Are we on the same planet?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Third Witch
"Consider the source. Of course he is totally entitled to his opinion, and considering who he is, is in absolutely no danger whatsoever."

---

Can you explain?  Is he connected in some way with Thames the Younger?

Google is your friend.

Richard and his wife Carolyn Reeves were big winners (along with Dana) in the Midas Support-me-and-I'll make you wealthy giveaway last spring. His opinion has been bought and paid for.

Shame on you Richard.

certainly one should consider the dana factor in this letter.  many, many fine people in education-psychology, however keep in mind the effect of dana on this group.

i have been around since 1969 also, but i have never seen usm place an airplane(dont want to hear about foundation) before academics(library books comes to mind)

flat out, usm is not the same academically today as it was 5 years ago.   if that gives me an elitist attitude..........guilty as charged

This writer will make the perfect target (Metaphor Alert!)  for a USM faculty member writing a letter in response.

In fact, he has just provided an opening for media coverage of the mess in Education, and Dana Thames' role in it.

Robert Campbell

Google Dr. Kazelskis and his wife Carolyn Reeves Kazelskis, and all will be explained. They are the two strongest supporters of Dana Thames left on that campus save departed faculty member Dr. Mark Richmond who's wife Beth has somehow found her way into a no-search faculty position in CISE (via Barksdales, but those days are gone).

What RK thinks about faculty behavior is a joke considering his own.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"This writer will make the perfect target (Metaphor Alert!)  for a USM faculty member writing a letter in response. In fact, he has just provided an opening for media coverage of the mess in Education, and Dana Thames' role in it. Robert Campbell"

---

If faculty plan to submit Letters to the Editor in response to this, I suggest they get started writing.  I figure we will see about 31 more letter of this type and the Hattiesburg American will be getting about 430 rebuttals to it.  Please remember to address the ideas and NOT the person. 

 

 

At least Lisa has finally expanded her job responsibilities from preparing statements for only the president.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Sparky
""During the past year, a group of faculty members have expressed explicitly that they are much more knowledgeable than the administration about how our university should be run." I'd say that the "group of faculty members" is correct. I can't believe anybody would say this in private, much less in public. "

---

I am the Associate Dean in the college in which Dr. Kazeskis holds his appointment. Although he has a right to publish his position on the matter, I do disagree with Dr. K on several points. First, I think that labeling faculty who disagree with the IHL or other administrative enitities as "elitist" serves no purpose and can shut down dialogue on issues that are very important to the future of this university. Second, every time a writer draws a distinction between "the faculty" and "the administration" with respect to governace involvement (that is, that faculty should butt out), a serious myth is perpetuated--that a university can and should be run without the input and the significant good works of faculty and staff. Third, all human beings, including administrators, business people, and faculty, are capable of mistakes and misjudgments. Openness to feedback can play an important role in correcting course or avoiding pitfalls if systems are in place to make use of this feedback. Accordingly, demanding that folks keep opinions (right or wrong) to themselves is a formula for disaster. Fourth, administrators are faculty, albeit with greater personnel authority and access to purse strings. Therefore, the most important quality someone with administrative duties and authority needs is to be cognizant that they are first and foremost a peer among peers.      

I've sort of given up on posting to this site, because anonymous posters always seem to pile on with personal attacks after I post. However, I believe that I would have been remiss to not express my disagreement with the content of Dr. Kazelskis' letter, though I unequivocally support his right and obligation to free expression on this topic, including this venue.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
" I am the Associate Dean in the college in which Dr. Kazeskis holds his appointment. Although he has a right to publish his position on the matter, I do disagree with Dr. K on several points. First, I think that labeling faculty who disagree with the IHL or other administrative enitities as "elitist" serves no purpose and can shut down dialogue on issues that are very important to the future of this university. Second, every time a writer draws a distinction between "the faculty" and "the administration" with respect to governace involvement (that is, that faculty should butt out), a serious myth is perpetuated--that a university can and should be run without the input and the significant good works of faculty and staff. Third, all human beings, including administrators, business people, and faculty, are capable of mistakes and misjudgments. Openness to feedback can play an important role in correcting course or avoiding pitfalls if systems are in place to make use of this feedback. Accordingly, demanding that folks keep opinions (right or wrong) to themselves is a formula for disaster. Fourth, administrators are faculty, albeit with greater personnel authority and access to purse strings. Therefore, the most important quality someone with administrative duties and authority needs is to be cognizant that they are first and foremost a peer among peers.       I've sort of given up on posting to this site, because anonymous posters always seem to pile on with personal attacks after I post. However, I believe that I would have been remiss to not express my disagreement with the content of Dr. Kazelskis' letter, though I unequivocally support his right and obligation to free expression on this topic, including this venue.  "

---

A very thoughtful post Mitch.  This has the ingredients of an excellent Letter to the Editor.  I hope you consider it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: I think he has a point
"..The sooner you guys accept the fact that at the end of the day, you are not much more than employees of USM and SFT, the better. ... "

---

This may be so, but then they should change the name of the institution because it isn't a University.  Basically that is the reason that USM is in trouble with SACS and will be for a while.  If you don't have faculty input you quickly lose academic integrity.  It is always cheaper in the short term to reduce quality, reduce requirements and increase enrollment by lowering standards.  The public will never know they were cheated for about 15 years, except in those areas that require students to pass national/qualification exams.  Results recently reported for nursing indicates we are well on our way down the tubes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: madegret
"shut down dialogue ?  Let's start by eliminating the use of the term "bidness."  Not once have I heard a "bidness" person utilize derogatory terminology in terms of the faculty while discussing this topic.  But, on this website and in personal conversation, faculty have called their "peers" in the administration terms I wouldn't call a bad house pet. "

---

M - I know that I am probably feeding a troll, but if you have never heard a bidness person - by which I especially mean the organizers of that soireee a couple of weeks ago - say derogatory things about faculty than you haven't read many threads on this site or been very cognizant of your surroundings.  I was accused by them of inciting violence, which I have never done.  In my opinion, SFT and his gang of amateuerish goons deserve what they get: they have destroyed good lives and careers through their meanness and incompetence - they deserve, what is the phrase? - oh yeah, NO QUARTER!

Angeline, no you're not feeding a troll.  I am a person privy to the private business and administration conversation and what I can tell you is that no one I have contact with has ever attacked someone's intelligence, manner of livelihood, etc.  No word that would require a "*$%#@" to exclude it from being foul has been used.  They do have disagreements with your views, but no blatant "meanness."