Kazelskis’s Letter - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 1, 2005

Kazelskis’s Letter

Date: Apr 1, 2005

res ipsa loquitor

Date: Apr 1, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Romano
"res ipsa loquitor "

Oh, well, that explains everything, Romano.

Date: Apr 1, 2005

I am hoping that the non-appearance of the letters doesn't mean that the folks who shared their comments with this board failed to submit letters to the HA. By taking a brave and public stance on this board -- as they did -- they have already bothered whoever would be bothered by such comments, but they have not had any real effect on public opinion. In other words, they have shown themselves willing to take a risk, but they have not played for very high stakes. I hope they will indeed send letters to the HA. Perhaps they have and perhaps there is just a delay by the HA; or perhaps the HA is waiting to publish the responses in the Sunday paper, where they would have the most impact. I think the HA is honor-bound to publish at least one response to the original letter, and I am pretty sure they would publish a response if a response were in fact submitted.

FWIW, I get the impression that the HA is now welcoming letters on this topic and would especially appreciate letters supportive of the stance it has begun to stake out. That stance can, I think, be summarized as follows: it is time for Shelby to go.

Date: Apr 1, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"I am hoping that the non-appearance of the letters doesn't mean that the folks who shared their comments with this board failed to submit letters to the HA. By taking a brave and public stance on this board -- as they did -- they have already bothered whoever would be bothered by such comments, but they have not had any real effect on public opinion. In other words, they have shown themselves willing to take a risk, but they have not played for very high stakes. I hope they will indeed send letters to the HA. Perhaps they have and perhaps there is just a delay by the HA; or perhaps the HA is waiting to publish the responses in the Sunday paper, where they would have the most impact. I think the HA is honor-bound to publish at least one response to the original letter, and I am pretty sure they would publish a response if a response were in fact submitted. FWIW, I get the impression that the HA is now welcoming letters on this topic and would especially appreciate letters supportive of the stance it has begun to stake out. That stance can, I think, be summarized as follows: it is time for Shelby to go."

If I had suspected there wouldn't be any letters, I would have written one. Rachal's post was so elegant I didn't consider writing. I assumed the faculty leaders would reply, but then I realized Dave Beckett had the Op-Ed piece on Sunday. I had a letter in the paper recently and didn't want to submit another too soon.

Date: Apr 1, 2005

Think about it - they're all out of the same college. For Mitch and John to even post here, given Thames' disposition of revenge, was a pretty brave act. Impressed the heck out of me. Somebody should post a response, but it's going to happen faster if the person who posts is not in the same college with Richard, Carolyn, and Dana.

Date: Apr 1, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"Think about it - they're all out of the same college. For Mitch and John to even post here, given Thames' disposition of revenge, was a pretty brave act. Impressed the heck out of me. Somebody should post a response, but it's going to happen faster if the person who posts is not in the same college with Richard, Carolyn, and Dana."

Emma,

I, too, was impressed, but if Shelby wants to take revenge, doesn't he have enough excuse merely from the postings to this board? Wouldn't in fact it be harder to take revenge against a more visibly public act? Perhaps I am wrong about this. In any case, I do very much admire the forthrightness of those who posted their comments to this board. I am an "outsider," so take whatever I say with a grain of salt; I do not know the personalities involved.

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Surprised
"Oh, well, that explains everything, Romano."

res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase meaning "the thing speaks for itself"

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: fer da uninfomeda
" res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase meaning "the thing speaks for itself""

I know that ( I had to check it out first). But it doesn't say anything because I provided 3 possible explanations and there could be more. So it does not speak for itself concerning the question being raised.

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Surprised
"Tomorrow it will be a week since Kazelskis’s letter, calling faculty “elitist”, appeared in the Hattiesburg American. I’m very surprised that there has been no response to the letter in the paper. On this board both John Rachal and Mitch had post that would make an excellent basis for letters, and yet no letter appeared. Either no faculty responded with a letter, or the H.A. decided not to print the responses, or maybe the responses were too long for Letters to the Editor and will appear as an Op-Ed piece this weekend. What do you think?"

Or maybe it just isn't worth responding to. This letter is in the way of an opinion and most of what we would have to say in rebuttal has been said. I think a letter in response at this point would be a waste of time and energy some of us are spending elsewhere. I was hoping that John might feel OK about sending his remakrs in but I can understand why he did not. It was incredibly good and brave of him, and thoughtful as well, to share them here with this board -- a quiet way to remind us that when these letters come out they do not speak for everyone in a unit.

On the other hand, some of you who want letters to be written in response (and have not yet responded in the press) could certainly help by channeling that desire into actuality.

There are a number of very important meetings coming up in the next few weeks that many in this board are involved in. Some of these are meetings that are every critical to the cause. I think most of the energy is going there - and in trying to keep this place from falling into the SACs Black hole. I can tell you that as a director of a program I have had four things in the past ten days that have come in through emasil that are due in the next two weeks. That does not count the SACs work also going on throiugh my involvement in Senate and Academic Council. AND continuing to try to identify and locate other stupidities about to be committed before they happen.

There are only so many things we can attend to.

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"AND continuing to try to identify and locate other stupidities about to be committed before they happen."

Only at USM can stupidities be committed before they happen. What an untenable position for those who must identify & locate these stupidities! It almost requires time travel!

In the meantime, I've gone to look for myself. Should I return before I get back, keep me here!

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" Emma, I, too, was impressed, but if Shelby wants to take revenge, doesn't he have enough excuse merely from the postings to this board? Wouldn't in fact it be harder to take revenge against a more visibly public act? Perhaps I am wrong about this. In any case, I do very much admire the forthrightness of those who posted their comments to this board. I am an "outsider," so take whatever I say with a grain of salt; I do not know the personalities involved. "

There are quiet ways to take revenge on those who take a different view than RK's in the COEP. There is at least one chair who has taken it upon herself to drastically alter faculty's schedules - "rewarding" those who don't question the system and "penalizing" those who do. Feldman and Alber are the lucky ones - they're leaving. Who suffers the most? Our students of course because they should not have to endure such loopy judgements.

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Dr. Strangthames
"There are quiet ways to take revenge on those who take a different view than RK's in the COEP. There is at least one chair who has taken it upon herself to drastically alter faculty's schedules - "rewarding" those who don't question the system and "penalizing" those who do. Feldman and Alber are the lucky ones - they're leaving. Who suffers the most? Our students of course because they should not have to endure such loopy judgements."

Are you inferring Dana-Banana would ever stoop so low as to take revenge on those who speak out against daddy?

Date: Apr 2, 2005

I really had not intended to discuss further the Kazelskis letter or my decision to respond to it in this forum only. Nevertheless, here I am. There are three reasons why the letter did not go to HA, two of which I mentioned privately to Stephen. One is that I did not hear of Richard's letter until it was three days old, and I felt that by the time HA published mine, it would be old news. Second, my previous experience publishing letters in HA has been that, like most newspapers, it wields a very heavy editorial hand, especially with long-winded letters such as mine, and I tend to be possessive of my sentences and word choice. Third, Richard's letter was addressed to the general community; by contrast, mine, despite my referrals to him in the third rather than the second person, addressed him and his views specifically. I felt that a letter addressing him in such a public forum as the newspaper, given my twenty-five year association and friendship with him, smacked of a very public display of a personal attack. The morning after my posting I made a point to tell Richard that I had posted a response to him, as I was sure that he was no avid reader of this website. Because he is in my department, I felt compelled to make a statement to him and others indicating that his view certainly does not represent me; but paradoxically, for that very same reason that he is in my department and that he is a colleague and friend, I was disinclined to use the newspaper to air my (inevitably much redacted) views.

Date: Apr 2, 2005

This my friends is a very classy post. Thanks Dr. Rachal.

quote:
Originally posted by: John Rachal
"I really had not intended to discuss further the Kazelskis letter or my decision to respond to it in this forum only. Nevertheless, here I am. There are three reasons why the letter did not go to HA, two of which I mentioned privately to Stephen. One is that I did not hear of Richard's letter until it was three days old, and I felt that by the time HA published mine, it would be old news. Second, my previous experience publishing letters in HA has been that, like most newspapers, it wields a very heavy editorial hand, especially with long-winded letters such as mine, and I tend to be possessive of my sentences and word choice. Third, Richard's letter was addressed to the general community; by contrast, mine, despite my referrals to him in the third rather than the second person, addressed him and his views specifically. I felt that a letter addressing him in such a public forum as the newspaper, given my twenty-five year association and friendship with him, smacked of a very public display of a personal attack. The morning after my posting I made a point to tell Richard that I had posted a response to him, as I was sure that he was no avid reader of this website. Because he is in my department, I felt compelled to make a statement to him and others indicating that his view certainly does not represent me; but paradoxically, for that very same reason that he is in my department and that he is a colleague and friend, I was disinclined to use the newspaper to air my (inevitably much redacted) views."

Date: Apr 2, 2005

John Rachal,

It is a shame that your esteemed colleague is so much less a man than you. I would hope that Professor Kazelskis would feel badly about casting aspersions on his fellow department members. I cannot tell from your post if that is the case, but I suspect he would do it again if the opportunity presented itself. Correct me if I am wrong

Date: Apr 2, 2005

Then again you have another typical personal attack that makes the "hate" board.

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"John Rachal,

It is a shame that your esteemed colleague is so much less a man than you. I would hope that Professor Kazelskis would feel badly about casting aspersions on his fellow department members. I cannot tell from your post if that is the case, but I suspect he would do it again if the opportunity presented itself. Correct me if I am wrong"

Date: Apr 2, 2005

If I were approached by a colleague who displayed the level of respect for his fellow colleague as John Rachal, and he/she told me what I had written in a letter to the editor upset him/her, I would apologize. My reading of the post was that such was not the response. John Rachal’s actions reveal to me that he is a class act and I would be very proud to have him as a colleague. Kazelskis’s letter was very uncomplimentary about USM faculty as a whole. There is a world of difference between the two men. If I had wanted to make a personal attack, I would have been much more direct.

Date: Apr 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Sympathy
"Then again you have another typical personal attack that makes the "hate" board. quote: Originally posted by: Cossack"John Rachal, It is a shame that your esteemed colleague is so much less a man than you. I would hope that Professor Kazelskis would feel badly about casting aspersions on his fellow department members. I cannot tell from your post if that is the case, but I suspect he would do it again if the opportunity presented itself. Correct me if I am wrong""

This is not a "hate" board . . . any more than it is a "love" board. It is a board where people express their opinions. Also their feelings. Sometimes, given the stresses many at this university are under right now, it is hard to tell the difference. Cossack has an opinion -- any of us are free to dispute him.

I think it would be fair of you to also condemn Dr. Kazelkis who similarly took a pretty broad and unsubtantiated swipe at faculty who do not support the administration. That was also his opinion . . . but it was hardly based on fact. I have never met Dr. Kazelkis. Yet his indictment of those members of the faculty who he clearly perceives as being malcontents certainly feels pretty personal considering that, along with a number of other people, I have been pretty public in my opposition to this administration. In fairness to Cossack, the first ad hominum attack was issued in Dr. Kazelkis' letter when he attacked his colleagues.

No one has made a rule that the only expressions on this board can be rational, logical, or agreeable. The Board functions as much a site for venting of anger and frustration as it does logical argument. Most people who are on this Board frequently understand the therapeutic aspect of the Board, and take much of what we read (and sometimes say) in stride.

This Board functions pretty well as a kind of filter . . . bad ideas, intemperate expressions and the like tend to get uttered and eventually fall to the bottom of the pond. I have some things I have said on this and the Fire Shelby Board that I am glad to have sunk to the bottom -- but I was glad to have the Board as a forum for saying them, and for other eyes to read (and sometimes respond) to what I had to say. Sometimes it is the only way to know that your feelings of anger are shared by others.

Cossack has always been very clear that he believes there are people who have, in one way or another, been "bought." Buying people is certainly a well-tried technique of those who wield power. Identifying those who have been bought is a strategy for unmasking the technique by either exposing the individuals or exposing the pattern. I think Cossack's citation of his perception of Dr. Kazelkis probably fits in the latter category. So Cossack's accusation is not entirely to be seen as an "ad hominum" attack. It is also a statement about how this administration operates -- a statement that is not without some evidence in other instances in which staff and faculty have been threatened or bribed into expressing support for the administration.

Date: Apr 3, 2005

Professor Judd has summed up the issue eloquently. In addition, I would like to say that my post was motivated by observing the professional and courteous way that Professor Rachal handled the issue with a colleague. His department and college are fortunate to have a person of his caliber. I admire him and would like to emulate his behavior. However, it is a difficult thing that he does and many of us cannot. It is the contrast in the behavior of the two professors that is so striking and worthy of comment.