acts contrite (he's pretty good at that in board meetings), then you won't see a motion to consider his status, much less a vote.

Klumb doesn't need a majority. Those who might want to act honorably in this matter need a majority -- a committed majority. And they don't have one either. VSN may vent a little bit, but that's her role. Anybody who expects IHL to do anything whatsoever (except maybe something "symbolic") is setting him/herself up for a massive disappointment on Thursday.

Crofts? He knows which side of the bread the butter is on. The board could just as easily consider firing him for getting in the way of a "minor campus squabble." If Klumb or another trustee tells Crofts to back down, that is exactly what Crofts will have to do.

Date: Feb 14, 2005

I find it interesting that the various discussions on this board are open to anyone who cares to view them, but we are not privy to "their" discussions - except as they appear on EagleTalk, of course.

Date: Feb 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: James Heriott
"Without stating the obvious, Nicholson was referring to "neuter and spay", not "repair""

That's prob'ly right, but I assure you, neutering or spaying is not "fixing" anything.

"Fixed" can also mean "pinned in place." In that vein, the quote might mean "we have put USM in its place."

Nicholson's alleged quote may be so multi-layered that any reasonable person could not conceive of it issuing forth from the mouth of an MSU graduate.

Date: Feb 15, 2005

Invictus,

Crofts will have to back down, if the Board tells him to. They do have the power to fire him, and could even use it on this occasion.

But the cat's out of the bag now, as far as SACS is concerned. Crofts ordered Thames to cease and desist from actions that threatened accreditation. He told the press he was doing it, and Thames complied with his order--at least as far as retracting the Black Friday memo.

Klumb has been quoted about a "death letter" from SACS and, even today, on not starting new programs while USM is on probation.

So if the Board fires Crofts, or just orders him to back off, they're sending the message that they want Thames to get USM deaccredited.

Is the Board willing to go that far? The standard version of the conspiracy theory says that deaccreditation is much more than they wanted.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 15, 2005

Question for RC,

Robert: I missed the reference to the "death letter." Can you elaborate? Thanks.

Date: Feb 15, 2005

Sorry, the phrase Klumb used on February 1 was "death bill." To justify not even thinking about a successor to Thames, Klumb said:

"We can't sit here facing a death bill from SACS without a president, without a leader. It doesn't make sense to me."

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050201/NEWS01/502010301/1002

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 16, 2005

kick, because the clock is ticking..................

Date: Feb 16, 2005

Thanks, Robert. I enjoyed this latest "Klumbism." We really ought to start compiling a lexicon of these. Sometimes I laugh so hard at his use of the language that I feel as if he is destructing me.