For the American this is outstanding.  The blame goes to the IHL Board.  It even mentions the practice of board members (Klumb) talking privately with SFT and this not being in the board minutes.   

I see the editorial writer attempting a straddle, locally: making concessions to the public claims put forth by Mixon and the other members of the cabal, while simultaneously presenting USM's situation as dire.  (Granted, the concessions to the Paving Company Crowd could be purely rhetorical.  But the question is how they would be read by someone who gives credence to Mader Machine propaganda.)

What does come through unequivocally is the indictment of the Board and its style of management.  In the past, the Hat Am has always stopped short of blasting the Board, presumably out of fear that the Board would retaliate by piling more punishment on USM.

Now let's think about Klumb admonishing Thames, in private, not to go forward with his Exec MBA scheme, or any other new program while USM is under SACS probation.

We know that Klumb held that private conversation only because a majority of the Board instructed him to.  Having to admonish Thames in public would have humiliated both parties.

In turn, we know that Mixon et al. don't want to see Klumb admonishing Thames about anything--let alone doing so in public.

So the call for greater openness on the part of the Board, and better management practices, goes directly contrary to what would serve the interests of Mixon and the others in the local business community who want to continue as kingmakers.

Local reactions to this editorial will be most interesting.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I see the editorial writer attempting a straddle, locally: making concessions to the public claims put forth by Mixon and the other members of the cabal, while simultaneously presenting USM's situation as dire.  (Granted, the concessions to the Paving Company Crowd could be purely rhetorical.  But the question is how they would be read by someone who gives credence to Mader Machine propaganda.)
What does come through unequivocally is the indictment of the Board and its style of management.  In the past, the Hat Am has always stopped short of blasting the Board, presumably out of fear that the Board would retaliate by piling more punishment on USM.
Now let's think about Klumb admonishing Thames, in private, not to go forward with his Exec MBA scheme, or any other new program while USM is under SACS probation.
We know that Klumb held that private conversation only because a majority of the Board instructed him to.  Having to admonish Thames in public would have humiliated both parties.
In turn, we know that Mixon et al. don't want to see Klumb admonishing Thames about anything--let alone doing so in public.
So the call for greater openness on the part of the Board, and better management practices, goes directly contrary to what would serve the interests of Mixon and the others in the local business community who want to continue as kingmakers.
Local reactions to this editorial will be most interesting.
Robert Campbell"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Reporter
"I hope this Editorial generates many Letters to the Editor praising the H.A. for more insight and leadership that has been provided by either the IHL or SFT.  I hope the H.A's Editorial Board appreciates that Kevin Walters made it possible for them to "see the light"."

---

I will try to include a mention of this in the letter I had been planning to write in any case.  This is a startlingly brave editiorial; I am truly impressed.  This thread needs to be kicked to the top of the board again and again and again so that new readers of the board will have a chance to read this editorial first thing. 

Many thanks to the HA; contrast this piece to the kind of stuff they were saying a year ago and you have a clear sense of the direction in which opinion has moved and is moving.  Those who saw the Putsch as a desperation tactic may be correct -- and, once again, one of SFT's brilliant tactical maneuvers seems to have backfired.

I will be mailing copies of this editorial to the CL in the hope that it, too, will take a firm stand.  After all, the Putsch was a slap in the face to the entire state media. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Truth,
You're right about the criticism of the closed meeting.  But note the next paragraph:
With that in mind, holding invitation-only meetings to "discuss" the future of the university only adds to the suspicion and sense of powerlessness felt by many of those who work at the university. If there's going to be a public discussion, don't limit to a select few a debate which is important to all.
It's unfortunate that the long list of good things occurring at Southern Miss has been overshadowed by controversy. That can change.
Still, Mixon and faction are not going to like what they are reading.  They want business as usual from the Board.
Robert Campbell"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Hop Harrigan, Ace of the Airways
"the College Board needs to shake off its mantle of stagnant leadership and intervene publicly."  "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"A few comments on the editorial can now be seen here: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10890.html RC"

---

Thank you Bob, for staying on this and providing your usual cogent analysis. You are right that this editorial might very well mark a watershed -- let's hope this shot across the bow of the IHL causes the Board to reverse its destructive course.

As you know was one of those at the board meeting of Thursday. It is hard to say what one "knows" about the board. But I can say that it "felt" as though the Board seems to begun to cohere politically. Not only was there much less tension in the room, but relationships between the emmbers seemed much more comfortable than I have seen in the past. Newton was fully in charge and she and Crofts seemed to work together s a team. I remember when Potter used to sit in that chair, he almost disappeared. But Crofts -- who does not say a lot -- carries a great deal of authority and he is hard to overllok. I felt that the Board as a whole respected him and he seems to have unified them with some good adice and a sound plan for change.

I',m keeping my fingers crossed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Big Blue
"This is just the HA's way of slapping SFT & Company in the face for having the Warren Meeting and not allowing media. Once SFT plays nice with the HA and Walters get out of town, things will return to their pre-Walters state of "pro-Thames" reporting. Mark it down."

---

One concern shared by most university professors is to discourage students from thinking in "this is just X" terms, as you've done above.  It is usually simplistic to think that any situation has a single cause.

Journalists are actually governed by a strong code of ethics (see e.g. http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp) which requires accurate and fearless truth gathering and willingness to report both/all sides of a story.  The press has been known as the 'fourth estate' (i.e., an entity distinct from the regular societal order) at least since Macauley called it that in 1828.  Although there have recently been some notable and highly publicized journalistic sins, the very furor with which they've been reported suggests how seriously most journalists take their charge.  (Does anyone remember how angry Robbie Ward got earlier on this list when someone suggested that he was acting other than a journalist when here at USM?)

I know firsthand that at least one of the local business organizers claimed that the media would "twist things," and if memory serves that charge was made by others.  So granted, attributing sloppiness and/or deceit to the local journalists might not have been the brightest thing to do.  But I think anyone who assumes the HA is just being petty and vindictive should think again.  They're journalists.  They're out to get the story.  And they have pretty thick skins.

Jameela

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Big Blue
"Which is why the coverage in the HA was so good before Walters got here? You are so blind! The HA was in SFT's pocket before KW's arrival on the scene to report on USM. Janet Braswell never did the kind of stories Walters has done. The HA depends on popularity to keep its presses running. With so many close substitutes (actually better substitutes) like the JC-L, etc., the HA has to sell papers and advertising. Suppose the business community took a permanent vacation from advertising in the HA. The paper would close down inside of two months. Again, you are functioning in a textbook environment. I'm talking about the real world. Apparently you cannot understand that your textbook examples and stilted structures do not hold in the real world. Journalists are just as corruptible and fallable as a store owner, car salesman, orthopedist, etc. There's nothing special about them that makes them immune to being bought off by Thames. If you disagree, then provide a list of the "hard hitting" stories run by the HA prior to Walters' arrival."

---

Frist of all BB -- you're idea that academics do not function in the real world is false. It isn't unusual for faculty members to have functioned in the real world in the areas they teach before they get there. So have a little humiity please.

The second thing  ]is that I have been watching your posts and while on a superficial level they seem supportive, in the end they always come back to the same thing: faculty aren't competent to fight against Thames and his supporters, we don;t know how the real world works, and other good nuggets that subvert faculty action. So I have the feeling that you really arne't interested in being helpful at all -- but would rather preoccupy us and drain away our energy in trying to engage with you.

Finally, I think the faculty has actually done pretty well in a conflict in which the odds are hardly even. The history of last year is the administration having suffered heavy losses and having to come to heel. It is definitely not as free to act precipitouslty as was true one year ago.

Sorry you think we are all wimpish, ivory tower types. I think it proves you don't know much about this faculty or modern universities in general.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LVN
"However, let's not forget what Robert Campbell keeps telling us about the very poor coverage they get at Clemson. It could a lot, lot worse."

---