: ssDude

Date: 7 hr, 14 min. ago
Views: 166


Quote | ReplyPlease change the title of my letter

---

Please change the subject of my post from “Letter to faculty senate” to “Letter to AAUP-USM.”

 

After reading your replies it is clear to me that the damage to the reputation of the faculty has been caused by a few people—most of whom seem to be friends of the two fired professors.

 

I have been at USM for almost five years, but I came here and thought this was a faculty hangout. I know better now. I also assumed that the negative letters and smear opinions in the Hattiesburg American were a product of the faculty. This was clearly wrong too. If I made all these false assumptions, even after being here for five years, imagine what non-USM members of the community think about your actions. Imagine how you are confusing them.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that you will succeed in getting Thames removed, but the damage you do to the reputation of the faculty and USM will be unforgiving and difficult to repair. With your future tactics, you should take care to distinguish yourself from the real faculty, especially those who care about USM.

 

You should stop blurring the AAUP-USM with the rest of the faculty.

 

The faculty senate leader should have gotten her letters approved by the full faculty senate before she mailed them. That is, the letters should be voted on first. Her letters—and her posts here—make it look as though she speaks for all the faculty. The new speaker should not make the same mistakes his predecessor did.

 

People should stop using their real names here. It makes it look like this really is a faculty hangout. Some of the things you say here make USM look very bad. The sad thing about this misconception people have about you, as most all of you have admitted, is that you are not faculty.

 

The misconception that you are creating is unfair.

 

: USM Sympathizer

Date: 6 hr, 53 min. ago
Views: 146


Quote | ReplyRE: Please change the title of my letter

---

ssDude,

I think this board fairly represents faculty opinion.  Otherwise, how do you explain the overwhelmningly negative votes against SFT by the full faculty last year, and by the faculty senate last year and this year?  How do you explain the fact that SFT routinely loses in public opinion polls by margins of over 90% (I think it's safe to assume that many of the people who vote in these polls are faculty, since they are the ones most affected by SFT's rule).

What would YOU advise that faculty opposed to SFT should do instead?  You concede that SFT may be on his way out; would you say that this board, and the continuous pressure it has helped generate, has had nothing to do with helping to further that possible result?

You write as if this board has generated ill-will in the community, but you do not mention that much ill-will against the faculty has been expressed by members of the community, and that much of it seems to have existed long before this board was ever created or even imagined.

What has the faculty (or even a small segment of the faculty) done that could possibly harm the community in the ways that the actions of a small segment of the community have already harmed faculty, staff, and students?  What power does the faculty have over the community except as consumers who may choose to direct their patronage to businesses that do not attack the faculty?

Forgive me, but I think you have a very lop-sided view of what has been happening at USM and in Hattiesburg over the last several years.  I welcome your response so I can understand your position better than I apparently do.