Questions about Thames - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 30, 2005

Questions about Thames

Date: May 30, 2005

I can think of one professor who has financially benefitted thanks to Thames; in fact, his salary has at least doubled: Gary Stringer. He is making a nice income at a much better school, and he is still collecting his old salary at USM for two years. This just proves once again that Shelby Thames is a man of his word and also a very savvy businessman!

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Do the math
"I can think of one professor who has financially benefitted thanks to Thames; in fact, his salary has at least doubled: Gary Stringer. He is making a nice income at a much better school, and he is still collecting his old salary at USM for two years."

Gary Stringer did good. Not nearly as good as he deserved, but good nonetheless. And Frank Glamser also did good. The taxpayers of Mississippi were the big losers. Whoever made the decision to go through with those outrageous termination attempts sure leaped forth without thinking the matter through very well.

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Money growing on trees
"Whoever made the decision to go through with those outrageous termination attempts sure leaped forth without thinking the matter through very well. "

That's the henchbunch's M.O. Name an important decision that hasn't been made this way!

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Dr. 90210
"I Do you think he was surprised that most faculty view university life much less in the way of personal gain than does he?
And, given that he used the term "millionaires," do you think this hints at the possibility that he's used the university in every way he knows how to produce additional personal wealth (i.e., above his salary/fringes) in the million-dollar range over his own lengthy career in Hattiesburg/Gulf Coast? "

Yes. Thames's lack of respect for the faculty is due to the fact that he thinks they are like him--purely motivated by money, power and prestige. He does not understand the larger values of academic culture. The reaons Thames makes decisions without consulting with anyone is he has no idea that faculty could actually cooperate and work together--it is not something he has ever been able to do.

Date: May 31, 2005

These observations about SFT are insightful and right on the mark.

I think it is worth thinking about the world that created him: 1950s Mississippi. Desperately poor, segregated and a national pariah with very few opportunities for a young person. Here comes young Shelby--very ambitious and bright (but not so bright or well-educated he could compete on a national level). He looks around, and the only job for an educated professional in Mississippi is employment with the state at a prof. So he goes off to the University of Tenn, gets a Ph.D. and comes back home.

Like all ambitious people in underdeveloped economies, he turns to the state where cronyism, corruption, and nepotism are the qualities for advancement and enrichment. We call it "rent seeking" in economics.

This gives the lie to Thames's talk about making the university more like a business. He wouldn't survive five minutes in a private sector R&D operation or tech company where highly trained creative talent is in short supply. The first autocratic line out of his mouth would send his scientists packing to his competitors across the street.

The sum total of SFT's program is converting public goods, like a univeristy, to private gain. Ain't nothing special about that. Happens in Africa and Latin America all the time.

Date: May 31, 2005

"
The sum total of SFT's program is converting public goods, like a univeristy, to private gain. Ain't nothing special about that. Happens in Africa and Latin America all the time."

Absolutely. Very astute post. One only has to look at the current. corruption in some of the emerging African countires to see the parallel.

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: qwerty
"These observations about SFT are insightful and right on the mark. I think it is worth thinking about the world that created him: 1950s Mississippi. Desperately poor, segregated and a national pariah with very few opportunities for a young person. Here comes young Shelby--very ambitious and bright (but not so bright or well-educated he could compete on a national level). He looks around, and the only job for an educated professional in Mississippi is employment with the state at a prof. So he goes off to the University of Tenn, gets a Ph.D. and comes back home. Like all ambitious people in underdeveloped economies, he turns to the state where cronyism, corruption, and nepotism are the qualities for advancement and enrichment. We call it "rent seeking" in economics. This gives the lie to Thames's talk about making the university more like a business. He wouldn't survive five minutes in a private sector R&D operation or tech company where highly trained creative talent is in short supply. The first autocratic line out of his mouth would send his scientists packing to his competitors across the street. The sum total of SFT's program is converting public goods, like a univeristy, to private gain. Ain't nothing special about that. Happens in Africa and Latin America all the time. "

This is really insightful; thanks!

Date: May 31, 2005

Our friend Angeline made these points too a year ago - private gain is the primary goal of SFT and his plans for the university. What a shame.

The New Paradigm at USM
Angeline

May 25, 2004: Reprinted from the message board

What we have here at USM under Thames is a "radical" (Dvorak's term) attempt to put public taxpayer money to private for-profit purposes. The only thing terribly new about it is that it is occurring here in a public institution of higher education. It is part of the trend that took off in the 1980s to eventually privatize all formerly public institutions, i.e. utility companies, prisons, aspects of the military, and so on to turn them into privately-owned for-profit companies that use their privileged position as recipients of taxpayer funds and as, in many cases, the sole supplier of a particular service in a given geographical area (otherwise called a monopoly). Basically, areas of society that the government spent decades in building up from public funds are being converted to private use with little to no oversight and with questionable, indeed detrimental, impact on the population that is supposed to be served by that institution. Some might blame the Republicans for this anti-New Deal trend in America, but the Democrats share in the blame and have yet to prove that they meaningfully oppose it.

What will that mean at USM? At the least it will mean further development of the trends we are already seeing: money shifted to "economic development" (including athletics) and all emphasis for faculty production, student degrees, and community relations being shifted there as well - de-emphasis of humanities and the arts (they don't generate profits for the institution), de-emphasis of what was for centuries thought of as "education" (critical thinking, writing, communication, and analytical skills, except as they can be directly related to "economic development") - a PR machine that constantly says "economic development" is the great goal of all right-thinking, full-blooded Americans (with little to no proof to support the claim) - the belittling of students and faculty who don't "see the light" and go along with this obviously correct new direction - the conversion of all university services (such as food, printing, textbook sales, housing, health, and so on) to private companies who pay a fee in order to acquire a captive audience of consumers and then gradually over time offer less service for higher cost - the pursuit of and conversion of grant monies from the federal and state governments, foundations, and private sources that, though acquired through USM's status as a public university, go to support private companies via "economic development," and, finally, the centralization of administration and elimination of any meaningful input from students, faculty, staff, or parents: that's why USM is now run by people who know next to nothing about higher education but who know how to turn this great public resource into personal profit.

The main problem for this attempt to highjack higher education is that the public generally does not agree with it. But, unless hell is raised (as it has been lately), the public will never get to vote on these radical changes or otherwise affect the direction that Thames & Co. is taking USM. If the pressure is maintained then the burden of proof is on Thames & Co.: they must demonstrate that turning USM into a money-making venture genuinely benefits students (other than those in Polymer Science) and that it fulfills the educational (as opposed to the economic) goals of the state of Mississippi. Should economic development really be the end all of a public university? Is that all that we want our students to know and treasure?

Date: May 31, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: qwerty
"These observations about SFT are insightful and right on the mark. I think it is worth thinking about the world that created him: 1950s Mississippi. Desperately poor, segregated and a national pariah with very few opportunities for a young person. Here comes young Shelby--very ambitious and bright (but not so bright or well-educated he could compete on a national level). He looks around, and the only job for an educated professional in Mississippi is employment with the state at a prof. So he goes off to the University of Tenn, gets a Ph.D. and comes back home. Like all ambitious people in underdeveloped economies, he turns to the state where cronyism, corruption, and nepotism are the qualities for advancement and enrichment. We call it "rent seeking" in economics. This gives the lie to Thames's talk about making the university more like a business. He wouldn't survive five minutes in a private sector R&D operation or tech company where highly trained creative talent is in short supply. The first autocratic line out of his mouth would send his scientists packing to his competitors across the street. The sum total of SFT's program is converting public goods, like a univeristy, to private gain. Ain't nothing special about that. Happens in Africa and Latin America all the time. "

qwerty, you present a very thoughtful analysis. I find that much of what you say is true. Mississippi of the 1950's was, as you say, poor, segregated, and underdeveloped. But I believe that you're being far too charitable by painting a university administrator as a "victim" of 1950's Mississippi. There's no need to make excuses.

You describe 1950's Mississippi as a state with " . . . very few opportunities for a young person" and you go on to say "the only job for an educated professional in Mississippi is employment with the state at a prof." There were scores of educated professionals in 1950's Mississippi who became writers, poets, engineers, physicians, actors, lawyers, bankers, inventors, teachers, and leaders in business and industry - in and out of the state. I know this for sure because I was there to witness it first hand. Further, you describe 1950's Mississippi as "the state where cronyism, corruption, and nepotism are the qualities for advancement and enrichment." Had you been a fly on the wall back then, I believe you would have observed a highly developed work ethic among Mississippi's children of the 50's. We did quite well, and without appealing to cronyism, corruption, or nepotism.

I recommend Willie Morris' book North Toward Home which provides a very good picture of what things were like for many of us in 1950's Mississippi. Willie finally came home after a succesful stint as Editor of Harper's Magazine in NYC where he describes the sucessful "displaced Mississippians" that he met in the editorial rooms, bars, highways, and highways. I, too, will come home one day. Thanks again for your thoughtful post. It brought back for me the many pleasant memories, as well as the agonizing pain, that helped make Mississippi's children of the 50's - of whatever color, religion, economic status, or geographic location - tough at nails. No Quarter.

Date: May 31, 2005

Mississippi in the 1950's? You're talking about me. We were the depression babies. We learned the meaning of red, white, and blue from our elementary school classrooms during World War II. Today's gas rationing pales in comparison with the gas rationing during that era. Most of our parents were not college educated. Many of them didn't even have a high school diploma. We walked whenever we needed to go somewhere. A Philco radio was our window to the outside world. Mississippian in Exile is right. Make no excuses for us. And make no excuses for a university president. We are products of the Mississippi 50s, but we are not victims. Life is full of choices. Everyone must be accountable.

Date: May 31, 2005

Make no excuses for us. And make no excuses for a university president. We are products of the Mississippi 50s, but we are not victims. Life is full of choices. Everyone must be accountable.

Bravo!

Date: May 31, 2005

Mewjician wrote:

Make no excuses for us. And make no excuses for a university president. We are products of the Mississippi 50s, but we are not victims. Life is full of choices. Everyone must be accountable. Bravo!

Turn up your record player and let's dance! --- Heavens Gates Remembering The 50s

Date: May 31, 2005

Dr. 90210 wrote:

I remember reading that Thames, when he became president, said he could make millionaires out of all USM faculty. He knew how to get personal enrichment out of university employment --- contracts, MURA companies, and the like. I think he took a literal view of Haley Barbour's "our universities are economic gold mines" theme. Do you think he was surprised that most faculty view university life much less in the way of personal gain than does he? And, given that he used the term "millionaires," do you think this hints at the possibility that he's used the university in every way he knows how to produce additional personal wealth (i.e., above his salary/fringes) in the million-dollar range over his own lengthy career in Hattiesburg/Gulf Coast?

1. He scores much higher on the sleeze scale than most, but was possibly surprised how little interest there was to use the institution the way he has.

2. It is quite possible that he has raked in a million over the years. He's almost 70 years old now and has been at this game for a long time. Most in the community are aware.