Letter to Hattiesburg - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 1, 2005

RE: Letter to Hattiesburg

Date: Jun 1, 2005

The city of Hattiesburg has never supported Southern Miss as it should. I have often wondered if we would not be better off moving the whole operation to the Gulf Coast.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

I do believe that there are a lot more people out there supporting the faculty than most of us realize. They have a difficult time sorting out what is happening on campus, and find it easiest to assume that the faculty can take care of themselves. After all we seem smart (cocky?), assertive, strong. I think the typical pattern will be for them to wait for a change, then tell you that they were very uncomfortable with how you were being treated. Part of it is that they have seen presidents come and go, and see them as a temporary problem.

A reason for staying?

Here is a joke for you:

An train engineer is being tested. The instructor asks him, "If you see another train sitting still ahead of you on the tracks and you are already at full speed, what would you do?"

He replies, "Pull the brake."

"And if the brake fails?"

"Pull the emergency brake."

"And if that fails?"

"I'd wake up Jimmy."

"Why would you wake up Jimmy?"

"He's never seen a train wreck before."

Date: Jun 2, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

LVN wrote: Left, you definitely have a point. I have almost begged people to write and the answer is "I don't know what to say." (This makes me remember with a chuckle that a troll once accused me of "orchestrating" a letter-writing campaign. Right.) Also, I do think we overestimate the influence of letters to the newspaper. I wonder if a petition drive would help. It wouldn't even have to be an anti-Shelby petition -- perhaps something along the lines of "We, the undersigned, wish to express our appreciation of -- and support for -- the quality faculty and staff at USM as the university begins the process of searching for a new president. We hope that the concerns of faculty and staff will be given genuine consideration as this process unfolds." It's worth remembering that there were close to 600 signers of the petition (much more sharply worded than the wording suggested above) on the old FS board -- a petition that called for the firing of Shelby. Even people who can't write a letter can sign a petition.

The petition that appears at the top right of the AAUP message board was signed by 663 good people. And that without even a door-to-door effort or any other of the usual techniques for obtaining signatures!

Date: Jun 2, 2005

John Hancock wrote:

The petition that appears at the top right of the AAUP message board was signed by 663 good people. And that without even a door-to-door effort or any other of the usual techniques for obtaining signatures!

I'd bet my seat at Nitchampburg stadium that many more people from the community would sign a pro- faculty resolution than attended the Warren Paving meeting.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Sad wrote:

The city of Hattiesburg has never supported Southern Miss as it should. I have often wondered if we would not be better off moving the whole operation to the Gulf Coast.

Hmm. Do you mean move the university from hot, interior, pine-barrens to the a spot ensconced in live oaks overlooking the Gulf of Mexico? Who'd want to live down there? [note sarcasm]

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Land o' shrimp and boats wrote:

Do you mean move the university from hot, interior, pine-barrens to the a spot ensconced in live oaks overlooking the Gulf of Mexico? Who'd want to live down there? [note sarcasm]

Who wouldn't want to live down there? I'll respond to your question. The coast was once a great place to retire. At one time it was at the top of my list. Even the shallow Gulf not-fit-for-swimming beach didn't bother me. But with the influx of casinos, 24-hour pawn shops, a different breed of tourists, a crowded and beer-can laden beach, and the disapparance of some of those really great mom-and-pop restaurants, it is far less attractive. This is not to say that it's not a great place to work if that's where you happen to land a good job, or if your children are there. But a magnet for retirement? Maybe for some, but not for me. But it most definitely was a retirement mecca at one time and I would have enjoyed living there.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Retiree wrote:

Land o' shrimp and boats wrote:

Who wouldn't want to live down there? I'll respond to your question. The coast was once a great place to retire. At one time it was at the top of my list. Even the shallow Gulf not-fit-for-swimming beach didn't bother me. But with the influx of casinos, 24-hour pawn shops, a different breed of tourists, a crowded and beer-can laden beach, and the disapparance of some of those really great mom-and-pop restaurants, it is far less attractive. This is not to say that it's not a great place to work if that's where you happen to land a good job, or if your children are there. But a magnet for retirement? Maybe for some, but not for me. But it most definitely was a retirement mecca at one time and I would have enjoyed living there.

August 17, 1969 I had moved to Biloxi the week before and lived two blocks from the beach. On August 18, 1969 I lived two and one-half blocks from the beach. No thank you, no cottage on the Coast for me.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

New Student,

Six months of reading hardly acquaints you with the injustice done by Shelby Thames and his minions. I suggest you read back approximately a year and a half, if not further back.

A good place to start is the old Fire Shelby message board, linked above. There are loads of links in posts there that will take you back to the origins of problems at USM.

Additionally, read the faculty senate minutes. That's another good place for info.

The past six months have been relatively quiet, compared to what was happening a year before, or even two years before. You weren't here when USM was USM, so you have no knowledge with which to compare what you currently know about this university. The changes have been drastic and devastating.

FS

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Silence Dogood wrote:

It saddens me to read the Letter to Hattiesburg. I am so very disheartened to see many of my favorite Professors leaving or planning on leaving. I shall graduate in December and I can't say that it wont be a moment to soon for me. I am so tired of what is happening at USM. I feel as if I am a broken record every time I try to speak out for the faculty. They are not the bad guys! Why do people and even most of the students not get what is going on????

No, they are absolutely not bad guys. To the contrary they are, as a whole, very outstanding citizens. Many, and not all, of the ones who write messages on this board, however, come accross as bitter, vindictive, whiners. I know for a fact that this is not characteristic of the faculty as a whole, but a lot of people think that these few unhappy individuals represent the opinions of all. That is the root of the problem. The faculty needs to somehow make the general public understand that the radicals on this board do not represent their feelings.

Basically you have "good guys" in the community and "good guys" on the faculty that have been polarized by this extremism. The overwhelming majority of both the community and the faculty would like to find a way to join together to promote their many common interests. The polarization has caused this to be very difficult.

I see people writing messages on this site that attempt to extend olive branches, but are driven away by the "no quarter" crowd. The attitude of the community is largely self inflicted by the extremists.

I realize that I will be attacked now, but I feel that the message by "Citizen Gone" and the supportive replies are examples of the attitudes that have caused a negative image in the community. How could CG possibly expect his neighbors to open their hearts to him or her? CG has drawn battle lines. Nobody is ever badgered into fiendship. This person has the world's biggest chip on his shoulder. Are any of you drawn to people with chips on their shoulders?

This "No Quarter" approach is childish, offensive, and destructive. Shelby Thames is going. I doubt that there is much you can do to hasten his exit, but there is much you can do to exacerbate the divisiveness between the faculty and the community. Just keep up your war, and drive the wedge deeper and deeper or ease up and direct your energy towards finding a way to bridge the gap. It is your call. There are non faculty individuals who would like to put this behind them and start the healing process. Unfortunately, the AAUP apparently doesn't have a vehicle for allowing that. It seems that this organization can prosper only if there is strife. If there were peace, what need would there be for such an organization?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

If there were peace, what need would there be for such an organization?

Indeed. War was declared on the faculty, on the staff, on the students, on common decency, and on academic quality. That is why AAUP was brought to this campus and that is why it will remain to ensure that these horrific events are never repeated.

Another point: the faculty are always called "radicals" by those who don't know any better. Look up "radical" in the dictionary and see if it applies more to Shelby or to the faculty. Who has promoted radical change at USM? Who, on the other hand, has sought to preserve academic integrity?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

I hope I can respond to Gracie's Mother without seeming to attack. GM, there are a number of inaccurate underlying assumptions in your statement. One is that "a few" faculty of the more whiny type opposed Thames. Do the numbers 430-32 mean anything to you? Another is that this board represents the AAUP. It does not. It is not an official anything. It's just supposed to be a place for people to visit, gossip, and ventilate. A third assumption is that the AAUP would not be needed under different circumstances. In fact, the AAUP would be much larger and more active were people not terrified to join. (I hope that's true.) On other campuses, AAUP's principles are written into the mission statements of the school. AAUP is a respected academic organization with goals more far-reaching that battling tyrannical incompetants who are bent on destruction.
You also do not seem to grasp that USM's reputation is in the tank. Reputation is what pulls good faculty and good students. Ours is very, very bad. One department this year has been unable to recruit a chair. Others have been decimated and cannot make up their losses. The situation here is very grim, and two more years of Thames is about a year and eleven months too long.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Land o' shrimp and boats wrote:

Hmm. Do you mean move the university from hot, interior, pine-barrens to the a spot ensconced in live oaks overlooking the Gulf of Mexico? Who'd want to live down there? [note sarcasm]

Price real estate. Figure you'll just live somewhere north of I-10 or up in Stone County & commute? Price gasoline. (Of course, you could follow Frank Glamser's lead & get a nice BMW ... motorcycle

)

And if you think Highway 98 is a pain to drive at 4 in the afternoon, strap on Hwy 49 from O'Neal Road down to WalMart at any time except 4 in the morning.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

"...the AAUP ... this organization can prosper only if there is strife. If there were peace, what need would there be for such an organization?"

Gracie's Mom,

You are probably not aware of this, but for decades USM had no AAUP chapter. Those decades were accompanied by years of abuse perpetrated against faculty members on this campus. Not surprisingly, it has now reached an intolerable level. If previous USM adminstrators had subscribed to AAUP principles, we wouldn't be seeing this conflict. The Teamsters Union might be able to do it quicker, but AAUP is probably a better route. Your suggestion that AAUP thrives on strife tells me that your contact with academics has been rather distant.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Nobody is ever badgered into fiendship.

You're right; Shelby chose fiendship voluntarily.

Now, on a serious note: can you offer some practical suggestions about how to restore good relations with the community? Can you give us a list of maybe five or ten practical steps that would (in your opinion) help?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Angeline wrote:

Another point: the faculty are always called "radicals" by those who don't know any better. Look up "radical" in the dictionary and see if it applies more to Shelby or to the faculty. Who has promoted radical change at USM? Who, on the other hand, has sought to preserve academic integrity?

Excellent point.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

I hope I can respond to Gracie's Mother without seeming to attack. GM, there are a number of inaccurate underlying assumptions in your statement. One is that "a few" faculty of the more whiny type opposed Thames. Do the numbers 430-32 mean anything to you? Another is that this board represents the AAUP. It does not. It is not an official anything. It's just supposed to be a place for people to visit, gossip, and ventilate. A third assumption is that the AAUP would not be needed under different circumstances. In fact, the AAUP would be much larger and more active were people not terrified to join. (I hope that's true.) On other campuses, AAUP's principles are written into the mission statements of the school. AAUP is a respected academic organization with goals more far-reaching that battling tyrannical incompetants who are bent on destruction. You also do not seem to grasp that USM's reputation is in the tank. Reputation is what pulls good faculty and good students. Ours is very, very bad. One department this year has been unable to recruit a chair. Others have been decimated and cannot make up their losses. The situation here is very grim, and two more years of Thames is about a year and eleven months too long.

TW,

I have to say that you are running neck-and-neck with LVN as one of my all-time favorite posters. Your comments are not only consistently wise but also very well phrased. Many thanks.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Has the AAUP ever considered hosting a "community meeting" about the situation at USM, in which everyone in the community would be invited to come and ask questions about the faculty/staff perception of things at USM? This might be one way of showing "openness" to the community's opinions, and it would be diametrically opposite to the closed-door meeting of the putschers. The tone of the responses to questions would need to be absolutely civil and rational and unemotional, even in the face of possible provocation by some questioners. (In fact, if questioners "beat-up" on the AAUP folks, I suspect this would only make the questioners look bad.) The value of such a meeting would be less in promoting the departure of Shelby (he's a goner anyway) than in building community support for the faculty and staff as the search for a new president begins.

Just an idea (probably flawed in some way I can't see).

Date: Jun 2, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

Has the AAUP ever considered hosting a "community meeting" about the situation at USM, in which everyone in the community would be invited to come and ask questions about the faculty/staff perception of things at USM? This might be one way of showing "openness" to the community's opinions, and it would be diametrically opposite to the closed-door meeting of the putschers. The tone of the responses to questions would need to be absolutely civil and rational and unemotional, even in the face of possible provocation by some questioners. (In fact, if questioners "beat-up" on the AAUP folks, I suspect this would only make the questioners look bad.) The value of such a meeting would be less in promoting the departure of Shelby (he's a goner anyway) than in building community support for the faculty and staff as the search for a new president begins. Just an idea (probably flawed in some way I can't see).

This is an excellent idea. I wonder if we'd be able to use the meeting facilities at Warren Paving for the community meeting, or would that venue be too small?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

Has the AAUP ever considered hosting a "community meeting" about the situation at USM, in which everyone in the community would be invited to come and ask questions about the faculty/staff perception of things at USM? This might be one way of showing "openness" to the community's opinions, and it would be diametrically opposite to the closed-door meeting of the putschers. The tone of the responses to questions would need to be absolutely civil and rational and unemotional, even in the face of possible provocation by some questioners. (In fact, if questioners "beat-up" on the AAUP folks, I suspect this would only make the questioners look bad.) The value of such a meeting would be less in promoting the departure of Shelby (he's a goner anyway) than in building community support for the faculty and staff as the search for a new president begins. Just an idea (probably flawed in some way I can't see).

USM Sympathizer, what a great idea. You're a genius! Your suggestion needs to be given very serious consideration. I don't reside locally or I would help getting that ball rolling.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Long ago and far away wrote:

USM Sympathizer, what a great idea. You're a genius!

May I quote you in any future "discussion" with my wife?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

"The faculty needs to somehow make the general public understand that the radicals on this board do not represent their feelings."

G.M. -

Why would you want the faculty to deceive the public? People posting to this board include many faculty who have been elected to important bodies on campus such as Faculty Senate, Academic Council, and Graduate Council, and they have often held elected leadership positions on those bodies. They are among the most respected faculty members on campus. People like Amy Young, Anne Wallace, Stephen Judd, Joe Olmi and Myron Henry are extremely well thought of. Many others who post anonymously
enjoy similar support.

If you'll review the various no confidence votes over the past year, you'll see margins of 95% to 100% no confidence in the administration. What you read on this board is frequently mainstream faculty sentiment. Your "handful of radicals" theory is preposterous.

Perhaps you are old enough to recall a similar argument during the civil rights era. Time and again we heard that there were no race problems in Mississippi. The only problem was a handful of outside agitators who were stirring up trouble among the "colored folks" who were really very happy. Burying a few of those agitators under a damn in Philadelphia didn't solve the problem, did it? The small number of radicals theory was wrong then, and it is wrong now as hundreds of faculty departures have shown.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Mississippian by birth and by choice wrote:

Gracie's Mother wrote: "The faculty needs to somehow make the general public understand that the radicals on this board do not represent their feelings." G.M. - Why would you want the faculty to deceive the public? People posting to this board include many faculty who have been elected to important bodies on campus such as Faculty Senate, Academic Council, and Graduate Council, and they have often held elected leadership positions on those bodies. They are among the most respected faculty members on campus. People like Amy Young, Anne Wallace, Stephen Judd, Joe Olmi and Myron Henry are extremely well thought of. Many others who post anonymously enjoy similar support. If you'll review the various no confidence votes over the past year, you'll see margins of 95% to 100% no confidence in the administration. What you read on this board is frequently mainstream faculty sentiment. Your "handful of radicals" theory is preposterous. Perhaps you are old enough to recall a similar argument during the civil rights era. Time and again we heard that there were no race problems in Mississippi. The only problem was a handful of outside agitators who were stirring up trouble among the "colored folks" who were really very happy. Burying a few of those agitators under a damn in Philadelphia didn't solve the problem, did it? The small number of radicals theory was wrong then, and it is wrong now as hundreds of faculty departures have shown.

Good post, and let's not forget that Shelby routinely loses in the HA online polls by margins of 90%. Apparently there is a lot less support out there for Shelby than is commonly assumed.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

I simply love the post by "Mississippian by Birth and by Choice" to which "USM Sympathizer" referred, but I don't like the new format that keeps popping up on the message board. It's difficult to distinguish who posted what when a previous statement is referenced. Has anybody noticed this change?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

What radicals? USM has a fairly conservative faculty--plenty of Republicans, especially among AAUP members. If standing up for academic integrity, honesty, and opposing nepotism, petty corruption, and incompetence is radical, what does that say about conservatives--that they support these things? Of course not. People on this board may bet emotional, but I've seen very few "radical" posts.

A larger problem is that SFT has poisoned the well for higher education in south Mississippi in attacking USM's faculty in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to save himself. His presidency will be remember locally and nationally for the failure that it has been, but Mississippians, many of which simply don't understand what a university is really about, will hold deep resentments towards the university's faculty.

Hattiesburg is a small place, and precious few of its population can be described as educated professionals. The social isolation was bad before SFT--now it is intolerable.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Not Leon Trotsky wrote:

What radicals? USM has a fairly conservative faculty--plenty of Republicans, especially among AAUP members.

You are, I hope, referring to the post by Gracies Mother - the one characterizing us as radical.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

I hope I can respond to Gracie's Mother without seeming to attack. GM, there are a number of inaccurate underlying assumptions in your statement. One is that "a few" faculty of the more whiny type opposed Thames. Do the numbers 430-32 mean anything to you? Another is that this board represents the AAUP. It does not. It is not an official anything. It's just supposed to be a place for people to visit, gossip, and ventilate. A third assumption is that the AAUP would not be needed under different circumstances. In fact, the AAUP would be much larger and more active were people not terrified to join. (I hope that's true.) On other campuses, AAUP's principles are written into the mission statements of the school. AAUP is a respected academic organization with goals more far-reaching that battling tyrannical incompetants who are bent on destruction. You also do not seem to grasp that USM's reputation is in the tank. Reputation is what pulls good faculty and good students. Ours is very, very bad. One department this year has been unable to recruit a chair. Others have been decimated and cannot make up their losses. The situation here is very grim, and two more years of Thames is about a year and eleven months too long.

Your response is thinly veiled, and it is exactly the attitude to which I refer.

There is nothing in my message that indicates that I support SFT or that I think anybody else should. There is nothing that indicates that I am stupid, and I certainly understand all about the 430-32 vote. I'm not a dunce. I am positive, for instance, that most of the 430 anti Thames voters are not whiners as you indicate. I am sure that the great majority of them are individuals with great strength of character. It is the few whiney ones that tarnish the reputation of these. I am sure though that you understood that this was my opinion, because it was clearly written. You had to try to spin it, however, to make it fit your little mold. You can't just accept the fact that someone from outside your little group can have a constructive idea.

Your entire message reflects your closed mindedness, but your claim that this is not really an AAUP message board is a stretch even for you. If it has nothing to do with the AAUP, why is AAUP printed all over it?

I do realize that our reputation has suffered, but we will never agree on why. No doubt that SFT's actions have caused problems, but the "No Quarter" attitude of the AAUP has certainly made its mark too. Most of us can't decide which is worse. The fact is, however, that SFT's administration is coming to and end, and you people are continuing your destructive activities. From what I hear from your colleagues, more of them would join the AAUP if it wasn't make up of a hard core of extremists.

I was silly to think that you would respond with reason. You people are your own worst enemies, and I hope that the reasonable ones of you will come to your senses and start spending your energy on some constructive prusuits. You would find it infinitely more rewarding.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Members of this board have asked repeatedly for suggestions as to what they SHOULD be doing, and none have been forthcoming. FYI, although I personally am not part of any little group, not being on campus at all, I know enough of the whiners to tell you that it is their hard work which will save USM -- if it can be saved -- from another year of SACS probation. You obviously do not understand USM's present danger.
As to the influence of this board in the wider academic world, I would imagine it is not that great. What is far greater would be, for example, the members of the John Donne Society and the professional groups in English, Nursing, Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Political Science watching what has happened to their collegues. Remember that when the Kimbers go to Iowa, Polk goes to MSU, Stringer goes to TAMU, Glamser goes to Tulane, Wallace goes to Carolina, Malone goes to Mercer, etc, etc, etc, they take with them the story of what is happening here.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother,

Okay, if you didn't like TW's response to you, how about responding to my request that you list five or ten specific actions people on this board could take to improve relations with the community. I've tried to suggest (on this thread or another one -- I can't remember which) one possible action. Do you have any others to suggest? I'd honestly appreciate hearing them. Thanks.

By the way, I can't help mentioning that when I have talked to people at conferences about USM, none of them has ever said that they thought the problem was an AAUP that was too radical. Among academics nationwide who know about USM, the blame for the problems at USM rests squarely with Shelby and the IHL.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Your response is thinly veiled, and it is exactly the attitude to which I refer.
There is nothing in my message that indicates that I support SFT or that I think anybody else should. There is nothing that indicates that I am stupid, and I certainly understand all about the 430-32 vote. I'm not a dunce. I am positive, for instance, that most of the 430 anti Thames voters are not whiners as you indicate. I am sure that the great majority of them are individuals with great strength of character. It is the few whiney ones that tarnish the reputation of these. I am sure though that you understood that this was my opinion, because it was clearly written. You had to try to spin it, however, to make it fit your little mold. You can't just accept the fact that someone from outside your little group can have a constructive idea.
Your entire message reflects your closed mindedness, but your claim that this is not really an AAUP message board is a stretch even for you. If it has nothing to do with the AAUP, why is AAUP printed all over it?
I do realize that our reputation has suffered, but we will never agree on why. No doubt that SFT's actions have caused problems, but the "No Quarter" attitude of the AAUP has certainly made its mark too. Most of us can't decide which is worse. The fact is, however, that SFT's administration is coming to and end, and you people are continuing your destructive activities. From what I hear from your colleagues, more of them would join the AAUP if it wasn't make up of a hard core of extremists.
I was silly to think that you would respond with reason. You people are your own worst enemies, and I hope that the reasonable ones of you will come to your senses and start spending your energy on some constructive prusuits. You would find it infinitely more rewarding.

Gracie's Mother:

I re-read TW's response, and can't quite understand how it could have elicited these remarks from you. You say you were "silly" to think TW would respond with reason. I thought TW's response was very measured--certainly reasonable. Perhaps you could point out what in the response was not "reasonable."

You also state that we are our "own worst enemies." Since the great majority of us were here through the Lucas and Fleming administrations, without major upheaval, haven't you wondered what could have caused so many "reasonable" people to change so dramatically? We reply that it was the corruption and tyranny of the Thames regime which forced us to act. Finally, you suggest that we direct our energy to "some constructive pursuits." Rest assured that teaching, research, and service are continuing on campus. However, most of us feel that there is no more constructive pursuit than combating tyranny.

Finally, you, like many others, indicate that this board is somehow captive to the AAUP. Well, AAUP is deeply committed to academic freedom and freedom of expression. If the organization really wanted to control the content, it would just limit access. But as you are aware, anyone can post anything here. Unlike Thames & Co., we are so sure of our cause that we do not fear challenge from any quarter.

So fire away, we're listening--are you?