Let's assume that IHL board positions in Mississippi are elected positions instead of appointments. Assume that Candidate A is running against Candidate B for a seat on the IHL.
Candidate A goes to the public with billboards (and stump speeches) with slogans and phrases like "a day's work for a day's pay," "universities should be run like businesses," "those liberal faculty," "those lazy faculty," "faculty naysayers," "let the administrators administrate and let's have the faculty educate," "we need our universities to be economic gold mines," and "the 'tenured faculty' club needs to get busy."
Candidate B presents to the public with billboards (and stump speeches) with slogans and phrases like "academic freedom is essential and should be protected," "shared governance is the way," "tenure is an important element in higher education," "universities aren't businesses and shouldn't be managed as such," "thoughtful discourse is essential in solving problems," and "Presidents should consult with faculty before making key decisions."
quote: Originally posted by: Dude, Where's my Prof? " Describe the outcome of this election."
Candidate "A" would win, of course (the one with the corny slogans like "A day's work for a day's pay, and "those lazy overpaid faculty"). You could construct an analogous scenario pertaining to medical doctors, or laywers, or any professional. Candidate "A" would always win because the voters are not usually conversant with good practice in academics, medicine, or law. Those matter should have never been put to a vote or the politicians will always be the victors.
Given that something like 16% of Mississippians are college-educated, I'd say the vote would be pretty predictable. Given that fundamentalism is anti-intellectual and we are in the Bible belt makes it even more predictable.
A better question would be: "What sound bites could Candidate B use to be more effective in getting his point across to the electorate?" Maybe something like "Your children aren't widgets and we aren't manufacturing robots."
It's not fair to expect the electorate of Mississippi to understand the complex arguments surrounding this issue. It's one reason the IHL isn't elected. However, the governors that appoint them are elected and I daresay that many of the electorate expect their leaders to understand the issues. The problem is a lack of statesmanship...and pandering to the lowest common denominator; which is how you win elections. If winning an election is your only goal, that's not a bad strategy. How you will be remembered in the history books...maybe that's not such a good strategy after all.
The question remains, as Invictus reminded us on another thread:
Why is Candidate A's rhetoric being directed only at the faculty of USM?
Why not the faculty of every other university in Mississippi--or at least every other state university?
People who think that professors as a class are lazy whiners are people who don't have much use for universities. Administrators who cultivate such people's support are normally getting more than they bargained for. They are inciting a significant percentage of the general public to call for doing away with the university.
A few of Thames' backers aren't getting more than they bargained for, because they really want to destroy USM. But Thames himself, and many of his loyalists, seem to have no genuine understanding of the forces they are trying to unleash.