correction--make that "problems don't have to be solved."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Hortense
"What else can a university do and still remain with the bounds of academic decency? "

---

Don't give them any ideas, Hortense, or they might try it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: banker
"There is no way SACS will completely pull USM's accreditation under any circumstance."

---

I disagree.  I think the circumstances have already occurred.  USM has become such a notable case of institutional mismanagement that if SACS finds no significant improvement and does nothing, it will lose its own power to threaten disaccreditation.  At some point it will be a matter of institutional survival for SACS.

A phrase about this situation oft comes to mind:  "He who is often rebuked and stiffens his neck will be destroyed suddenly, with no remedy" (Prov. 29.1).  It can apply to institutions and boards as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: banker
""

---

Banker, could you clarify what "it" is?  SACS?  Or USM?  Thanks.  JL

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Jameela
"Banker, could you clarify what "it" is?  SACS?  Or USM?  Thanks.  JL"

---

Sorry, my fault.  it=SACS.

Achieving SACS accreditation is not, by itself, a great accomplishment for most universities.

I can't believe someone would say this. all of the disciplinary accreditation in the world is moot without SACS. in fact, a couple of units are going to find out how much SACS trumps their disciplinary accreditation when it comes to faculty credentialling.

Whether SACS would be afraid to deaccredit a fairly large state university--or would choose to make an example of one--remains to be seen. Anyone who wants to keep Thames in power had better take heed of the latter possibility. Even a second year of probation would hurt Thames' image even worse than it's been hurt already.

On thinking over Walt's scenario, I can't rule it out entirely. It is much more thoughtful than the trollish contributions we've been getting on this board, and could just easily reflect depression as a desire to spread FUD among the adversaries of Shelby Freland Thames.

But the conjectural chronology assumes that the USM faculty will either leave quietly, or work hard on SACS accreditation without protesting, and without making their expectations known publicly.

Walt assumes that if the Board takes no action against Thames at its May meeting,no faculty members will: publicly resign from SACS-related committees, publicly disband faculty bodies, publicly denounce Joan Exline for lying to them while they were trying to help her on accreditation... or any of those things.

Walt assumes that if the Board fails to fire Thames, or reduce him to lame-duckitude, no faculty member or faculty body will call for the resignations of Ken Malone, Gregg Lassen, Joan Exline, or any of the other members of Thames' slowly dwindling crew. Yet these are things that USM faculty would be well advised to do if Thames does become a lame duck.

Walt further assumes that one month from now the Hattiesburg American and the Jackson Clarion-Ledger will snap around and realign themselves editorially with the Thames administration and SFT's backers on the Board. Henceforward, never a discouraging word. The newspapers will merely print every adulatory press release that Lisa Mader's successor hands them. (Refresh our memories, please, Walt... Lisa Mader is leaving USM, why? She's passing up a platinum-plated opportunity to serve a President-for-Life, why?)

Walt even further assumes that Shelby Thames will do nothing foolish and say nothing foolish until when? January of 2006? After a stretch where he's averaged 1 to 2 outstandingly boneheaded actions per month, wouldn't this be the longest stretch of Thames' entire adult life with no real foolishness in it? What the hell are the local movers and shakers, and the Klumb-Ross-Colbert cabal going to do? Keep SFT under house arrest for 8 or 9 months? Intimidate the media into compete silence about anything foolish that he might do?

Of course, by assuming that no further negative publicity will come out of USM until after Thames is recoronated in January 2006, Walt can discount the most powerful motive that most Board members would have for getting rid of him... the desire to avoid future bad publicity for the Board.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"Achieving SACS accreditation is not, by itself, a great accomplishment for most universities. I can't believe someone would say this. all of the disciplinary accreditation in the world is moot without SACS. in fact, a couple of units are going to find out how much SACS trumps their disciplinary accreditation when it comes to faculty credentialling."

---

I did not read the original post the same way you did, scm.  If I may paraphrase, I understood Higher Standard to mean that SACS accreditation is threshold accreditation, as it were -- the first level that is achieved by many, before additional accreditation is achieved by a few within the smaller, more select discipline. As a threshold, SACS accreditation would be, in effect if not actually, a prerequisite to such disciplinary accreditation. 

At least I did not read the original post as implying that SACS accreditation was somehow inferior or subordinate to other accreditation-granting organizations.  Perhaps less prestigious, but not subordinate.

I think that poster was simply saying that USM can win the SACS battle but still lose the disciplinary wars. I concur. SACS is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for disciplinary accreditations. Go back to the dugout, stinky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"a comment and a question/observation. first, the comment. SACS isn't going to "make an example" of any university. remember who decides our fate--it's presidents and administrators at other universities. if they decide to "make an example" of us, it could happen to them as well when their turn comes for reaffirmation. it turns SACS into more of a political entity than it is or should be.

question/observation--how does the readership of the HA and JCL compare to WDAM? One thing that has struck me is the emphasis on this board about what appears in the newspapers--i guess that is natural because any number are university folks and read newspapers. but i know university and other folk in hattiesburg that don't read any newspaper. get all their news from WDAM or WLOX. this wouldn't be much except i notice that WDAM doesn't cover the issues much at all. Take the athlete that just got signed--not a peep on WDAM. "

---

scm,

If the other presidents see Thames as a complete outlier--or merely want to see him as a complete outlier--then they will have a motive to make an example of USM. I'm not offering this as a prediction, because I don't know the internal politics of SACS. But I do think that Thames' blatant boneheadedness, and the constant media coverage it's brought to USM, could override any desire on their part to protect a fellow president.

I'm at a disadvantage on the second issue because I don't watch WDAM or WLOX. In general, though, TV stations don't cover universities very much, or in much depth.

What is clear to me is that Thames' loyalists (Bob Mixon, Toy McLaughlin, et al.) have gone out of their way to criticize the American and the Clarion-Ledger. They wouldn't bother, if they thought no one whose opinion mattered was reading the newspapers.

Robert Campbell

dusty--i agree with the statement on accredited programs. when i came here it struck me as strange that that was what programs aspired to. in some disciplines there is real debate over whether to seek accreditation or not. some very good universities have told disciplinary accrediting teams to leave. i was told, and later confirmed, that the position on accredited programs (if it can be accredited, it should seek such accreditation) came from the IHL. i guess if you're in a state with a poor educational reputation like MS, then accreditation is one way to offset that reputation.

stinky, although USM is in a sorry mess right now, I do believe that when the sun finally shines again this university can be a force to be reckoned with among Mississippi's institutions of higher education. For the first time in decades (and maybe the first time in the history of the institution) there is meaniningful communication among members of the faculty - on and off of this message board. The giant of academic freedom has been awakened and it won't be long before it will take hold of the entire campus. The faculty will not let the terrible state of affairs that has taken hold of USM happen ever again. It will take time to recover, but USM will recover and stronger than ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"umpire--on some things you're correct. but when it comes to faculty credentialling, in some areas SACS is more stringent than the disciplinary accrediting groups. this is particularly true when it comes to assessing terminal degrees and the role of "experience" in credentialling. this is the reason why credentials is one area that SACS has never backed off from, and it's one area that is going through a great deal of scrutiny at USM now. some disciplines have used their disciplinary accrediting agencies as a basis for allowing some people to teach, and SACS is going to trump them. The consultant has already told one discipline that."

---

Would you please share which one?

class sacs--all i'll say is that it is in COST.