Will it ever end - RE: The Meeting - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Will it ever end - RE: The Meeting

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Honey, we understand your frustration. Everybody is sick to death of the whole mess. But unfortunately, SFT would not be on the way out had it not been for faculty stirring the pot. Unrelenting pressure and attention to the serious problems are all that's going to save USM.
And those same pot-stirrers are working their butts off right this minute trying to save USM from losing accreditation.
Hang in there with us. Those pot-stirrers want to get back to their real jobs a lot worse than you want them to.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Several of the post I have read today led me to believe that a few of these folks will do anything to ensure SFT will be fired, including sabotage of SACS. I want USM to be the Harvard of the South and the degrees to be recognized nation-wide. I don't think some of the faculty are overly concerned about this. They, like SFT, have lost the focus.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

I think the message here is well said. It is time for resolve by IHL. Both sides are wrong.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Third Witch
"Honey, we understand your frustration. Everybody is sick to death of the whole mess. But unfortunately, SFT would not be on the way out had it not been for faculty stirring the pot. Unrelenting pressure and attention to the serious problems are all that's going to save USM. And those same pot-stirrers are working their butts off right this minute trying to save USM from losing accreditation. Hang in there with us. Those pot-stirrers want to get back to their real jobs a lot worse than you want them to."

Mr. Wonderful, I nominate Third Witch.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
"Several of the post I have read today led me to believe that a few of these folks will do anything to ensure SFT will be fired, including sabotage of SACS. I want USM to be the Harvard of the South and the degrees to be recognized nation-wide. I don't think some of the faculty are overly concerned about this. They, like SFT, have lost the focus."

By "sabotage SACS" do you mean "tell the truth?" To not sabotage would be to hide serious problems or falsify data?

Date: Mar 11, 2005

USM will never be the "Harvard of the South" because it just doesn't have the resources and the public support. Remember that Harvard was founded in 1632 or something like that, and it's a private school with huge endowments. USM is 100 years old and traditionally trained teachers, who don't have the money to make huge endowments. HOWEVER, USM was on its way to becoming a very fine regional university with many programs to be proud of, including one of the better English programs in the area, a first-class College of Nursing, its Marine Science program, the only College of the Arts in the area, and other wonderful programs which Dr. Thames has killed or is killing. If you don't know what's happening in Nursing, you will be stunned when you get the details. I know a lot of the people on this board, and I know people who are working very, very hard to help with SACS. But you have to understand, this has been going on for over a year, many of the best faculty have been driven away, and the ones remaining are tired and disheartened. But I don't know of anyone who serious contemplates sabotaging SACS.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
"A group of the faculty has acted equally as poorly. The best case scenario will be for several of you to be relieved at the same time Shelby is. The constant pot-stirring is not accomplishing anything that will benefit the university. Many of you do an excellent job and are responsible for USM's many accomplishments. Thank you. Please continue to focus your efforts in these areas. You don't have to be associated with this ongoing waste. These times will not show up as a USM accomplishment and the pot-stirrers will be just as opposed to the next regime."

Thanks very much for your post. As an academic (not at USM), I can guarantee you that the last thing most academics want to do is get involved in the kind of mess that Shelby Thames has thrust upon the USM faculty. Academics want to study, read, write, teach, and generally invest their time in activities that are not ephemeral. They want to contribute to something lasting and meaningful. No one with a brain WANTS to invest his or her time in the kinds of things that have consumed the attention of people at USM for the last year, but I can guarantee you that until and unless Shelby goes, there will never be peace and quiet on the USM campus. The man has an uncanny gift for bungling things and for abusing people. He is much better working with molecules than with humans. Faculty at USM have lost a year of their lives thanks to the gross ineptness of Shelby Thames, and they will fall on their knees in thanksgiving when he is gone and be very glad to get back to the kind of work they love best. Please urge your colleagues in the business community to help ensure that Shelby returns to the lab, and I will bet you anything that USM will have a wonderful chance of entering a period of peace, calm, and productivity that will benefit everyone (even Shelby, who is ruining whatever reputation he once had).

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Malapropism
" Mr. Wonderful, I nominate Third Witch. "

Duly recorded - and that in the midst of some very stiff competition!

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
"Everyone will be better suited if we accept SFT will be removed and focus our efforts instead on making the university better - in academics, athletics, arts, etc. "

From your mouth to God's ear.

We certainly will accept that SFT will be removed, WHEN IT HAPPENS! Then the Healing can begin.

And, while there may be TALK of sabotage to the SACS accredition, it will not happen unless.....

The only way it would happen is if SFT continues undermining SACS accreditation efforts by administrative ineptitude. Then, those working on SACS should put away their pens and papers and brush up their resumes because SFT (Nero) will be having his last bit of fun while USM burns.

At that last moment, the business community will be handing the few USM Faculty who are left water buckets, driving us to Lake Byron in limousines and asking us to form fire brigades. Oh, the Humanity!

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
"Several of the post I have read today led me to believe that a few of these folks will do anything to ensure SFT will be fired, including sabotage of SACS. I want USM to be the Harvard of the South and the degrees to be recognized nation-wide. I don't think some of the faculty are overly concerned about this. They, like SFT, have lost the focus."

OOC,

Since the IHL (especially under the leadership of Roy Klumb, who comes across like a character out of Faulkner's worst nightmare) seems unduly influenced by the likes of the "community leaders" who met last night, SACS is the only hope for USM. It was a YEAR ago that some of us were predicting that SACS would come down hard on USM, but Shelby ignored the warning signs. I can confidently predict that SACS will come down even harder in the future, especially after last evening's shenanigans. If you want to get SACS off your back, get Shelby out of the dome. Also, tell Mr. Mixon to return to his car lot and stop trying to run the university.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Originally posted by: Out of Control
" He tried to do something good for the university, but he has the "touch of a blacksmith." To run USM in a manner that focuses on revenue generation from outside sources is correct, but not at the cost of dismissing the LA component of advanced learning. But, in a state run as poorly as ours, that focus will be a matter of survival for this university and all of the rest in this state. Economic development is important. Research funding and grants are important. Donne (although I don't care about it) is important. SFT's approach was over the top and rash.

Imagine what things would have been like if SFT had just involved everyone in his "cause?" If he had held meetings with different groups: Faculty, Staff, Administration, even Students, telling them about the upcomming funding problems and outlining a vision for confronting them? He could have suggested nearly every economic development/financial step that he has taken (Restructuring being the biggest one) and asked the faculty and staff for thier input. He could have accomplished much of what he has set out to do without all of this mess. Instead, he chose to act as if he were the new Dictator of the State of USM, brushing aside the ideas and opinions of the very people who actually make USM work: The faculty and Staff.

A group of the faculty has acted equally as poorly. The best case scenario will be for several of you to be relieved at the same time Shelby is. The constant pot-stirring is not accomplishing anything that will benefit the university. Many of you do an excellent job and are responsible for USM's many accomplishments. Thank you. Please continue to focus your efforts in these areas. You don't have to be associated with this ongoing waste. These times will not show up as a USM accomplishment and the pot-stirrers will be just as opposed to the next regime.

I must disagree with you here, completely and vehemently. The "Pot Stirrers" have had the misfortune to be placed in the position of either remaining true to their academic responsabilities by bringing these issues to light or just "lying low" and hoping for the whole thing to blow over. Those faculty members who have stood up and raised these issues should be praised by EVERY member of this community: Where would we be now if they had not? Most likely, we would not be on SACS Probation - we would have already lost accreditation, and perhaps a whole lot more.

Also, while I appreciate your opinion, please continue to focus your efforts in the area of operating your business, whatever it may be. We ARE focusing our efforts where they matter the most: Attempting to save what is left of USM from the depredations of Shelby Thames.

PS: I don't seem to remember any "pot stirrers" being opposed to the administration of Dr. Aubrey K. Lucas. Do you?

The business community has an investment in the university just like the faculty. Many support Shelby for what he wants to do, but not how he has done it. The business community also supports the Faculty. Ya'll (I know, not enough LA education) are important customers. We pay many of you for professional advice and consulting. You educate our children and employees. The students are important to fill future jobs and buy our goods and services. Athletics are important as it is one attractor to the community where families can spend time together. So are the Arts. I regularly attend all of these events with my family because it helps round them out as individuals.

Believe it or not, you would be amazed to learn of the number of faculty who greatly appreciate the support of the local business community. Not just for various donations, but for all of the things that you and others do for USM, the students, and the faculty & staff. It is not the business community at-large that we are suspicious of right now - it is a very small group of "movers & shakers" who for some reason seem to think that they have the right to determine, all by themselves, what USM should be doing, which direction it should be taking, and who should be leading it in their chosen direction. Let me personally take a moment to thank you for your personal support, as well as to thank each and every business community member for theirs. However, please understand that, as business owners/operators, you are NOT educators and are thus not familiar with the processess and proceedures involved in education at the college level. Have any of us attempted to suggest to you how you should run your business, who you should hire or fire, or what your long-term business goals should be? In a way, that's what some of you have been trying to do to us.

Everyone will be better suited if we accept SFT will be removed and focus our efforts instead on making the university better - in academics, athletics, arts, etc. The SACS review deserves everyone's best effort, but will likely be sabotaged by disgruntled faculty for the simple fact that they have to stir the pot to feel a sense of purpose. Isn't it time to move on.

It is, indeed, time to move on. However, we cannot simply accept that SFT will be removed because, at least up until this point, the IHL has given no indication whatsoever that he is leaving. After all of the letters, letters-to-the-editor, personal visits, phone calls, no confidence votes, etc., there has been absolutely no action taken. None.

Yes, the SACS review not only deserves everyone's best effort, but it is getting just that. It will not be "sabotaged by disgruntled faculty" for one reason: We love USM, at least as much as you do. If we lose SACS, EVERYONE loses, to include you in the business community. We already feel a sense of purpose: The purpose of educating our students to prepare them for life after earning a degree. We are disgruntled because SFT has done his very best to divert us from that purpose, attempting to turn us into a source of revenue instead of education. Despite that, we will work long, hard hours, losing much sleep and recreation time, in order to see that we do not lose SACS. We cannot allow that to happen, no matter who is in the Dome.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
"Several of the post I have read today led me to believe that a few of these folks will do anything to ensure SFT will be fired, including sabotage of SACS. I want USM to be the Harvard of the South and the degrees to be recognized nation-wide. I don't think some of the faculty are overly concerned about this. They, like SFT, have lost the focus."

You should read the discussion of SACs " sabotage" as just that -- a discussion by people desperate to find something that will effectively communicate how desperately bad things are here. There is a school of thought that that action is a bit like the doctor needing to remove your spleen in orer tomake you healthy.

But discussion of these actions are not the same as taking action. Such discussions are ways of experimenting with strategies -- you will also find that each experiment that ever seems to post a possible threat to students is usually discarded for that very reason. But it also creates a dilemma.

I thank you for the thoughtfulness of your letter and your comments about the "good" faculty. However, as one of those who probably identifies myself as being among the select few who do this in order to just stir the pot and make trouble, I'd also respectfully disagree. I did not take these actions under Flemming, though I disagreed with some of his policies. I also did not take these actions under Aubrey when he returned. Nor did I take these actions in the first six months of Shelby's tenure. Nor did nmost of my colleagues among the i13 (I believe) who voted against his presidency.

My "agitation" started the day the President fired the Deans without any warning, without any public thanks for their service, and after telling selected members of the community of his intentions. It has continued because the administration has almost weekly attempted to either undo the formal processes by which academic integrity is maintained, by which faculty are evaluated, or has secretly reallocated resources prioritized for academic purposes without consultation from the people who use the resources.

A university is a complicated institution. Like every institution it has its own culture, its own language, and its own processes which are unique to what it does. The many many ways in which this faculty has been attacked and its work harmed will never be completely understood by the public because, in its own way, a university is as unique as a steel mill. I cannot subject a steel mill to the same standards and processes by which I would evaluate the performance of a university. To try to use the language and standards of business to assess the production of a university or of the performance of its faculty simply does not work. The value of an education is broader than just the economic production generated by the faculty member who teaches or the students who receives it. The purpose of most research in the university has traditionally been to add to the store of knowlege accessible to the national and international community at large. In this sense the university has been a major resource for making the lake of knowlege into a sea, an ocean from which all can draw. Once upon a time it was assumed that the production of such basic knowlege would have both intellectual benefits and economic benefits, and that the more accessible that knowlege was the better profit to both uses. Thus an investment in public education was, among other things, an investment in a national and global future in which the knowlege bank would eventually "pay off" for the national and global community at large.

NOW however, our view is much smaller. Each university must pay for itself. This means its search for knowlege is more limited, focused, and . . . as quickly as possible . . . patented which effectively means that the knowlege produced by the university is not accessible to the community at large because the university has now become an engine of profit.

That is sad. But greater than that, it is a loss because uusable knowlege does not always announce itself as usable until long after its production. Thus in the past knowlege that had no immediate use went into the bank. Now, if it can't be bank we redirect our resources to knowlege that will have immediate use.

As this happens, the nation (and the world) sacrifice vital intellectual engines that run on the fuel of the excitement of discovery, of extra hours put in to satisfy intellectual curiosity as no extra pay; to the expected discoveries that are serendipidous because unplanned.

When I came here, the university was an exciting place of gorwth and ferment. The sense that all was possible was profound and attractive. That was what brought me south from New York.

Now the university, as far as I am concerned, is intellectually ennervated, a place where fear, paranoia, frustration and anger far outstrip enthusiasm and joy of leanring and teaching. In shorgt, this university has become like a factory, our students like products on an assembly line, and we are workers with a quota punching a clock. That is how we are treated, that is the atmosphere we work in.

Is this the kind of university you want you children to go to?

That is why we speak up -- because we don't want the chiildren of south mississippi to come to a place that offers them less than ANY OTHER university in this state and , hopefully, the nation.

SAs someone who has worked at universities all over this country -- I can promise you the university of southern mississippi at its present time is denying Mississippi students what they need to succeed in the bigger world beyond Mississippi.

You can say "freeing the power of the individual" -- but it is only a slogan if you aren't treating everyone from faculty to staff to students, with respect and dignity. This administration has repreatedly shown its contempt to staff, members of its own administration, faculty, and students. It seems addicted to confrontation and suicidal in its inability to make hard choices while still acknowleging gthat at the other end of those choices are human beings.

In short -- the university of southern mississippi, which I have grown to love as an idea and to which I came because it had such great promise, has become haunted, shuttered and small-minded as it tries to repair the damage of an administration that was so obsessed with its big ideas and with "change" (and with making a bigaboo of the faculty) that it forgot that it is an educational institution with the responsibility to maintain its good credibility with the academic community and accreditation with SACs.

And I am not, incidently, opposed to considering ways that the university might look at ways to raise its own resources. In my area of the arts, we do this all the time. I believe it can be done -- and I have been at institutions (Duke, Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of Rochester most notably) that do that.

But obtaining funding cannot be done at the expense of the univerisity's soul. Our administration seems to believe that the method has NO effect on the content. But as any good Baptist can tell you -- your actions affect the state of your soul.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

correction: (and sorry for the typos)

Nor did nmost of my colleagues among the 183 (I believe) who voted against his presidency.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

USM is 100 years old and traditionally trained teachers, who don't have the money to make huge endowments. HOWEVER, USM was on its way to becoming a very fine regional university with many programs to be proud of,

This is a point rarely made. In looking at the various guides for prospective college students, a few schools that are "overachievers" consistently pop up: Miami of Ohio, University of Binghamton (formerly SUNY-Binghamton), UCal Riverside, etc. For a long time USM was methodically moving into this territory as an improving faculty was yielding improvements in both teaching and research. Improving one or the other isn't too hard but doing both things is more difficult. AKL spent money on faculty and staff. SFT loves paint, asphalt, and light poles. Time will tell which one spent money more wisely.

Postscript: The faculty can be rebuilt from a national pool. Good luck rebuilding the staff we have lost from the local labor market. Which position will be easier to fill, a quality assitant professor of history or a local HVAC technician with experience in maintaining systems that were new when LBJ was in office?

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: red
"USM is 100 years old and traditionally trained teachers, who don't have the money to make huge endowments. HOWEVER, USM was on its way to becoming a very fine regional university with many programs to be proud of, This is a point rarely made. In looking at the various guides for prospective college students, a few schools that are "overachievers" consistently pop up: Miami of Ohio, University of Binghamton (formerly SUNY-Binghamton), UCal Riverside, etc. For a long time USM was methodically moving into this territory as an improving faculty was yielding improvements in both teaching and research. Improving one or the other isn't too hard but doing both things is more difficult. AKL spent money on faculty and staff. SFT loves paint, asphalt, and light poles. Time will tell which one spent money more wisely. Postscript: The faculty can be rebuilt from a national pool. Good luck rebuilding the staff we have lost from the local labor market. Which position will be easier to fill, a quality assitant professor of history or a local HVAC technician with experience in maintaining systems that were new when LBJ was in office?"

Your last point Red -- a real good one.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
"Several of the post I have read today led me to believe that a few of these folks will do anything to ensure SFT will be fired, including sabotage of SACS. I want USM to be the Harvard of the South and the degrees to be recognized nation-wide. I don't think some of the faculty are overly concerned about this. They, like SFT, have lost the focus."

Thanks for a thoughtful post, Out of Control. I'm glad you mentioned Harvard because it points to a critical issue. If USM is to be run like a business, we need as many customers as possible. Having high standards reduces the number of students at USM, but having lower standards will increase that number. Some think the business community would rather a lower quality institution to have more students buy, food, gas , cars , rent apartments etc. We see SFT pulling faculty (Ray Folse) that demand high quality performance from their students out of classes because too many students got "D"s and "F"s.

Concerning "stirring the pot" statements. That goes straight back to SFT. He still says it was too bad the Grimes vs. Doty "misunderstanding" should have been kept in house. He just doesn't admit that if it was not public, we would have instituted a program and lost SACS accreditation. SFT is much more of a threat to accreditation than the faculty. See the thread " Thames SACS Violations" .

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Out of Control,

Some points you might wish to consider:

1. Faculty have no need to sabotage the SACS effort. SFT, the IHL Board, the meddling business community, and the inexperienced team working on SACS are all working hard to insure that the SACS visit will result in more probation. Indeed, there is nothing that faculty could do now that would lead to SACS reaccredit ion,

2. All of the talk about how USM has to change and become more technical while eliminating most of the liberal arts could only be taken seriously if the rabble-rousing business community were directing their efforts toward Ole Miss and State. They are not and will not. They know full well that if they recommended that State and Ole Miss turn into what they want to turn USM into, there would be a great outcry.

This all about kicking the crap out of USM. Nothing more, nothing less.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: red
"USM is The faculty can be rebuilt from a national pool. Good luck rebuilding the staff we have lost from the local labor market. Which position will be easier to fill, a quality assitant professor of history or a local HVAC technician with experience in maintaining systems that were new when LBJ was in office?"

I can't resist commenting on this -- I have a former family member in the HVAC business locally. He laughed at USM's job posting for an HVAC supervisor for student housing. The pay rate was a total joke. I think that was last summer, and last time I checked a couple of weeks ago, the job was still listed.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Out of Control
" I am confident that the IHL is aware of all that has transpired. Guess what, I don't see any way that SFT will be renewed. He tried to do something good for the university, but he has the "touch of a blacksmith. "

Out of Control,

You may be right that Thames has no way of being renewed, but that decision is entirely in the hands of the IHL Board. And up to now the Board has kept Thames in office, not once, but many times, when he committed gross acts of mismanagement or abuse of authority that would have ended a president's career nearly anywhere else.

Without an awful lot of "pot stirring," the Board would have given Thames the green light until USM lost its accreditation, and either had to close its doors or be taken over by another university.

The Board could even give Thames the green light now. But, like many here, I think the Pavement Company Putsch was organized because Thames and his crew sensed that their political support was slipping away.

Robert Campbell

PS. Not even Vanderbilt (a very fine institution) can be the "Harvard of the South." Harvard has the biggest endowment of any university in the world. It simply isn't subject to the same financial constraints as any other university. There is nothing wrong with realistic aspirations for USM, in place of the "wurl class" rhetoric that Thames and his crew have assaulted everyone's ears with.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" Out of Control, You may be right that Thames has no way of being renewed, but that decision is entirely in the hands of the IHL Board. And up to now the Board has kept Thames in office, not once, but many times, when he committed gross acts of mismanagement or abuse of authority that would have ended a president's career nearly anywhere else. Without an awful lot of "pot stirring," the Board would have given Thames the green light until USM lost its accreditation, and either had to close its doors or be taken over by another university. The Board could even give Thames the green light now. But, like many here, I think the Pavement Company Putsch was organized because Thames and his crew sensed that their political support was slipping away. Robert Campbell PS. Not even Vanderbilt (a very fine institution) can be the "Harvard of the South." Harvard has the biggest endowment of any university in the world. It simply isn't subject to the same financial constraints as any other university. There is nothing wrong with realistic aspirations for USM, in place of the "wurl class" rhetoric that Thames and his crew have assaulted everyone's ears with."

When I was at Duke it covertly claimed to be the "Harvard of the South." That was reall y uncomfortable . . . trying to be someone else. When Keith Brodie became President he decided to jettison all that institutional envy stuff and asserted that Duke needed to create its own identity without reference to any other university . . . it was a pretty radical idea and the mechanisms by which the changes were made weren't always pleasant but I think it worked pretty well . . .

Date: Mar 11, 2005

this goes back a couple of hours - i have been away

gnome watcher - i appreciate the discussion. i do think it may be relevant that in addition to my professional career, i have spent several years teaching in both the junior college and university systems in a nearby state( public and private). I have a little idea of how the college system works. also, to telling me how to run my business, yes many of you have given us direction on how to run our companies - actually, we respect your opinion and even pay for it in areas such as marketing and management, accounting, economics, and finance.

Shelby's changes have been an effort move college operations in the direction of free-enterprise business. the conflict is a result of the paradign shift this causes for academics. higher education is going to have to make some of these changes because of funding problems. Again, the idea to change how USM does business is the best move. However, the message should not have been delivered to the system on the nose-cone of a nuclear bomb, as SFT did.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

It's nice to have new people posting who are reasonable and not trolling. Don't be a stranger, OOC.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: out of control
"However, the message should not have been delivered to the system on the nose-cone of a nuclear bomb, as SFT did."

I do hope Mr. Wonderful's crew takes note of this quote! It's a keeper.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

I appreciate the education, amd more importantly the way the mast vajority of you delivered your words of wisdom. I have a little better perception and your thoughtful, respectful presentation helps your cause. Some folks cynical slant on things hurts your presentation to the public as a whole. Unfortunately, the Hattiesburg Un-American's endorsement turns people against you who know nothing of the real issues becasue it does such a poor job reporting everything. Good luck on your endeavor. I hope the words here hold true and the next president has your support in rebuilding our university.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

However, the message should not have been delivered to the system on the nose-cone of a nuclear bomb, as SFT did.

Brillliant. I can almost see Slim Pickens waving his hat as the bomb drops . . . .

I agree with you that we need to consider how to use free enterprise to help elevate support for the university. I don't think any responsible academic would deny that. But that needs to be done WHILE continually and specifically making a commitment to broad based education that IS NOT simply training. This administration seems incapable of making both arguments simultaneously -- and when the absence of supportive rhetoric is combined with overwhelming and frequently unexplained change, the sense that the university is being radcially reshaped without the faculty having any say in that reshaping is inevitable.

Besides, this administration treats human capital like inanimate replacible parts. I have never been so ashamed of a leadership as when the Deans not only were publically humiliated but were not even thanked for their work. Terry Harper had given a lifetime of service to the old College of Liberal Arts . . . and whether he was a good Dean or a bad Dean or had lost his effectiveness or the President just wanted to move in a direction (his right I agree) -- Terry deserved better than the treatment he got and so did the rest of the Deans. Locking people out of their offices and letting them go on short notice; threatening people who won't toe the line even if the line they are being asked to cross might be illegal or unethical is simply not something a university can tolerate and maintain its integrity.

The reason the Humanities exist is to help us learn how to do the right thing and act the right way when the wrong thing is tempting and acting the wrong way seems expedient.

Again, thank you for your posts.

Date: Mar 11, 2005

Some folks cynical slant on things hurts your presentation to the public as a whole.

One definition of a cynic is a former idealist. Three years of mismanagement (being polite here) has turned a lot of the idealism that is natural to universities into cynicism. On an optimistic note the next step past cynicism is bitterness and there isn't a lot of that here. Yet.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Stephen and LVN,

At the risk of wasting people's time I would like to elaborate. In one sense, a university is like an army. Most army personnel are there to make sure the combat troops have the supplies and services they need to effectively perform. Likewise, most university personnel are there to provide the services that the faculty need to teach. The faculty at USM have had the support of a very good staff. The exodus of the faculty has been documented extensively on this board. Far less attention has been directed toward the firings, forced resignations, and the generalized demeaning of the staff who were and are such an important part of the institution. That's water under the bridge. For the eventual new management, rebuilding the morale of the staff and replacing the who knows how many competent staff that have been lost will be a daunting task.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Red, I'm a former staff person myself, so I totally appreciate and agree with your comment. I would like nothing better than to come back to work at USM on Monday, but nothing could compel me to work under the present regime. The loss of staff has been horrible, and you are right about how hard it will be to rebuild morale.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: red
" Stephen and LVN, At the risk of wasting people's time I would like to elaborate. In one sense, a university is like an army. Most army personnel are there to make sure the combat troops have the supplies and services they need to effectively perform. Likewise, most university personnel are there to provide the services that the faculty need to teach. The faculty at USM have had the support of a very good staff. The exodus of the faculty has been documented extensively on this board. Far less attention has been directed toward the firings, forced resignations, and the generalized demeaning of the staff who were and are such an important part of the institution. That's water under the bridge. For the eventual new management, rebuilding the morale of the staff and replacing the who knows how many competent staff that have been lost will be a daunting task. "

I agree strongly with you. There has been a large number of posts scattered throughout on individual staff members who have been abused or left. But I agree that not enough attention has been paid. I think there are several reasons for this -- we often don't know what is happening among the staff or the reasons behind the chnages -- especially staff that do not directly impact on us in terms of interaction. I would know, for instance, if anything happened to our office staff here . . . or our custodial staff who takes incredibly good care of us in the TAD, or some others with whom I am in contact. But it is hard to know otherwise.

And of course many among the staff are reluctant to speak out -- for obvious reasons. So it is true, that in many ways they do not have a place to publicize their concerns, or how the decisions made by the administration are affecting them for good or for bad.

I think many of us on the board are appreciative for your reminder that the affected community is not limited to faculty.