Letter to Hattiesburg - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 2, 2005

RE: Letter to Hattiesburg

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother,

If it were not for the agitation fomented by this board, do you really think the IHL would have been motivated to give Shelby his walking papers?

Sometimes it's the "radicals" who create a situation from which quiet, "reasonable" "moderates" benefit. There's a holiday coming up in about a month that testifies to the truth of this claim. Thank goodness for those "radicals" of '76!

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracies Mother

The posters on this message board share common interests and goals. It is unlikely that very many in the community would know this board exists unless they discovered it by chance (highly unlikely) or somebody told them about it (possible). It's website address has never been advertised. Even if somebody told them about it's existance, many do not have a computer. And even if they did have a computer, most of them wouldn't bother to view it. Why do you view it? Did you stumble across it by accident?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

Gracie's Mother,
If it were not for the agitation fomented by this board, do you really think the IHL would have been motivated to give Shelby his walking papers?
Sometimes it's the "radicals" who create a situation from which quiet, "reasonable" "moderates" benefit. There's a holiday coming up in about a month that testifies to the truth of this claim. Thank goodness for those "radicals" of '76!

Walking papers? Didn't they give him a contract EXTENSION?

They gave him an extra year to run around and piss you guys off on top of what theyve already given him.

Sounds to me like they said "Ya know, we like your work. We realize the faculty are fighting you tooth and nail so your accomplishments will be limited. But were going to give you another year to bang out your vision then find somebody else we think the faculty can play nice with"

Date: Jun 2, 2005

HUH? wrote:

Just an opinion wrote: Gracie's Mother, If it were not for the agitation fomented by this board, do you really think the IHL would have been motivated to give Shelby his walking papers? Sometimes it's the "radicals" who create a situation from which quiet, "reasonable" "moderates" benefit. There's a holiday coming up in about a month that testifies to the truth of this claim. Thank goodness for those "radicals" of '76! Walking papers? Didn't they give him a contract EXTENSION? They gave him an extra year to run around and piss you guys off on top of what theyve already given him. Sounds to me like they said "Ya know, we like your work. We realize the faculty are fighting you tooth and nail so your accomplishments will be limited. But were going to give you another year to bang out your vision then find somebody else we think the faculty can play nice with"

If it makes you feel better to think this way, HUH, be my guest. The fact of the matter is that Shelby wanted a four-year renewal. He got instead one extra year, and with each passing day his lame duck status becomes more and more evident. He is severely crippled (but perhaps more dangerous, for the time being, for that reason). Nevertheless, two years from now Shelby will NOT be president of USM, and he will be remembered in USM history as perhaps the most inept president the college has ever had. It must really eat at him to know that he screwed up big time when he had his chance.

If the IHL operated as you suggest, there wouldn't have been all that shouting that Roy reported, and Roy would have looked a lot happier when he showed up on TV. Roy realizes what you, apparently, do not -- and there aren't too many times when Roy understands something better than another person.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

HUH? wrote:

They gave him an extra year to run around and piss you guys off

I think that you have confused the word "off" with the word "on."

Date: Jun 2, 2005

HUH? wrote:

Just an opinion wrote: Gracie's Mother, If it were not for the agitation fomented by this board, do you really think the IHL would have been motivated to give Shelby his walking papers? Sometimes it's the "radicals" who create a situation from which quiet, "reasonable" "moderates" benefit. There's a holiday coming up in about a month that testifies to the truth of this claim. Thank goodness for those "radicals" of '76! Walking papers? Didn't they give him a contract EXTENSION? They gave him an extra year to run around and piss you guys off on top of what theyve already given him. Sounds to me like they said "Ya know, we like your work. We realize the faculty are fighting you tooth and nail so your accomplishments will be limited. But were going to give you another year to bang out your vision then find somebody else we think the faculty can play nice with"

I tend to think the board was in a bind. They can't search for a provost because they need to bring a new president on board. They can't get a new president on board until they find their permanent commissioner. They had to restart the commissioner search after the first one failed. So if they get a commish on board by December (a big if), then they can undertake the presidential search, which if rushed would take at least 9 months.

SFT really put them in the bind by not having a provost who could step up to president. Isn't there a saying about managers who surround themselves with weak staff?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

First class people hire first class people. Second class people hire third class people. Wurl' class people . . .well, see for yourself.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Isn't there a saying about managers who surround themselves with weak staff?

". . . The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence".

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PETERPR.html

Date: Jun 2, 2005

LeftASAP wrote: Isn't there a saying about managers who surround themselves with weak staff?

Insurance

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Impeachment wrote:

Insurance

But only term insurance. Designed only for a specified period of time.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

LVN wrote:

here is what my friends on the faculty, a few of whom are active on this board, are doing right now: --teaching classes --serving on committees, especially ones doing SACS work --overseas or out of town doing research for the books and articles they're still expected to produce --serving the community in their churches and charitable organizations --raising their children and supporting their schools If you have some more suggestions for "constructive" activities, I'm sure they'd be glad to hear it. Thanks

Here's another one, trying to protect the university from the "next stupid thing" and even without all of the above, that's a full-time job!

Date: Jun 2, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

I tend to think the board was in a bind. They can't search for a provost because they need to bring a new president on board. They can't get a new president on board until they find their permanent commissioner. They had to restart the commissioner search after the first one failed. So if they get a commish on board by December (a big if), then they can undertake the presidential search, which if rushed would take at least 9 months. SFT really put them in the bind by not having a provost who could step up to president. Isn't there a saying about managers who surround themselves with weak staff?

There is also talk that the Ole Miss chancellor is having health problems that may require retirement in the next year. The story goes that IHL did not want to be doing two searches at once, and Ole Miss took priority.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

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.

Okay, I'll go for the bait. I'm so stupid that I believe you are honestly asking for input from an outsider albeit an outsider who is profoundly interested in starting a healing process. If this is a setup, you can chalk me up as another faculty adversary.

1) Stop this insane "NO QUARTER" attitude. Armies fight more ferociously when confronted with such an enemy.

2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word.

3) Offer to help one of your alumni support groups to start building a bridge between the alumni and the faculty. There is such a project underway, but few of you know anything about it. You've been too busy attacking those groups. I understand that you will be hearing about it soon.

4) Work on projecting an attitude of equality with non faculty instead of the attitude of superiority that most of the community perceives. Who wants to join with a group that thinks it is superior?

5) Understand that the majority of the community and the alumni are good folks just like most of you, and that you have some bad apples just as they do.

6) Try to accept the fact that most all of us want the same thing, a stronger USM. We might disagree over how to go about it, but that can be healthy. We don't have to go to war with a "NO QUARTER" strategy just because we disagree.

8) Try to open your minds to the possibility that among your alums are some bright, successful, honest individuals who might have a few good ideas and who might lend a lot of financial support.

9) Show that "shared governance" indeed envolves sharing and not complete control by the AAUP

10) Asess the value of the AAUP in its present form, and consider building instead a stronger Faculty Senate that includes and represents the mainstream faculty. Why do you need both? It dilutes your resources, your loyalties, and your energy. Whether you want to accept it or not, the AAUP has an awful image in the USM/Hattiesburg community.

11) I doubt that any of us will want to work with the AAUP, but a lot of us would probably be willing to come together with the Faculty Senate. If such a feeler were extended, accept it with an open mind with no closed "deal killer" litmus tests. Be willing to discuss issues without anger and without that damned "No Quarter" attitude.

12) Most of the more reasonable of us are hoping that the SFT administration fades away. Let it.

Thank you for allowing me to make some suggestions from my perspective. Now, perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a few suggestions to take to my friends in the community and the alumni groups.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

I don't think you still grasp what AAUP is vs. what Faculty Senate is.

It's like asking a doctor to give up being in the AMA and only be on the medical board of his own hospital. He should do both.

For what it's worth, Faculty Senate has tried, tried, and tried some more to work with the admin. FS beat its head against a brick wall trying to get the admin to work with it. For example, it's tried repeatedly to get Ken Malone to address it, as far as I know that still hasnt happened. Have you read the Faculty Senate's letter to the IHL (to which it never got an answer.)

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Thank you for a thoughtful post, GM. I have one question before I compose a response and I am not trying to provoke you with it. Did you read AAUP President Amy Young's letter to the editor after the SACS probation was announced?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Okay, I'll go for the bait. I'm so stupid that I believe you are honestly asking for input from an outsider albeit an outsider who is profoundly interested in starting a healing process. If this is a setup, you can chalk me up as another faculty adversary.

I will respond Gracie's Mother. I think a dialod is great. But we need to get facts straight and propaganda left out. Then we can talk without pressing each other's buttons, as they say.

1) Stop this insane "NO QUARTER" attitude. Armies fight more ferociously when confronted with such an enemy.

This attitude is partly from an underdog fighting a powerful tyrant, the IHL and SFT with powerful Public Relations to mislead the public. I will demonstrate this below. It is really just a rallying cry.

2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word.

The faculty has always accepted this. It is propaganda from SFT that the faculty oppose these changes. It has always been the process that bypassed shared governance that was the problem. It is also propaganda that academics has been "streamlined" and productivity has increased. Many departments were devastated by the lack of planning for reorganization.

Do you see the problem we have. The "issues" with the faculty is not what SFT keeps telling you, but you believed anyway. Read the letters on the Faculty Senate website. Read the letters in the H.A. for 6/2/05

3) Offer to help one of your alumni support groups to start building a bridge between the alumni and the faculty. There is such a project underway, but few of you know anything about it. You've been too busy attacking those groups. I understand that you will be hearing about it soon.

F.S. president Dave Beckett offered to meet anytime with the business leaders, but got no response. They only wanted to support SFT and not discuss issues. The Alumni Association leadership sure hasn't help the situation. They need to communicate with the faculty representatives, the Faculty Senate.

4) Work on projecting an attitude of equality with non faculty instead of the attitude of superiority that most of the community perceives. Who wants to join with a group that thinks it is superior?

This is very difficult if the non faculty don't understand the issues and can only restate what SFT's administration told them. You have been doing this yourself in the present post.

5) Understand that the majority of the community and the alumni are good folks just like most of you, and that you have some bad apples just as they do.

Not sure what you mean by "bad apples". Please explain. Are you talking about incompetent faculty or do you mean faculty who stand up and speak out? Incompetent faculty are reviewed and terminated. What is wrong about faculty who speak out spreading the truth. If they are in error then rebut.

6) Try to accept the fact that most all of us want the same thing, a stronger USM. We might disagree over how to go about it, but that can be healthy. We don't have to go to war with a "NO QUARTER" strategy just because we disagree.

I hear you, but "stronger" needs to be defined. Faculty see the administration's "stronger" to be larger enrollment, but with reduced standards. Please define 'stronger"

8) Try to open your minds to the possibility that among your alums are some bright, successful, honest individuals who might have a few good ideas and who might lend a lot of financial support.

Nothing to disagree with here. If shared governance were being used all would get their voice heard.

9) Show that "shared governance" indeed envolves sharing and not complete control by the AAUP

No! First you show that shared governance, a process practiced at virtually all respected universities, results in "control by the AAUP". You have just regurgitated propaganda passed out by the SFT's administration without you even questioning it.

The person making the assertion has the burden of supplying the evidence. Otherwise I can say, "prove to me you have stop dealing in child porn." See how that works?

10) Asess the value of the AAUP in its present form, and consider building instead a stronger Faculty Senate that includes and represents the mainstream faculty.

It does represent the mainstream. They are elected each year. Check the votes of confidence, the evaluations of SFT and the AAUP faculty survey.

Again you state without questioning SFT propaganda.

Why do you need both? It dilutes your resources, your loyalties, and your energy. Whether you want to accept it or not, the AAUP has an awful image in the USM/Hattiesburg community.

Wheather you want to admit it or not, the public has been deceived by the SFT PR machine. Remember when he called AAUP a union? you

11) I doubt that any of us will want to work with the AAUP, but a lot of us would probably be willing to come together with the Faculty Senate. If such a feeler were extended, accept it with an open mind with no closed "deal killer" litmus tests. Be willing to discuss issues without anger and without that damned "No Quarter" attitude.

You are basing all you decisions on poor information and the "image" of AAUP SFT created for you. Faculty Senate is more than willing to discuss issues and has been trying for 3 years.

12) Most of the more reasonable of us are hoping that the SFT administration fades away. Let it.

We are certainly not trying to stop it.

Thank you for allowing me to make some suggestions from my perspective. Now, perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a few suggestions to take to my friends in the community and the alumni groups.

Let's discuss the issues. You think faculty oppose change. Faculty say they oppose bad management,i.e. the process. Settle these differences and you are well on your way.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

USM Sympathizer wrote: 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. Okay, I'll go for the bait. I'm so stupid that I believe you are honestly asking for input from an outsider albeit an outsider who is profoundly interested in starting a healing process. If this is a setup, you can chalk me up as another faculty adversary. 1) Stop this insane "NO QUARTER" attitude. Armies fight more ferociously when confronted with such an enemy. 2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word. 3) Offer to help one of your alumni support groups to start building a bridge between the alumni and the faculty. There is such a project underway, but few of you know anything about it. You've been too busy attacking those groups. I understand that you will be hearing about it soon. 4) Work on projecting an attitude of equality with non faculty instead of the attitude of superiority that most of the community perceives. Who wants to join with a group that thinks it is superior? 5) Understand that the majority of the community and the alumni are good folks just like most of you, and that you have some bad apples just as they do. 6) Try to accept the fact that most all of us want the same thing, a stronger USM. We might disagree over how to go about it, but that can be healthy. We don't have to go to war with a "NO QUARTER" strategy just because we disagree. 8) Try to open your minds to the possibility that among your alums are some bright, successful, honest individuals who might have a few good ideas and who might lend a lot of financial support. 9) Show that "shared governance" indeed envolves sharing and not complete control by the AAUP 10) Asess the value of the AAUP in its present form, and consider building instead a stronger Faculty Senate that includes and represents the mainstream faculty. Why do you need both? It dilutes your resources, your loyalties, and your energy. Whether you want to accept it or not, the AAUP has an awful image in the USM/Hattiesburg community. 11) I doubt that any of us will want to work with the AAUP, but a lot of us would probably be willing to come together with the Faculty Senate. If such a feeler were extended, accept it with an open mind with no closed "deal killer" litmus tests. Be willing to discuss issues without anger and without that damned "No Quarter" attitude. 12) Most of the more reasonable of us are hoping that the SFT administration fades away. Let it. Thank you for allowing me to make some suggestions from my perspective. Now, perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a few suggestions to take to my friends in the community and the alumni groups.

GM,

Bravo. That was spot on. Now, give up as the rest of us have.

F. Macomber

Date: Jun 2, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

SFT really put them in the bind by not having a provost who could step up to president.

Two words--Tim Hudson

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Just an opinion wrote:

Nevertheless, two years from now Shelby will NOT be president of USM, and he will be remembered in USM history as perhaps the most inept president the college has ever had. It must really eat at him to know that he screwed up big time when he had his chance.

I'd take the "perhaps" out of this statement. Can anyone point to a president of USM, going all the way back to 1910, who was worse at the job than Thames has been?

Before the May 6 special meeting of the Board, Roy Klumb made a public reference to the Board giving Horace Fleming a one-year extension when they'd decided they wanted rid of him. Klumb wanted to save face for Thames (and, more importantly, for himself and for his own faction on the Board) by getting Thames a one-year extension.

Robert Campbell

PS. If "Huh?" thinks that the Board kept Thames in office longer because the USM faculty objected to him, I'm sure "Huh?" will appreciate my generous offer of a bridge across the East River at a remarkably low price. Most members of the Board are reluctant to admit that professors might be right about anything pertaining to the functioning of a university, but without faculty complaints, Thames would have been proclaimed President for Life, as he and his backers always imagined he would be.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

3) Offer to help one of your alumni support groups to start building a bridge between the alumni and the faculty. There is such a project underway, but few of you know anything about it.

Gracie's Mother - two members of my family are USM graduates. Neither has heard of the "alumni support group" project you mention. How could the faculty know about such a project if USM alumni don't know about it? You suggest that we offer to help that alumni support group? May I ask who we should contact? Of equal importance, who should alumni, such as my family members, contact? At this point that information seems to be a well kept secret.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother,

Thanks for taking my invitation seriously. I have to leave on a trip right now, but I will read your response more carefully when I arrive at my destination. In the meantime, thanks again for responding, and try not to pay too much attention to Francis Macomber!

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word.

Behind this question is one of the biggest false assumptions of this entire conflict. Yes, productivity and efficiency must be addressed in any organization, but do you know where USM stood in this regard three years ago prior to the present administration? USM had the largest ratio of students per faculty member in the entire system. USM had the highest student credit hour production per faculty member in the system and by a wide margin. USM had the lowest cost per student credit hour produced in the system. USM had the highest ratio of students per staff member in the system. What all this means is that USM was the most efficient university in the IHL system. In most cases USM bettered the system measures of output by 20-30%.

This raises two troubling questions. First, if the IHL really felt that schools in Mississippi needed to tighten their belts and be more productive, why would they start to beat up on the most productive school? Secondly, if you were a new incoming president aware of these facts about efficiency, why would you immediately begin by wringing out the faculty?

Surely you know that USM salaries, staffing, and expenditures do not approach those of State and Ole Miss. Surely you know that the small schools like MUW and Alcorn are very expensive on a per student basis. USM has had a tightened belt forever. Wouldn't it have made sense for a new president to pat folks on the back for their sacrifices rather than declare war on the faculty? Think about it.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Gracie's Mother wrote: Okay, I'll go for the bait. I'm so stupid that I believe you are honestly asking for input from an outsider albeit an outsider who is profoundly interested in starting a healing process. If this is a setup, you can chalk me up as another faculty adversary. I will respond Gracie's Mother. I think a dialod is great. But we need to get facts straight and propaganda left out. Then we can talk without pressing each other's buttons, as they say. 1) Stop this insane "NO QUARTER" attitude. Armies fight more ferociously when confronted with such an enemy. This attitude is partly from an underdog fighting a powerful tyrant, the IHL and SFT with powerful Public Relations to mislead the public. I will demonstrate this below. It is really just a rallying cry. 2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word. The faculty has always accepted this. It is propaganda from SFT that the faculty oppose these changes. It has always been the process that bypassed shared governance that was the problem. It is also propaganda that academics has been "streamlined" and productivity has increased. Many departments were devastated by the lack of planning for reorganization. Do you see the problem we have. The "issues" with the faculty is not what SFT keeps telling you, but you believed anyway. Read the letters on the Faculty Senate website. Read the letters in the H.A. for 6/2/05 3) Offer to help one of your alumni support groups to start building a bridge between the alumni and the faculty. There is such a project underway, but few of you know anything about it. You've been too busy attacking those groups. I understand that you will be hearing about it soon. F.S. president Dave Beckett offered to meet anytime with the business leaders, but got no response. They only wanted to support SFT and not discuss issues. The Alumni Association leadership sure hasn't help the situation. They need to communicate with the faculty representatives, the Faculty Senate. 4) Work on projecting an attitude of equality with non faculty instead of the attitude of superiority that most of the community perceives. Who wants to join with a group that thinks it is superior? This is very difficult if the non faculty don't understand the issues and can only restate what SFT's administration told them. You have been doing this yourself in the present post. 5) Understand that the majority of the community and the alumni are good folks just like most of you, and that you have some bad apples just as they do. Not sure what you mean by "bad apples". Please explain. Are you talking about incompetent faculty or do you mean faculty who stand up and speak out? Incompetent faculty are reviewed and terminated. What is wrong about faculty who speak out spreading the truth. If they are in error then rebut. 6) Try to accept the fact that most all of us want the same thing, a stronger USM. We might disagree over how to go about it, but that can be healthy. We don't have to go to war with a "NO QUARTER" strategy just because we disagree. I hear you, but "stronger" needs to be defined. Faculty see the administration's "stronger" to be larger enrollment, but with reduced standards. Please define 'stronger" 8) Try to open your minds to the possibility that among your alums are some bright, successful, honest individuals who might have a few good ideas and who might lend a lot of financial support. Nothing to disagree with here. If shared governance were being used all would get their voice heard. 9) Show that "shared governance" indeed envolves sharing and not complete control by the AAUP No! First you show that shared governance, a process practiced at virtually all respected universities, results in "control by the AAUP". You have just regurgitated propaganda passed out by the SFT's administration without you even questioning it. The person making the assertion has the burden of supplying the evidence. Otherwise I can say, "prove to me you have stop dealing in child porn." See how that works? 10) Asess the value of the AAUP in its present form, and consider building instead a stronger Faculty Senate that includes and represents the mainstream faculty. It does represent the mainstream. They are elected each year. Check the votes of confidence, the evaluations of SFT and the AAUP faculty survey. Again you state without questioning SFT propaganda. Why do you need both? It dilutes your resources, your loyalties, and your energy. Whether you want to accept it or not, the AAUP has an awful image in the USM/Hattiesburg community. Wheather you want to admit it or not, the public has been deceived by the SFT PR machine. Remember when he called AAUP a union? you 11) I doubt that any of us will want to work with the AAUP, but a lot of us would probably be willing to come together with the Faculty Senate. If such a feeler were extended, accept it with an open mind with no closed "deal killer" litmus tests. Be willing to discuss issues without anger and without that damned "No Quarter" attitude. You are basing all you decisions on poor information and the "image" of AAUP SFT created for you. Faculty Senate is more than willing to discuss issues and has been trying for 3 years. 12) Most of the more reasonable of us are hoping that the SFT administration fades away. Let it. We are certainly not trying to stop it. Thank you for allowing me to make some suggestions from my perspective. Now, perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a few suggestions to take to my friends in the community and the alumni groups. Let's discuss the issues. You think faculty oppose change. Faculty say they oppose bad management,i.e. the process. Settle these differences and you are well on your way.

If you are all so high and mighty, why have you let SFT kick your butts so badly? I would be ashamed to admit some of the stuff you brave warriors confess. According to you SFT has kicked your butts right and left, and he is still kicking them. Why should a group of wusses like you be allowed to share in the governance of anything?

Your suppositions suck. I am not a Thames supporter, and none of my assumptions, opinions, or my misconceptions for that matter are a result of influence by him. They are all my own. You attitude and that of Third Witch are prime examples of why you have such a lousy image in the rest of the world.

I don't know why I wasted my time trying to find a middle ground. There is none.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Disenfrachised Alums Among Us wrote:

Gracie's Mother wrote: 3) Offer to help one of your alumni support groups to start building a bridge between the alumni and the faculty. There is such a project underway, but few of you know anything about it. Gracie's Mother - two members of my family are USM graduates. Neither has heard of the "alumni support group" project you mention. How could the faculty know about such a project if USM alumni don't know about it? You suggest that we offer to help that alumni support group? May I ask who we should contact? Of equal importance, who should alumni, such as my family members, contact? At this point that information seems to be a well kept secret.

That it is a secret is my point. I understand that it will be implemented very soon. This is not an SFT project nor will it be an AAUP project. I can't explain why your family is not better informed.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

You attitude and that of Third Witch are prime examples of why you have such a lousy image in the rest of the world.

It's your university that has a lousy image. It's called fourth tier.

I don't know why I wasted my time trying to find a middle ground. There is none.

Fifth tier? Sorry, Mamma, but there is no fifth tier. Your university has been pushed near the bottom of the four tier and you want a middle ground?

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Class SACS wrote:

Gracie's Mother wrote: Thank you for a thoughtful post, GM. I have one question before I compose a response and I am not trying to provoke you with it. Did you read AAUP President Amy Young's letter to the editor after the SACS probation was announced?

I'm still trying to understand her "freedom of speech" one.

Date: Jun 2, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

I can't explain why your family is not better informed.

Well I can explain it. It's because your Alumni Association doesn't give a dipsey doodle about the average Joe or Jane who graduated from USM. Unless they think your daddy's rich and your mamma's good looking they won't even put you on their mailing list. I understand why USM has such poor loyalty among its alumni and a very low level of giving during fund drives. I do not say this to be flip. I mean every word. This place is just not like the others.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Okay, I'll go for the bait. I'm so stupid that I believe you are honestly asking for input from an outsider albeit an outsider who is profoundly interested in starting a healing process. If this is a setup, you can chalk me up as another faculty adversary. 1) Stop this insane "NO QUARTER" attitude. Armies fight more ferociously when confronted with such an enemy. 2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word.

GM,

Since I got the impression from one of your later posts that you may have decided to end the attempt at dialogue, and also since it is very late and I am very tired, I will not respond to all your points right now but will respond to the first two and then see if you want to continue the discussion.

1. Actually, sometimes when two armies seem equally committed to their causes, and the possibilities of a clear victory of one over the other seems unlikely, there may in fact be more of a chance of compromise and settlement. Frankly, I doubt that Shelby expected the kind of resistance he has generated; I doubt that he expected the kind of public heat he has faced as a result; and I doubt that he expected the IHL to come to its most recent decision concerning him. I doubt that the IHL would have come to that decision if it had not concluded that continuing Shelby's presidency for another four years would have caused even fiercer resistance than has already been seen. The argument can be made that the "no quarter" attitude has led, then, to the kind of compromise the IHL tried to construct. It's possible that in the coming months it may be feasible to lighten up a bit on the "no quarter" atttidue and move into a more obviously conciliatory mode, but much will depend on what Shelby does and how Shelby treats people. People are, with good reason, highly distrustful of him, and I can see no good reason for them to let their guard down just yet (if ever). Shelby has been the aggressor; the "no quarter" folks have merely been trying to defend themselves. The "no quarter" attitude will diminish when it becomes clear that Shelby will no longer be permitted to do the kind of harm to people that he has been doing.

2. Your second point has been very well answered by another poster above; I am very interested to read your response to that post, which pointed out how highly productive USM faculty had already been relative to the faculty at other universities in MS. Is there any chance at all that you may be mistaken in perceiving USM faculty and staff as unproductive and resistant to change? What evidence is there for these charges, especially in view of the facts and figures laid out by the other poster? Why do you believe that USM faculty and staff regard productivity as a four-letter word?

I hope you will indeed want to continue the dialogue, and I would be especially interested in your response to the post laying out the facts and figures about the productivity of USM faculty and staff relative to the productivity of those at other universities in MS.

I hope this is coherent; I am typing it at 2:30 a.m. eastern time, and my eyes are beginning to blur!

Date: Jun 3, 2005

I will not use my regular screen name here because most of my fellow posters and faculty colleagues know my identity, and I have no desire to alienate friends with my comments. I think I have a somewhat different perspective on the faculty--community chasm that seems to exist in Hattiesburg, having been a "common working stiff" for several years before entering academia. We just don't seem to speak the same language as John Q. Public, and after reading and re-reading the posts in this thread, particularly those from "Gracie's Mother," I must say that many of the replies she received were condescending in tone, sarcastic, some bordering on insulting, to which she responded in kind. I'm not suggesting that all responses were delivered in that fashion, many were measured and civil (to wit, LVN and USM Sympathizer), but others weren't. This is a sensitive issue with me, as I've been told by members of my own family that I tend, and I assure you that it's unwitting, to talk down to them. I believe that's the trap we've fallen into. I don't intend to provide examples as they abound in this thread, but hope those who seem perplexed by our inability to communicate with the public will take a few moments to ponder why. The baseline assumption that we know everything about running a university and "outsiders" have absolutely nothing to contribute almost guarantees that we will not be able to engage in any constructive dialog. As was pointed out earlier by LVN and others, some of the smartest, wisest people we know never attended college, but have much to share with us. We should speak to the extra-university community as though we were visiting across the fence with our neighbors, because that's what they are, our neighbors. Listen to them, and then talk, just talk, not lecture. It's painfully obvious that the pedantic "I'm the erudite professor and you're a Mississippi rube" approach isn't working for us. That's all, just think about it. Everyone have a great weekend.