Letter to Hattiesburg - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 3, 2005

RE: Letter to Hattiesburg

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Under Deep Cover wrote:

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.

What destroys the communication is that one side has only opinions, but never give reasons for the opinions. When the faculty side points this out and provides evidence for our opinions, we are said to be "talking down" to the other side. This is a troll debating tactic.

The tectic is to confuse the message with the "style" of the message, the "language use", the "tone" or any other distraction to get away from the content. They refuse to give examples of things they generalize about (as you did above).

I will give you examples here to prove the point:

It earlier post on this thread we read:

Gracie's Mother:"2) Open your minds to the possibility that the university needs to be streamlined and that productivity is not a four letter word."

LeftASAP: "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"

To which Gracie's Mother replies in another post:

"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."

Gracie's Mother could have chosen to reply, " I have these opinions because I obtained information from ___________________. Our information sources differ and don't agree. We need to find the discrepancy to continue our dialog."

But, not really wanting to communicate, Gracie's Mother decided to call names and insult. These were the same tactics used by Son of Bubba, JoJo etc.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Under Deep Cover wrote:

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.

Cover:

On a board like this one, there will of course be those who take potshots; but anyone who participates here needs to understand that--as we've said many times, all those who post are not faculty, nor do they necessarily represent a general faculty viewpoint. What puzzles me in your post is that you feel the general tone is condescending, sarcastic, etc. I said in a post above (garbled at the top) that I thought Third Witch had responded reasonably and professionally, yet Gracie's Mother took great umbrage. I think all of the longer and more thoughtful responses were entirely civil. I, too, have spent, and continue to spend, a great deal of time out in the community--sometimes talking about the travail at USM. I do not encounter the attitude you describe. I am totally convinced that faculty-community groups could carry on civil and constructive dialogue. Consider the GM quote above about "butts kicked" and what "sucks"; and please point out where in any of the longer responses (including mine) there is language which would warrant such a reaction. (Is this the way an alumni matron would speak in public?)

All of this said, Cossack ("The Ghost of Christmas Future") has issued another of his somber pronouncements. We would all do well to pay him careful heed. Severe damage is indeed already done; but establishing better faculty-community links is always a good idea. The Faculty Senate is a democratically elected body, and is entitled to speak for the entire faculty. If GM and others are serious, I hope they get in touch.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Under Deep Cover wrote:

... 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. ...

_____________________________________________________________

Under Deep Cover,

I for one would love to improve my communication skills. So I ask you kindly to please quote from my post, or any other posts, examples of "condescending in tone, sarcastic, some bordering on insulting" language used. We can only learn from our mistakes. I'm just asking for a good lesson in communicating with John Q. Public.

Now we may have another problem if "Under Deep Cover" decides not to respond to this request. Does it mean readers can assume this was just a smoke screen to criticize a communication?

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Even your own are dismissed. If Under Deep Cover did provide you evidence you'd have another argument as to why . . . you fill in the blank.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

What destroys the communication is that one side has only opinions, but never give reasons for the opinions. When the faculty side points this out and provides evidence for our opinions, we are said to be "talking down" to the other side. This is a troll debating tactic. The tectic is to confuse the message with the "style" of the message, the "language use", the "tone" or any other distraction to get away from the content. They refuse to give examples of things they generalize about (as you did above).

You make my point more eloquently than did I. We are not speaking their language, the language of the "other side" as you call them. By the way, "other side" is in itself an adversarial characterization which betrays a we vs. them mentality, hardly a conciliatory attitude. The "other side" is not trained to think or speak in terms of evidence. They do not routinely employ the scientific method. It's a totally different paradigm, one in which we're versed and they are not. And for what it's worth, as my sister recently counseled after listening to me pontificate about this very issue, when our evidence is buried in, or cloaked with derision, it will never be considered. The audience will not be able to get beyond the tone. That they, the "other side," do not, or can not engage us on our terms is not a tactic. It is simply the way they think, and speak. Earlier this week I had a lengthy conversation with an acquaintence from church, in which I explained our, the faculty's, grievances with the Thames administration. It was a very casual discourse, at the end of which my acquaintence commented that she now, finally, understood our position. As we parted company, she added that she felt the faculty would enjoy greater support within the community at large if we treated non-academics as intelligent equals, as I'd done in our conversation, rather than students in a lecture hall. What I have suggested is that we attempt to converse with the community, and I would even say the potentially sympathetic community, in a less aggressive manner than we're accustomed to mounting in a dissertation defense. What we're doing now just ain't working for us. That's it. Thanks for listening. I'm now reverting to my usual low profile presence and alternate identity on the board. Maybe I'll have a cup of high-caf coffee, come back, and attack my own post.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Thanks to Under Deep Cover for two very thoughtful and thought-provoking posts, and thanks to Cossack for a very wise (if sad) post.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Under Deep Cover wrote:

You make my point more eloquently than did I. We are not speaking their language, the language of the "other side" as you call them. By the way, "other side" is in itself an adversarial characterization which betrays a we vs. them mentality, hardly a conciliatory attitude. The "other side" is not trained to think or speak in terms of evidence. They do not routinely employ the scientific method. It's a totally different paradigm, one in which we're versed and they are not. And for what it's worth, as my sister recently counseled after listening to me pontificate about this very issue, when our evidence is buried in, or cloaked with derision, it will never be considered. The audience will not be able to get beyond the tone. That they, the "other side," do not, or can not engage us on our terms is not a tactic. It is simply the way they think, and speak. Earlier this week I had a lengthy conversation with an acquaintence from church, in which I explained our, the faculty's, grievances with the Thames administration. It was a very casual discourse, at the end of which my acquaintence commented that she now, finally, understood our position. As we parted company, she added that she felt the faculty would enjoy greater support within the community at large if we treated non-academics as intelligent equals, as I'd done in our conversation, rather than students in a lecture hall. What I have suggested is that we attempt to converse with the community, and I would even say the potentially sympathetic community, in a less aggressive manner than we're accustomed to mounting in a dissertation defense. What we're doing now just ain't working for us. That's it. Thanks for listening. I'm now reverting to my usual low profile presence and alternate identity on the board. Maybe I'll have a cup of high-caf coffee, come back, and attack my own post.

Thanks for responding. And we can use my post as the example (since you failed to provide one).

You say, ""other side" is not trained to think or speak in terms of evidence."

First let me point out I'm concerned with the content or information of a communication. I'm not a good writer, but I usually think in a logical manner and try to avoid emotion. The only path to truth that I know is logical reason backed by evidence. Other methods, some used by sales people< appeal to emotion, makes you feel good, but can lead to deception.

We some one states an opinion for which they can supply no evidence, there is no way to that I know of to communicate with that person as an adult. If I used tactics that are not valid argument, they can be short down as not valid and hurt my position. That is why I refuse to use irrational approaches in these discussions.

I realize John Q. Public is not trained as I am in critical thinking, but they sure use something close to it when spending a lot of money or making an investment.

I noticed how you analyzed the term "other side" as if I intended some significant. " By the way, "other side" is in itself an adversarial characterization which betrays a we vs. them mentality, hardly a conciliatory attitude." From my point of view all of this is your creation. I was just in a hurry and was trying to contrast the two different arguments so I used the words our and other.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Under Deep Cover wrote:

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.

I am interested in understanding more about your reluctance to use your regular name. It indicates that you fear the response of your colleagues on this board. I am at a point where it seems to me that I am going to have to leave some of my friends behind in my effort to bring the two sides together. If they are willing to call a truce to promote the healing of the university, fine. If they are more motivated to continue this senseless war, they will have to go it alone. The university and its mission of educating Mississippi kids is more important than this pettiness in which we all have been involved.

By the way, I acknowledge my sarcastic replys to the posters above. I am not of a mind to accept ridicule, condescending attitudes, or putting a spin on my comments. That childish, silly tactic has gone on too long and has caused too much damage. It is time it stopped.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:
That childish, silly tactic has gone on too long and has caused too much damage. It is time it stopped.

Why don't you tell Shelby this? He's the one who started this "silliness" by locking two well-respected professors out of their offices and trashing their good names all over Hattiesburg and beyond. This board was started with the sole purpose of getting Shelby Thames out of the Dome. So, it is not our place to find "middle ground"...that is best left to those actually on the ground at USM. Also, please note that many of us came over to this board from the old Fire Shelby board, and we are not necessarily affiliated with the AAUP nor are we all faculty members (I get so tired of saying this OVER AND OVER!).

So, NO FRIGGIN' QUARTER already,

Truth

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

... By the way, I acknowledge my sarcastic replys to the posters above. I am not of a mind to accept ridicule, condescending attitudes, or putting a spin on my comments. That childish, silly tactic has gone on too long and has caused too much damage. It is time it stopped.

Please, Gracie's Mother, kindly quote the parts of the post to which you are referring and considered "ridicule, condescending attitudes, or putting a spin on my comments. " If it is from my post, I promise I will not flame your reply, but only try to improve the message I was trying to communicate.

I would welcome a dialogue in which we used no emotional tones, but rather dealt only with facts. Do you think that is possible?

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Under Deep Cover wrote:
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.

I am interested in understanding more about your reluctance to use your regular name. It indicates that you fear the response of your colleagues on this board. I am at a point where it seems to me that I am going to have to leave some of my friends behind in my effort to bring the two sides together. If they are willing to call a truce to promote the healing of the university, fine. If they are more motivated to continue this senseless war, they will have to go it alone. The university and its mission of educating Mississippi kids is more important than this pettiness in which we all have been involved.
By the way, I acknowledge my sarcastic replys to the posters above. I am not of a mind to accept ridicule, condescending attitudes, or putting a spin on my comments. That childish, silly tactic has gone on too long and has caused too much damage. It is time it stopped.

I am confused as well why this individual dosen't want to post under their usual screen name. We know that no faculty members are petty, vengful and mean spirited. Those traits are assigned to the administration alone.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

GM,

Glad you are back! If you have a chance to respond to my 2:30 a.m. post above or to the post by the person who offered information about productivity at USM, I'd appreciate reading your thoughts.

An additional thought: as a faculty member who has taught on a campus that was for a brief period going through some turmoil (although nothing even remotely as bad as what as happened at USM), I can assure you that few things are more distracting, disheartening, or discouraging to faculty morale that administrative chaos. Most faculty members whom I know love nothing more than to be focused on their teaching and research; these are, after all, the reasons most of us wanted to become academics. I think you'll find that once Shelby is gone, and if a decent new president is selected, almost everyone on the faculty will breathe a collective sigh of relief and quickly want to return to focusing as much as possible on their first loves. I'm actually pretty optimistic that USM can emerge from this whole mess stronger, because no one will want to repeat TSY (The Shelby Years).

Date: Jun 3, 2005

George Jetson wrote:

Thanks to Under Deep Cover for two very thoughtful and thought-provoking posts, and thanks to Cossack for a very wise (if sad) post.

I agree. Cossack's reflections are wise and insightful, as always. And disturbing. Sadly, I can't argue with anything he (she) says.

I also concur that Deep Cover's posts are thought provoking, and I think helpful. I'm beginning to see what he (or she) is saying about the communication breach. I'm often guilty of this myself, unintentionally talking down, even in casual conversation, to friends and family outside the academy. At least that's what my husband and daughter tell me at least once a week.

I wonder how a psychologist would characterize the attempts at communication in this thread, particularly the exchanges between Gracie's Mom and LeftASAP, and LeftASAP's responses to Deep Cover. There's a lot of words being traded, but it doesn't seem to me as though they're even on the same channel.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Olive Oil Branch wrote:

... I wonder how a psychologist would characterize the attempts at communication in this thread, particularly the exchanges between Gracie's Mom and LeftASAP, and LeftASAP's responses to Deep Cover. There's a lot of words being traded, but it doesn't seem to me as though they're even on the same channel.

I agree with Olive Oil Branch that I need my head examined.

I would contrast my communications with Gracie's Mother as one being concentrated on facts , evidence and logic while the other pays more attention to feeling, emotions and style.

I confess to not being concerned with the emotions and totally involved with the content of the message. I get frustrated when all of the logic is bypassed and never responded to while a long narrative reply discusses the feeling of the reader.

It hardly seems a place for sensitive people to debate critically important issues, involving the future of a state institution and the careers of hundreds of faculty, if they get their feeling hurt when no insult was ever intended.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

I get frustrated when all of the logic is bypassed and never responded to while a long narrative reply discusses the feeling of the reader. It hardly seems a place for sensitive people to debate critically important issues, involving the future of a state institution and the careers of hundreds of faculty, if they get their feeling hurt when no insult was ever intended.

LeftASAP:

It's Friday afternoon, I'm just back from quaffing down an excellent lunch and a glass of wine and I'm brimming with hope and optimism for a better tomorrow. I hadn't planned to post anything more under my double-secret identity, but I've changed my mind and want to leave you with these final thoughts on our earlier conversation.

Let me apologize. I did not intend to disparage your manner of thought, or your preference for critical inquiry, or your writing style, or ascribe motives to you based on your choice of words. Nor did I intend to offend you, or frustrate you by failing to apply formal logic where it may have been appropriate. I don't know your discipline but mine is physical science, and I can well appreciate your position that critical inquiry and scientific method are the preferred tools for investigating, and hopefully solving, any problem.

My point, perhaps lost in the shuffle, was simply that there are precious few individuals in the community at large who are capable of being clinically analytic about a matter that has unfortunately become charged with emotion. I'm convinced that the methodology of pure science does not work when applied to the vagaries of human nature, particularly when emotions reach a fever pitch. Like it or not, and I realize this is easier said than done, if we really wish to have the Hattiesburg community understand the sorry state of affairs at USM, and how it came to be this way, and what must be done to dig our way out of the Thames quagmire, we'll have to figure out some "new" way to talk to them. Most people have had or known of a mean-spirited, corrupt, sexist, dishonest boss. Most people understand what it means to be disenfranchised. And that's were we find ourselves now, under the thumb of a petty tyrant, stripped of our voice. If we can somehow convey the bigger picture first, and provide details and evidence later, after we're certain we have their attention, I think the outcome will be better than what we've seen thus far. The experience I described earlier, my conversation with the friend from church, is admittedly anecdotal but it demonstrated to my satisfaction that there are reasonable people out there, undecided people, who are willing to listen to us, so long as we listen to them.

Again, have a great weekend, and don't worry about having your head examined. I'm sure everything in the old cranium is just fine.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

UDC,

I'm really admiring your posts -- both the substance and the style. Keep 'em coming!

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Under Deep Cover wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: I get frustrated when all of the logic is bypassed and never responded to while a long narrative reply discusses the feeling of the reader. It hardly seems a place for sensitive people to debate critically important issues, involving the future of a state institution and the careers of hundreds of faculty, if they get their feeling hurt when no insult was ever intended. LeftASAP: It's Friday afternoon, I'm just back from quaffing down an excellent lunch and a glass of wine and I'm brimming with hope and optimism for a better tomorrow. I hadn't planned to post anything more under my double-secret identity, but I've changed my mind and want to leave you with these final thoughts on our earlier conversation. Let me apologize. I did not intend to disparage your manner of thought, or your preference for critical inquiry, or your writing style, or ascribe motives to you based on your choice of words. Nor did I intend to offend you, or frustrate you by failing to apply formal logic where it may have been appropriate. I don't know your discipline but mine is physical science, and I can well appreciate your position that critical inquiry and scientific method are the preferred tools for investigating, and hopefully solving, any problem. My point, perhaps lost in the shuffle, was simply that there are precious few individuals in the community at large who are capable of being clinically analytic about a matter that has unfortunately become charged with emotion. I'm convinced that the methodology of pure science does not work when applied to the vagaries of human nature, particularly when emotions reach a fever pitch. Like it or not, and I realize this is easier said than done, if we really wish to have the Hattiesburg community understand the sorry state of affairs at USM, and how it came to be this way, and what must be done to dig our way out of the Thames quagmire, we'll have to figure out some "new" way to talk to them. Most people have had or known of a mean-spirited, corrupt, sexist, dishonest boss. Most people understand what it means to be disenfranchised. And that's were we find ourselves now, under the thumb of a petty tyrant, stripped of our voice. If we can somehow convey the bigger picture first, and provide details and evidence later, after we're certain we have their attention, I think the outcome will be better than what we've seen thus far. The experience I described earlier, my conversation with the friend from church, is admittedly anecdotal but it demonstrated to my satisfaction that there are reasonable people out there, undecided people, who are willing to listen to us, so long as we listen to them. Again, have a great weekend, and don't worry about having your head examined. I'm sure everything in the old cranium is just fine.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. See what a glass of wine with lunch can do? Aren't you glad we don't have the original Drug and Alcohol Policy?

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Disenfranchised Alumn Among Us wrote:

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.

I am so sorry if anyone read the above post as being condescending. I truly didn't mean for it to sound that way. Please accept my profound apology. I didn't mean for it to sound condescending . . . . . I meant for it to sound Angry as H*LL

Date: Jun 3, 2005

George Jetson wrote:

UDC, I'm really admiring your posts -- both the substance and the style. Keep 'em coming!

Thank you George. My Mamma always thought I should have been a writer instead of a scientist. Now that I'm getting up in years, maybe I should start thinking about a career change.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

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.

Gracie's Mother,

Fading away is the last thing Thames or his backers ever planned to do.

Without the people you are sure have such an "awful image," Shelby Thames would be President for Life. USM would be about to lose its accreditation.

You talk as though you welcome the departure of Shelby Thames, yet you refuse to give credit to anyone who fought hard to get rid of his administration, and to restore the faculty's role in the aspects of the university that the faculty normally have a voice in. (I don't know of any university where the faculty controls the budget, and I haven't heard anyone in the USM chapter of AAUP demand faculty control of the budget... so I don't get it when you insinuate that "shared governance" is a code word for complete control of the university by some group of professors.)

If there really were a lot of "mainstream faculty" at USM--professors who saw Shelby Thames destroying the university, but refused to do anything about it because other people might think they were angry militants, and that would make them look bad--Thames again be President for Life.

You should be thanking the members of the USM chapter of AAUP, instead of proclaiming that they are beyond the pale, and insisting that you would never work with them under any circumstances.

You should be thanking the members of the USM Faculty Senate, who have also worked hard to stop a rogue president from destroying a university. I am surprised you don't think they are also beyond the pale.

The professors, staff, and students at USM would have benefited immensely from your support, and from the support of others in the community. You couldn't give them your support in 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or even the first half of 2005, for whatever reason. Well, OK. But what is the point of coming along and blaming them now because in the struggle against this foolish tyrant who seemed to enjoy the protection of every mover and shaker in Mississippi, a bunch of professors got angry at him and his backers? Won't they just ask, "Where were you?"

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Thanks Robert.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

Gracie's Mother wrote: 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. Gracie's Mother, Fading away is the last thing Thames or his backers ever planned to do. Without the people you are sure have such an "awful image," Shelby Thames would be President for Life. USM would be about to lose its accreditation. You talk as though you welcome the departure of Shelby Thames, yet you refuse to give credit to anyone who fought hard to get rid of his administration, and to restore the faculty's role in the aspects of the university that the faculty normally have a voice in. (I don't know of any university where the faculty controls the budget, and I haven't heard anyone in the USM chapter of AAUP demand faculty control of the budget... so I don't get it when you insinuate that "shared governance" is a code word for complete control of the university by some group of professors.) If there really were a lot of "mainstream faculty" at USM--professors who saw Shelby Thames destroying the university, but refused to do anything about it because other people might think they were angry militants, and that would make them look bad--Thames again be President for Life. You should be thanking the members of the USM chapter of AAUP, instead of proclaiming that they are beyond the pale, and insisting that you would never work with them under any circumstances. You should be thanking the members of the USM Faculty Senate, who have also worked hard to stop a rogue president from destroying a university. I am surprised you don't think they are also beyond the pale. The professors, staff, and students at USM would have benefited immensely from your support, and from the support of others in the community. You couldn't give them your support in 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or even the first half of 2005, for whatever reason. Well, OK. But what is the point of coming along and blaming them now because in the struggle against this foolish tyrant who seemed to enjoy the protection of every mover and shaker in Mississippi, a bunch of professors got angry at him and his backers? Won't they just ask, "Where were you?" Robert Campbell

Thank you so much, Dr. Campbell sir, for telling me what I should be doing. Heck, I'm so stupid that I thought it might be a good idea if I tried to establish communication with a few people on this board. I realize I'm just dumb as a rock, but I thought that if we could start talking with each other, we could maybe eventually come together and same a healing process.

I appreciate you straightening me out. I now understand that I need to stop this foolishness and instead bow down to the vastly superior AAUP and Faculty Senate. Perhaps I should volunteer to become your slave and wash your feet for you.

I have only one nagging question, though. Is it that if there were no further turmoil your image as the brave warrior from out of state would be a harder sale?

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother,

We've yet to be given your facts that ground your opinions. Back up your statements with facts - research isn't all that tough. You appear to believe that it is all about attacking SFT; thus, anyone who posts statements that are against your views are your personal targets. I urge you to go to the Departures List and realistically think about why most of those people left and really realistically think about why other great universities hired them.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Gracie's Mother wrote:

Thank you so much, Dr. Campbell sir, for telling me what I should be doing. Heck, I'm so stupid that I thought it might be a good idea if I tried to establish communication with a few people on this board. I realize I'm just dumb as a rock, but I thought that if we could start talking with each other, we could maybe eventually come together and same a healing process.
I appreciate you straightening me out. I now understand that I need to stop this foolishness and instead bow down to the vastly superior AAUP and Faculty Senate. Perhaps I should volunteer to become your slave and wash your feet for you.
I have only one nagging question, though. Is it that if there were no further turmoil your image as the brave warrior from out of state would be a harder sale?

Folks, while I think dialogue with the community is a good idea and should be pursued, I think it's time to lob Mom here onto the troll heap and move on. Robert and (Leaving)Left have done a good job of laying out issues; and Mom answers them with vitriol.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

GM,

Would you be willing at least to respond to the excellent points made above by another poster about USM faculty productivity? You, after all, suggested that many USM faculty regard productivity as a four-letter word; the other poster demonstrated (irrefutably, it seemed to me) that USM faculty have in fact been far more productive than faculty at other state universities in MS. So far you haven't responded to his point, even though I've tried to ask -- twice -- as nicely as I know how. If you could at least respond to that point, we might be in a better position to continue the discussion. Thanks.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

This is a familiar pattern. "Visitor" comes to the board, pretends to need enlightenment, refuses to engage in actual dialogue, persists in misinterpreting and misunderstanding reasonable responses, refuses to discuss issues, gets snarky and goes off in a huff only to be reborn under another name.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Voter wrote:

I think it's time to lob Mom here onto the troll heap and move on.

Yep. Toss Gracie's Mom right into the troll bucket along with the rest of them.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

Well, folks I tried to communicate with Gracie's Mother as did USM Sympathizer, Robert and others. G.M. just seems to find any word that could be stretched into an insult and decides they were attacked and insulted. I see the same exact pattern as JoJo, Son of Bubba to name recent trolls. There were others like Kudzu King who has a similar method.

I don't mind the trolls. They help us get out rational arguments sharpened and published.

Date: Jun 3, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Gracie's Mother wrote: ... By the way, I acknowledge my sarcastic replys to the posters above. I am not of a mind to accept ridicule, condescending attitudes, or putting a spin on my comments. That childish, silly tactic has gone on too long and has caused too much damage. It is time it stopped. Please, Gracie's Mother, kindly quote the parts of the post to which you are referring and considered "ridicule, condescending attitudes, or putting a spin on my comments. " If it is from my post, I promise I will not flame your reply, but only try to improve the message I was trying to communicate. I would welcome a dialogue in which we used no emotional tones, but rather dealt only with facts. Do you think that is possible?

Check remarks by Olive Oil, Disenfranchised, Truth4USM, and Robert Campbell on this page. Among those you will find most of the unattractive traits I describe. How do you start negotiations with these kind of attitudes?

I have stated no arguments in Shelby Thames' defense, and I have been measured in my comments about the AAUP. As I read the negative comments regarding my messages, I become more convinced that any common grounds for discussion that we might reach will have to be at the expense of severing relationships with hard liners. If you bother to read my comments, you will see that I have already stated that I feel that it is quite possible that I might have to dissolve some of mine if this thing is ever to be resolved.

My visit here is causing me to wonder if we can reach an agreement to try and compromise. Many of your members seem adimantly opposed to compromise of any kind. I'm not here to waste my time, and I'm not at all interested in the suggestions of a pompous ass like Robert Campbell. If I am willing to leave some of my former colleagues in their camp, you are going to have to leave some of your behind also.

You are probably not willing to do that, but it probably won't be possible to reach any meaningful understanding if people with hidden agendas are involved.