Aubrey Lucas? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Aubrey Lucas?

Date: Mar 12, 2005

I doubt seriously that Dr. Lucas will make any public comments, but I do hope that he'll at least quietly correspond with IHL members.

He is really taking a beating around town. Several Thames supporters (no doubt at Shelby's urging) are blaming Lucas for causing all these "faculty problems." They say he let the faculty run the university all those years and that the faculty during his administration got lazy. Faculty, according to this group, are just angry at having to do a day's work for a day's pay--something they didn't have to do under Lucas.

Would some of you long-time faculty members (assuming we have a few left) come to Dr. Lucas's defense? It would be helpful for new readers of this board.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

well, i'm approaching geezerdom. been here 20+ years. i don't anticipate lucas saying a thing publically--it's not his style. as to getting lazy under lucas--i don't think so. when lucas came one of his tasks was to turn USM into more of a research oriented university. tenure and promotion standards had to change. i remember the early 80's when the standards changed and the consternation by faculty then. it was pretty bad then. faculty had to work hard at teaching and research, not just teaching, to get tenured and promoted. i don't feel that i slacked off during my years while lucas was president. if anything, the past two administrations have had so many distractions it's been hard to focus on research as much as during the lucas years. one other thing about lucas, and i've only come to appreciate it later, he could make you feel good about working here even if there weren't raises, or the budget was being cut, or the like. it was somewhat pollyannaish, but i'll take it over what we have today.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"one other thing about lucas, and i've only come to appreciate it later, he could make you feel good about working here even if there weren't raises, or the budget was being cut, or the like. it was somewhat pollyannaish, but i'll take it over what we have today. "

That was also one of Don Cotten's strengths. I heard him speak to students on several occasions and at the conclusion, I just wanted to stand up and cheer. He made you feel so good about the University. Students just loved him.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
"That was also one of Don Cotten's strengths. I heard him speak to students on several occasions and at the conclusion, I just wanted to stand up and cheer. He made you feel so good about the University. Students just loved him."

Is there ANY chance he would be interested in the position when Shelby is gone?

Date: Mar 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
". . . one other thing about lucas, and i've only come to appreciate it later, he could make you feel good about working here even if there weren't raises, or the budget was being cut, or the like. it was somewhat pollyannaish, but i'll take it over what we have today. "

So true, stinky. I remember sitting through many Convocations when AKL delivered "bad news," but I didn't leave "feeling bad." Maybe the wonderful music (a hallmark of those Convocations, provided by our immensely talented faculty in the School of Music) helped to put me in that mindset. Surely it was AKL's kind, gentle, and respectful demeanor. I'll take those gatherings over an Aramark hotdog soiree in the football stadium anytime.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

kick

Date: Mar 12, 2005

What stinky cheese man & Googler recall about Dr. Lucas' style (as well as what Magnolia mentions about Don Cotten's style) is very important. It contrasts real leadership with simply "giving orders."

There is, however, one employee that I believe Dr. Lucas was too "soft" on: Shelby Freland Thames.

Date: Mar 12, 2005

Terry Harper's letter today was a truly important gesture, as well as speaking the truth very plainly. R C is right. It's time for Aubrey to come out of the closet and weigh in. It won't do for people to excuse him on grounds that speaking publicly is "not his style." He spent the major portion of his professional life developing this university. He was a supporter of, and supported by, people like Bob Mixon. That USM did not become the Notre Dame of the South is not Aubrey's fault, whatever the "athletic supporters" backing Shelby may think. Under Aubrey's leadership (notice I do not say "During his tenure"-- I really think Aubrey was responsible for a lot of the good things that happened), the university that had been as reactionary as any in the country under W. D. McCain emerged into the present and made real strides forward. More could and would have been done had there been more money and had USM ever had reliable support on the IHL board. Under Aubrey Lucas, Shelby Freeland Thames was able to develop the polymer science department (after royally screwing [I use this term advisedly] up the chance to be Executive Vice President), and Thames couldn't have (and didn't) do this all by himself, however much he may like to promote the impression that he alone was responsibel for the expansion of that department. Under Aubrey, many of our programs and individual professors emerged into national prominence. Under his watchful eye, the College of the Arts (formerly "Fine Arts") emerged as the premier public arts institution in the mid south. You couldn't (and still can't) find a better music program, for instance, between Florida State and LSU (both, you will note, SEC schools [at least at one time]) while Aubrey was president. If he sits on his hands now (and God knows he's been culpably silent up to this point) and lets his entire legacy be dragged down into the toilet by the likes of these people who owe him and who aren't in the same universe as he when it comes to breadth of education, and if, by his silence, he continues to betray those who supported him and whom he supported in the years of his tenure, then he will deserve contempt, where he has always had our respect. It's no longer a question of whether Aubrey will be discreet and "presidential." It's a question of whether he will have the guts to stand for what he knows is right and good and has basically spent his life in the pursuit of. What Harper's letter shows is that there MUST come a point at which a good man stops hiding behind rationalizations and worrying about preceived etiquette and stands up for what he knows is right. May God help Aubrey to strap on a pair and do this. He is in a unique position to change the course of events. If he doesn't make the attempt, he will someday have to explain why to that same Methodist God that he spends so much time trotting the globe to serve. History is now, and Aubrey's reputation hangs in the balance.
Let's hope and pray he steps up to the plate!

Date: Mar 12, 2005

It has been pleasant to read the posts on this topic. It is in contrast to the negative ones that others and I have posted elsewhere. In the spirit of a glimmer of optimism, and before I return to my previous state of anger, I would like to hear from others what they think about the following.

Would it be useful and/or appropriate for the faculty senate to pass a motion to ask President Lucas in a public communication to call on the Board, community and the public in general to support the faculty? Perhaps something that does not name names, but does point out that the faculty, some who were hired under his watch, should be listened to, and that changes have to be made.

Such a request would provide him with an opportunity and an incentive. If he does not accept, he will have made it clear where he stands.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

On Thursday last week I gave a talk in Jackson about archaeology. The audience was composed of very nice and well-connected ladies. They are aware of the turmoil at USM and wonder why SFT has been left at USM by the IHL board. One lady I spoke with was very concerned. I suggested that she communicate her concerns to members of the iHL board of trustees that she knew. She considered for a moment and say she felt she was not the proper one to do that because she didn't have all the facts.

I suggested that she encourage board members to invite faculty to a meeting and ask questions. She liked that idea very much. Aubrey Lucas would be an ideal contact for the board to ask questions and get balanced answers.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 13, 2005

We should consider the possibility that Lucas may be working behind the scenes and going public may jeopardize actions already underway. I don't know this to be true, but I throw it out for your consideration. I may be completely wrong about this.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

i know that Lucas has been talking behind the scenes. i know someone to whom he said this. it's not his style to go public--and frankly, enough is being said/has been said publically that he may not feel like he should add to the cacaphonyof voices. he has enough connections that he can be influential behind the scenes.

also, he was a well-respected member of SACS. I remember talking to the just retired executive director of SACS and he said that Aubrey was known for leading a university that not only adhered to the letter of SACS principles but the spirit of them as well. if you've been associated with SACS for a length of time you realize that this group believes it is best to not have these issues played out in the press/media--more can be accomplished privately than can be accomplished taking public positions. SACS also wants the university community to work these issues out itself. you can't rely on a single person, like Lucas, or a single entity, like SACS, to find or be the solution. in the long run, such a reliance leads to problems in itself.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i know that Lucas has been talking behind the scenes. i know someone to whom he said this. it's not his style to go public--and frankly, enough is being said/has been said publically that he may not feel like he should add to the cacaphonyof voices. he has enough connections that he can be influential behind the scenes. also, he was a well-respected member of SACS. I remember talking to the just retired executive director of SACS and he said that Aubrey was known for leading a university that not only adhered to the letter of SACS principles but the spirit of them as well. if you've been associated with SACS for a length of time you realize that this group believes it is best to not have these issues played out in the press/media--more can be accomplished privately than can be accomplished taking public positions. SACS also wants the university community to work these issues out itself. you can't rely on a single person, like Lucas, or a single entity, like SACS, to find or be the solution. in the long run, such a reliance leads to problems in itself. "

SCM,

I really value your posts; many thanks for sharing your insights with us.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

I have read the recent posts about former President Lucas with great interest. In my opinion as a long timer at USM, and an undergraduate under both McCain and Lucas, I have to trust Lucas with his decision to remain silent and avoid jumping into the public fray. It has been said many times on this board, this is not the way he has ever resolved or addressed conflict. During his many years at USM, such red neck academic calamities as have occurred in the Thames/Klumb/IHL administration were unthinkable. I am sure that he is as ill-prepared as we (faculty) were to deal with such atrocities. Sometimes when I think about all that has happened in the past two years, what new ways this administration thinks up to restrict freedom of expression and participation, and the horrible working conditions I am working in, it is almost surreal. Someone on another post (I think it was you Stephen) put it quite well: this administration seems to be on a 24/7 schedule to create absurdities and abuses for the faculty while we struggle with the fatigue, exhaustion, and often desolation of these pointless distractions, unnecessary stressors, and workload. I have spoken to Lucas on two different occasions on campus in the past year and he continues to reflect the values of a civilized gentleman and loyal USM supporter. He did NOT ignore the chaos, but rather talked around it in positive terms of USM coming through this as stronger and more determined than before. I would not even pretend to know what he is going through as a former successful USM President (whose administration resulted in growth, progress, and positive relations with faculty, especially coming out of the military model of McCain) nor second guess how he "should" react. He is the only one who knows what is right for him and saying he will "answer to his Methodist god" is not characteristic of this faculty or this message board. Such judgmental comments are common with the ultra conservative right and are offensive to many who are religious and high spiritual. I have never believed one’s religion or non-religion to be any of my business.

Let's leave the judgment of Lucas alone and focus on what can be done NOW. He has already bailed out USM one time, what more do you want from the man? Did he sign on for a lifetime contract as President? Lest you think that I am too accepting of others’ lack of involvement, I am completely intolerant of others in the community and on campus who are silent; they have unwittingly joined forces with the Thames faction and are obstructionists to the cause of reclaiming our academy. Those who have not supported the faculty, who have blamed us for all the woes of the present demolition, and resorted to calling us names, such as whiners, slackers, change resistors, and “unwilling to give peace a chance”, I would say, they will reap the destructive and barren seeds of ignorance and bad moral choices. Their collective and individual guilt of watching a fine university burn to the ground will be something the community members have to live with for a very long time. Lucas, of all the people involved, deserves respect for what he has done for USM, not if, or how loudly, he speaks up now.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Lucas loyalist
"In my opinion as a long timer at USM, and an undergraduate under both McCain and Lucas, I have to trust Lucas with his decision to remain silent and avoid jumping into the public fray. It has been said many times on this board, this is not the way he has ever resolved or addressed conflict.

I have spoken to Lucas on two different occasions on campus in the past year and he continues to reflect the values of a civilized gentleman and loyal USM supporter. He did NOT ignore the chaos, but rather talked around it in positive terms of USM coming through this as stronger and more determined than before."

As another "long-term" faculty member, who was interviewed by Dr. Lucas before being hired, I must respectfully disagree with "Lucas loyalist" here. It's past time for Dr. Lucas to overcome his lifelong reticence and speak up, because some of the recent (i.e., past five years) problems of this university are in part due to his "laissez-faire" attitude.

Under the Lucas presidency, Shelby Thames was progressively promoted from Dean of the College of Science and Technology to Vice-President for Research and External Affairs, and then to Executive Vice-President. The last promotion came despite the personnel problems during Thames' stint as Vice-President for External Campuses (see the archives for the opinions of USM Gulf Park faculty and this incident). Finally, when Thames was caught in flagrante delicto in an "inappropriate personal relationship," and demoted from Executive VP back to Distinguished Professor of Polymer Science, President Lucas could not have failed to notice further personality problems, or else SFT would have remained a university vice-president.

Next, some of the problems with loss of faculty support during the Fleming presidency were the result of the Technology "bias" under the Lucas administration, which put a low priority on funding necessary technology. Under President Lucas, faculty were not provided desktop computers, nor were classrooms equipped with modern technologies (computers, whiteboards, and projectors). Before Fleming, the university administration had the concept that "if they need computers to do their research, then professors will find a way to provide them for themselves." Ultimately, President Fleming made the claim that his decision to shift significant financial resources from the Provost to the Office of Technology Resources, was based on the failure of his predecessor to provide "adequate and appropriate technology for teaching and research." And, this budgetary reallocation caused the loss of faculty support for the Fleming administration.

Then, as "Interim University President" during the search, Dr. Lucas failed to
listen to faculty input, particularly when the "short list" of four candidates for president became three, due to the self-removal of one of the candidates "hand-picked" by Korn/Ferry headhunters. Faculty asked for another candidate to be added to the "short list" from one of the other candidates, a request that was ignored by IHL and also not pressed more forcefully by Dr. Lucas.

Ultimately, if Dr. Lucas was the quiet "behind-the-scenes" person that we've all come to believe, then how could he have failed to discuss with the IHL the prospect of a Thames presidency? As his former supervisor, Lucas could not have failed to notice the various Thames peccadillos which had occurred in his past university positions, including a recent demotion from administrative status. So, why didn't Lucas use his "quiet diplomacy?"

So, while I respect Aubrey K. for being a gentleman, and for his activities as university president, during the growth of this institution, I can also fault him for his failure to "speak up" about the evident problems of the management style of one of his former subordinates, who was subsequently named university president. Having failed to "stand and be counted" in the past, it's now time for Dr. Lucas to publically become part of the remediation, or else he is complicit in the continuing disestablishment of an academic institution.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Institutional Amnesia,

Great post. I agree that it is past time. I do not subscribe to idea that he is working behind the scenes. President Lucas did many good things to move USM upward and forward. His glaring weakness of not confronting evil when it came has made for some very sad outcomes going back to the days of he was registrar. I think he should be asked by the faculty senate to speak out. However, I do not think that he has the courage or character to act even if asked.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

Isn't Lucas's daughter the prez of some MS university (Milsaps maybe)? Somehow I think her position in this state controls his reaction.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"Isn't Lucas's daughter the prez of some MS university (Milsaps maybe)? Somehow I think her position in this state controls his reaction."

Yes, his daughter Frances Lucas Tauchar is president of Millsaps College, but since that's a private university in Jackson, I doubt that this is part of the reason for Aubrey K.'s public silence relevant to USM.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

No money was ever shifted from Provost's office for technology. The technology was financed under long term notes with IHL Board approval. This is ridiculous. Course we were the last to get a fiberoptic network for USM, the LAST in the state, when it finally came in 1999. No money was ever shifted from faculty salaries--like Nicholson claimed--for other things by Fleming. I understand Fleming threatened to sue Nicholson for claiming it and demanded and got an apology from him and the board.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Trevor
"No money was ever shifted from faculty salaries--like Nicholson claimed--for other things by Fleming. I understand Fleming threatened to sue Nicholson for claiming it and demanded and got an apology from him and the board. "

A lot of damned good it did him. Fleming lost his job & Nicholson is still jerking chains on the college board (even though he is technically nothing more than a "private citizen).

Nicholson is, BTW, the guy who is reported to have said on the evening of Shelby's appointment: "We fixed USM." Pro-USM through & through.

Has anybody else noticed that they guys who are really against USM aren't Ole Miss alums like we were always told? They're Bullies, almost to a man.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" A lot of damned good it did him. Fleming lost his job"

Ah, but it did do him a great deal of good. He is now at a better place.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"Institutional Amnesia,

Great post. I agree that it is past time. I do not subscribe to idea that he is working behind the scenes. President Lucas did many good things to move USM upward and forward. His glaring weakness of not confronting evil when it came has made for some very sad outcomes going back to the days of he was registrar. I think he should be asked by the faculty senate to speak out. However, I do not think that he has the courage or character to act even if asked. "

I think this is an unfair accusation. Perhaps Lucas realized the political climate was such that USM would remain 3rd in line regardless of his actions, and chose to captain a pleasant 3rd place USM ship rather than fight and achieve an unhappy ending. SFT has made the opposite choice: publicly claim to be as big and as good as Ole Miss and Mississippi State, maliciously attack the inner workings of USM, and push for top status. SFT has brought so much anguish to USM that I wish for the Lucas administration days gone by. SFT's "ambitions" have brought trouble to our house.

Date: Mar 13, 2005

FWIW, my opinion after watching Lucas and then Fleming was that the former was far shrewder than the latter. All AKL ever touted was that USM had more graduates than MSU or Ole Miss. He spent the money given on improving the faculty and staff and the place got better. He wouldn't spend on physical plant unless it was a really good idea with private money. In retrospect, he was like a poor mouthing football coach. Aside from Ag and Engineering we had basically caught MSU in total and were closing the gap on the other competitor. I don't think many of the board members understood what was happening and that was just fine. They don't know beans about tiers and wouldn't have noticed except in the unlikely event that USM wound up in a higher tier. Fleming started getting confrontational with the Board and look what that got us.