quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" My faithlessness in faculty leadership dosen't come from what I read here. If any real leaders in the faculty (besides Judd) post here they do so under monikers, so posts here mean nothing in that respect. My views and opinions of faculty leadership comes from what I have seen on campus myself, they come from conversations that I have had with former professors, administratiors, current professors and the like. I am more aware of what is going on than many give me credit for here. My views don't toe the party line here, so they are dismissed and I have been told that my opinions either don't matter or that I am not educated enough to understand what's going on."

---

K.K, I too do not understand your problem with "faculty leadership".  What you discuss with faculty privately is private opinions and has nothing to do with 'faculty leadership".  The faculty leaders are the executive officers of faculty Senate, Academic Council and Graduate Council.  All are "Councils" and only recommend to administrators.  Their rolls are specific to certain areas.

If you concern is really about faculty "going public" with the universities problems.  Then that started with SFT "going public" with the reorganization and by passing the shared governance ofthe faculty.  Faculty figured that was the rules of the game he wanted to play.  We didn't make these reules, SFT did.

Please explain your problem with "faculty leadership" so we all can understand.

Thanks 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" . . . at the same time, you know as well as I do that there are many of us (business men) out here who are sitting on the fence. . . .

If I had employees like many I find here, I would terminate them on the spot. Now, I also understand that academia is not "the real world" and you can't do those sort of things. . . . 

The University is bigger than the faculty. . . . I am pro-Southern Miss....and I can't understand why the two refuse to work with each other. One is a guilty in this respect as the other. If it were possibly, and I know it's not, I wish we could start over with clean slate."

---

First, let me say that I am not trying to change your mind.  I appreciate your measured expression, and I just want to share my perspective.

You are right about a lot of business people "sitting on the fence."  That is an important point.  Sometimes, the notion is that all business backs Shelby.  That really is not my experience, and apparently not yours either. The most important objective for most of us is that the university prosper. We have many different reasons for holding that objective, but that is the basic bottom line.

I think that there are always (at least) two sides to every issue, but not that one is as guilty as the other. It seems to me that "two sides to every issue" is often used to mean that both sides share responsibility. In my opinion, that is not always the case.  Sometimes there are perpetrators and victims. 

I believe there is a common inclination to blame the victims. I believe it is a form of defense -- a talisman, if you will. I find I tend to think that if the victim had not been doing such and such, then they would not have been victimized.  I tell myself that I won't do what the victim did; therefore, I won't become a victim. That is a tendency that I see in my own thinking, and I try to fight it. Anyone can be victimized through no fault of their own.

Irrespective of the reasons, I think we all gets drawn into this notion that any groups in conflict must both be at least partly in the wrong.  Sometimes, I have to fight the tendency to say "Bomb 'em to Hell, and let the Devil sort them out." That feels to me a lot like the calls for a "clean slate" or "clean house."  But you are absolutely right about another thing (at least I totally agree with you): ours is an expression of frustration, not a literal call for impossible action.

Lastly, (My lunch hour is over; I have to go back to my day job.) You can think of faculty as employees, if you choose to, but you must remember that they do not think of themselves that way.  I'm not in a position to say who is "right" --  you will just not be thinking of them the same way they think of themselves.  The best comparison for me was made many months ago, when someone asked if the professional staff at a hospital would be thought of as "employees."   It occurred to me that in a sense they were, but any hospital administrator would be a fool to assume absolute authority over medical professionals. A faculty member with whom I made this comparison at one point immediately cautioned me and started making distinctions (primarily about the relative salaries of both); but, for me, the comparison is apt.

Eventually, I'd like to talk with you about faculty leadership (and indeed, university governance) as more like a confederacy, not a hierarchy, but I'll have to save that for later.  Just consider that businesses are generally built top down, universities (at least historically, that is, going back to medieval times) developed bottom up.  I think that's right, anyway.