I don't know about his teaching load but I (and a room of others) heard Grimes say he used to sleep during Dean's council when they discussed undergraduate education. This was shortly after he became Provost on the Hattiesburg campus the first time. His work is only at the graduate level and it was clear he knew nothing about undergraduate education.

Originally posted by: dont never need no teachin
"As to the letter writer not teaching, lets not forget that Grimes, our beloved provost, and hence chief academic officer has never taught an actual class in his life after being a ta two thousand years ago."

Can some one verify this? Scientist or no, this is appalling. He should not be an academic officer if he hasn't taught as a professional.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Rod_Sterling
" What's the problem? We have a woman running SACS whose career was spent outside a university; we have a chief financial officer who's not from academics, a provost who hasn't taught; a president who, except for his doctoral work hasn't been at another university and avoided any contact with the university community until he became preseident, an associate provost whose area of expertise is interior decoration, a polymer scientist running the coast, continuing education and who the heck knows what else.... "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Jeb Bush
"They control the College of Education."

---

I am also a professor in the department of Educational Leadership and Research, and I consider Richard Kazelskis a good friend.  We have been next-door neighbors, served on many committees together, and enjoyed many amiable disagreements over the years.  I respect his intellect and his integrity, and I absolutely respect his right to voice a contrarian opinion.  I find it disturbing that he seems to wish to circumscribe that same right of other faculty with whom he disagrees.  It is because we are in the same department that I wish to offer an alternative view.  I would like to take some of his points one at a time.

He finds it "appalling" that some faculty allegedly "threaten[ed] the local business community with boycotts because the business community did not support their actions."  To my knowledge this was not done by any organized faculty entity.  Nevertheless, boycotts are a perfectly legitimate form of self-expression.  One might like to see them used as a last resort, when direct forms of communication have been exhausted and only when both sides on a given issue have reached an impasse.  Surely my good friend and colleague does not wish to argue that individuals do not have the right to organize and decline to trade with entities whose views or practices those individuals see as inimical to their interests or values.  Boycotts have been useful in combating segregation in Mississippi in 1964 and more recently in undermining apartheid in South Africa.

He also finds it "appalling" that the Faculty Senate, an elected body, audaciously wrote a letter to the IHL "telling [it] how to conduct its business ... requesting that they not renew the contract" of Dr. Thames.  In fact, I believe that the letter simply urged the IHL to begin a search for a new president, but I won't quibble over wording.  This implicit expectation of self-censorship is particularly troubling, as it suggests that constituent groups or individuals are exceeding their rights by expressing their views to those who are charged to represent both them and other constituencies.  The implication is that discontented citizens should be silent when they feel their interests threatened, and, to carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, that the act of writing letters to legislatures and executives urging or decrying a given course of action is illegitimate.  In a democracy, "that way madness lies."  I am a constituent three times over: a taxpayer, a faculty member, and the parent of children at USM.  I would ask my friend to reconsider his complaint and further to retreat from it; I really do not believe he would deprive me of a voice, even if I choose to use that voice to tell the board "how to conduct its business."  If he would, then it is that that I would regard as appalling.

Finally, I cannot let pass without comment the reference to "the all-knowing, elitist attitudes held by this group of faculty members."  Sarcasm aside, which ones does he mean? The 430 who voted no confidence in the president even before the tier drop and the SACS probation?  Is the ersatz elitism of "Southern Miss to the top!" and the constant Potemkin-esque claim of being a "world class university" a "good" elitism, while critiques of jingoistic shibboleths and disturbing administrative actions constitute a "bad" elitism?  In any event, elites are inherently and invariably small minorities, and 430 faculty are hardly that.

I applaud the optimism of Richard's last paragraph.  But I wish he would consider the possibility that those who question or oppose the current administration might also see themselves as "working for the good of the university."  We simply have different views of where that path lies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: John Rachal
"I am also a professor in the department of Educational Leadership and Research, and I consider Richard Kazelskis a good friend.  . . .  But I wish he would consider the possibility that those who question or oppose the current administration might also see themselves as "working for the good of the university."  We simply have different views of where that path lies.  "

---

John--

A fine response.  I do hope you will submit it for publication in the HA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Forever gone
"Ditto, John.  Rational, articulate--the posting of someone who cares about his university and his profession and its values.  "

---

John -- this is an excellent post: intelligent, articulate, passionate and yet kind.

Add one more name to the list of courageous faculty member who feels they can post under their  real names.

Word is that the Thames/Reeves-K/K triumverant are quite upset about the negative reaction to the letter. But, that's how it's always been in that narrow universe of theirs. They may criticize others, however if criticized they are actually taken aback.

You'd think the so-called "experts" in Literacy would figure it all out.