Academics' Attitudes - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Academics' Attitudes

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Gee, HeC,

You could have netted out your post in one sentence:

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Rational people quickly learn the futility of arguing with that.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

OK, just a little attention-getter there in the topic. I have noticed a couple of things from my 1+ years of reading and posting on this board under different noms de plume. Number one: When challenged, many faculty members respond with either "you're stupid" or "if you can't argue by our rules, then go away." There's nothing most people hate worse than to have to deal with a person who flaunts his or her money constantly. It's irritating. After a while, you start to dislike the person doing the flaunting because it's simply bad manners, especially if the person doing the flaunting is doing it to degrade someone with less material wealth. That's what the intellectual community on this message board does to those who do not possess the knowledge or skills of some on this website. Some of you may say that the rules of engagement are posted, old arguments posted and archived, etc., and that newcomers should just read all of that stuff before asking a question or commenting. That is the equivalent to saying that you taught Macbeth a few years ago and that your students should go find the old notes (on file in the library) and study them before entering your course. They will be responsible for Macbeth, but you will not teach it again. Ever. This is irresponsible, considering that you are educators. You work at a teaching institution and, whether you want to admit it or not, your PRIMARY job is to teach. Do you refuse to answer the same question more than once per semester per section? If you do, then you are dangerously close to academic malfeasance. If you do not refuse, then why do you treat all newcomers with disdain? Number two: When proven wrong, very few board participants are willing to admit their shortcomings. Humans do not like to admit their missteps, but this activity is key to dispelling the know-it-all-egg-head stereotype that follows academics around like PigPen's dust cloud. Admission of wrong deeds or statements are few and far between here. Angry responses will be ignored, as will attacks on my character and motives. I will engage in rational discourse regarding my statements, however.

Just a reminder that not all posting on this board are professors. So your long discussion about answering questions doesn't apply to most. True there are some rude people who post. Some trolls even post under many different names and are rude to themselves so that they can return and use their post as evidence that they were not treated well.

It really is not an interesting thing to discuss in my opinion. Maybe others will engage you on this. Good luck.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

OK HeC, I will engage, even at the risk of you being another of the visitors who pulls our collective chain and leaves. We are exhausted. We are fighting battles on all fronts on top of our jobs, our families, our community commitments. We are occasionally guilty of acting as if we have a "closed society" on this board, I admit it at least for myself. Now what? What would you like to discuss?

May I respectfully disagree with your premise that a faculty member's "primary" function is to teach. Depending on the weighting, it is 1/3 of a faculty member's job. Did you know that or were you trying to argue for that point?

Date: Jun 11, 2005

I simply made two observations. You may or may not choose to reflect upon them. If you truly search your mind and are convinced that you do not engage in these types of activities, then very well. I have no agenda other than that. I have no other topic to discuss.

Round 847,

As a faculty member at USM, I am aware of the potential differences in weightings for teaching, research, and service. I am aware that, according to the USM Faculty Handbook, the standard teaching load is four courses per semester (12 hours per semester). I am aware that release time is available for research active faculty. The 12-hour standard teaching load (or, for that matter, even a 9-hour teaching load) means that USM is much more teaching oriented than UM or MSU, whose handbooks discuss teaching, research, and service but do not specify a "standard" teaching load. As a point of casual empiricism, UM's faculty teach far fewer sections per semester on average than does USM's.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

A question, without caveat, for you then Professor. Do you support this president?

Date: Jun 11, 2005

HEC,

Can you give us a specific example?

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

Number two: When proven wrong, very few board participants are willing to admit their shortcomings. Humans do not like to admit their missteps, but this activity is key to dispelling the know-it-all-egg-head stereotype that follows academics around like PigPen's dust cloud. Admission of wrong deeds or statements are few and far between here.

I've been on this board a long time, and I do not find this statement to be true. Oh, of course, it happens, but I've also seen lots of apologies and explanations. The posters least likely to admit incorrect statements tend to be trolls. Others may disagree with me, but this is my general impression.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Okay HEC, so what is your point? In all of that absurd rambing and ranting I missed your point completely.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

disgusted student wrote:

Okay HEC, so what is your point? In all of that absurd rambing and ranting I missed your point completely.

This isn't the first time you've missed the point, and won't be your last.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Round 848 wrote:

A question, without caveat, for you then Professor. Do you support this president?

I do not. However, I do not support the continued indecency perpetuated by some on this board.

How about the "decency" speech at the end of Bonfire of the Vanities? Or the Golden Rule? Not every poster who comes on this board is Thames himself, nor Lawrence Warren, nor any of the Warren Paving Meeting crowd.

My original post was an attempt to point out that, METAPHORICALLY, posters here shoot first and ask questions later.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

Some of you may say that the rules of engagement are posted, old arguments posted and archived, etc., and that newcomers should just read all of that stuff before asking a question or commenting. That is the equivalent to saying that you taught Macbeth a few years ago and that your students should go find the old notes (on file in the library) and study them before entering your course. They will be responsible for Macbeth, but you will not teach it again. Ever. This is irresponsible, considering that you are educators. You work at a teaching institution and, whether you want to admit it or not, your PRIMARY job is to teach. Do you refuse to answer the same question more than once per semester per section? If you do, then you are dangerously close to academic malfeasance. If you do not refuse, then why do you treat all newcomers with disdain?

Well, for starters, this is an internet bulletin board, not a classroom. The purpose of this board is community discussion & not "education of the masses" per se. As more folks started coming by here, someone decided to post a "read this first" thread simply to keep the larger community from having to spend most of its time hashing & rehashing the same old stuff.

Moreover, this is a voluntary community. The original purpose, as I'm sure you're aware, was not to create any sort of compromise with Shelby Thames. In fact, the original name of this board was FireShelby. So really, should anyone expect a great deal of tolerance & courtesy when Shelbyhoids show up here?

A last point: Many of the Shelbyhoids who post here are trolls, pure & simple, whose main purpose is to disrupt this community. When they are asked to present their logic, they generally refuse. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that there isn't a logical argument for supporting SFT.

Oh, BTW, I am not USM faculty. This is something for which I thank the Lord every day. I am a USM alumnus. And if you think about it, I have far more at stake in the reputation of the university than the vast majority of faculty.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Round 848 wrote:

A question, without caveat, for you then Professor. Do you support this president?

I support this president whenever he acts within the principles of the academy. When he asked for input on the AA/EEO before making a decision, I supported him. If there was any other time he followed shared governance, I supported him. So, in summary, I guess I had to opposed this president for 3 years in almost every decision he made.

It isn't like pulling for a football team where you support them no matter what. It isn't like soldiers following orders without questioning.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Seeker wrote:

disgusted student wrote:
Okay HEC, so what is your point? In all of that absurd rambing and ranting I missed your point completely.

This isn't the first time you've missed the point, and won't be your last.

Seeker,
while you and disgusted student have a less-than-glorious past, I cannot support your statement here, as it serves no purpose other than to inflame.

disgusted student,
Your coarse statement leads me to believe that you did not apply yourself to my statement. I can translate into the vernacular if you wish.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

Seeker,
while you and disgusted student have a less-than-glorious past, I cannot support your statement here, as it serves no purpose other than to inflame.

disgusted student,
Your coarse statement leads me to believe that you did not apply yourself to my statement. I can translate into the vernacular if you wish.

Yeah, that was pretty much a flame post, didn't exactly try to hide it did I. Oh well, sometimes you give what you get.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Hecho en China wrote:
Some of you may say that the rules of engagement are posted, old arguments posted and archived, etc., and that newcomers should just read all of that stuff before asking a question or commenting. That is the equivalent to saying that you taught Macbeth a few years ago and that your students should go find the old notes (on file in the library) and study them before entering your course. They will be responsible for Macbeth, but you will not teach it again. Ever. This is irresponsible, considering that you are educators. You work at a teaching institution and, whether you want to admit it or not, your PRIMARY job is to teach. Do you refuse to answer the same question more than once per semester per section? If you do, then you are dangerously close to academic malfeasance. If you do not refuse, then why do you treat all newcomers with disdain?

Well, for starters, this is an internet bulletin board, not a classroom. The purpose of this board is community discussion & not "education of the masses" per se. As more folks started coming by here, someone decided to post a "read this first" thread simply to keep the larger community from having to spend most of its time hashing & rehashing the same old stuff.

HeC says: You are correct, this is a bulletin board, not a classroom. I have seen much debate on this board, and I thought scholars enjoyed debating their subjects! Perhaps you do not consider me a worthy member of your community.

Moreover, this is a voluntary community. The original purpose, as I'm sure you're aware, was not to create any sort of compromise with Shelby Thames. In fact, the original name of this board was FireShelby. So really, should anyone expect a great deal of tolerance & courtesy when Shelbyhoids show up here?

HeC sys: Classrooms are also voluntary. No one is forced to go to college. You are incorrect in that this is the FireShelby board renamed. The USM AAUP chapter calls this the "AAUP-USM Message Board." Thus, there is involvement from both the AAUP and a portion of USM in supporting this board, if in name only. FireShelby was an individual who did it all on his own. Small differences are sometimes worth noting. Your last line here makes me think you have no tolerance for those who do not share your opinions. I hope this is not true.

A last point: Many of the Shelbyhoids who post here are trolls, pure & simple, whose main purpose is to disrupt this community. When they are asked to present their logic, they generally refuse. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that there isn't a logical argument for supporting SFT.

HeC says: So, am I a run-of-the-mill troll because you do not identify me immediately as a "Kill Shelby" [metaphor alert] faculty member?

Oh, BTW, I am not USM faculty. This is something for which I thank the Lord every day. I am a USM alumnus. And if you think about it, I have far more at stake in the reputation of the university than the vast majority of faculty.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Why do I feel like I'm reading a Gracie's Mother Thread? Oh, that was last week.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

HeC says: You are correct, this is a bulletin board, not a classroom. I have seen much debate on this board, and I thought scholars enjoyed debating their subjects! Perhaps you do not consider me a worthy member of your community.
<SNIP>
Your last line here makes me think you have no tolerance for those who do not share your opinions. I hope this is not true.
<SNIP>
HeC says: So, am I a run-of-the-mill troll because you do not identify me immediately as a "Kill Shelby" [metaphor alert] faculty member?
<SNIP>

Well, first, I don't think that I stated that I didn't consider you a worthy member of this community, nor did I state that I thought you were a troll. You outed yourself with the follow up, bubbasatva.

(Call me sucker-punched, LVN. I should've recognized this for what it was...)

Date: Jun 11, 2005

LeftASAP, it was a specific question to HeC.

HeC, not all and not always.

Stephen Judd posted something a couple of days ago along the lines of "there is not one board with one opinion" and Invictus, with whom you are currently arguing, has long been a proponent of this website being operated independently from AAUP.

Given that you have acknowledged a) being a professor and b) not supporting Shelby Thames, why would you not embrace the the faculty senate, academic council, graduate council, council of chairs, and AAUP as being the legitimate voices of the leadership? Perhaps you do sorry if I assumed. But the question remains, why give this website community legitimacy that by it's very nature it can't command?

PS - You struck a nerve with the BotV quote, it's one of may all time favorites spoken memorably by a Mississippian!

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Re: sucker punched

LVN and Invictus, I'm not there yet, we'll see...

Sorry for all my typos in the last post.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Round 849 wrote:

LeftASAP, it was a specific question to HeC. HeC, not all and not always. Stephen Judd posted something a couple of days ago along the lines of "there is not one board with one opinion" and Invictus, with whom you are currently arguing, has long been a proponent of this website being operated independently from AAUP. Given that you have acknowledged a) being a professor and b) not supporting Shelby Thames, why would you not embrace the the faculty senate, academic council, graduate council, council of chairs, and AAUP as being the legitimate voices of the leadership? Perhaps you do sorry if I assumed. But the question remains, why give this website community legitimacy that by it's very nature it can't command? PS - You struck a nerve with the BotV quote, it's one of may all time favorites spoken memorably by a Mississippian!

Sorry, I didn't mean to but in, 849. I didn't realize the question for for Hec. Now your formating in this post has me confused as to whom you are addressing. So I won't respond until it's clear who is being addressed. No problem.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

I hate this new formatting so I usually don't quote - don't know what's more confusing.

LeftASAP,

In dialogue with HeC, I asked if he/she supported Thames. In doing so, I acknowledged his/her professed position. You responded. I responded to you by saying my question was to HeC and then proceeded to address HeC.

Clear as mud, huh?

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Round XXX,

Glad you enjoyed the quote. I find that it is much easier to be nice to people and then to "get ugly" than it is to "get ugly" and then try to be nice later.

I often hear statements like "If it saves one life, then it's worth it." Well, I'm here to say that some of the viewers of this board are simply waiting for an opportunity to post a real question OR to ask you a real question in person. These viewers may be your neighbors, friends, etc. When the viewers see such aggressive responses, it may stop them from asking a question, the answer to which could turn their minds to understanding the USM situation. So, I will say now, "If it changes one mind, then mannerly discourse is worth it."

By the way, I had dinner a few months ago with a former colleague. She left USM just before Thames took office and hasn't been back to Hattiesburg since. She had read and heard many things about the Thames era, but she couldn't get her mind around the idea that it is as bad as it is - she just couldn't believe it. I calmly talked and talked, giving information, building the case against Thames, and, I think she finally put it all together. This is a well-published scholar in her field! She has a Ph.D. from a Big 10 school. She is intelligent. However, many academics simply cannot fathom the situation at USM. Should we honestly expect the community at large to do so without a great deal of explanation?

Date: Jun 11, 2005

HeC,

Thank you for engaging in a courteous exchange with me. Please continue to do so with the people who can legitimately influence direction inside and outside the university. As for this website, in the scheme of things, it (and we who are a part of it) don't matter very much.

Night all.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

...I find that it is much easier to be nice to people and then to "get ugly" than it is to "get ugly" and then try to be nice later. I often hear statements like "If it saves one life, then it's worth it." Well, I'm here to say that some of the viewers of this board are simply waiting for an opportunity to post a real question OR to ask you a real question in person. These viewers may be your neighbors, friends, etc. When the viewers see such aggressive responses, it may stop them from asking a question, the answer to which could turn their minds to understanding the USM situation. So, I will say now, "If it changes one mind, then mannerly discourse is worth it." ...

No big deal, all we need is for people to ask questions. Many times the questions are loaded, as in, "have you stopped selling child porn?” The premise of the question makes it invalid. We always have to address an incorrect premise before addressing a question.

This is usually where the fun starts. It is the major bait used by the trolls. When the incorrect premise is pointed out the troll will complain they we are too aggressive, they are being attacked and their innocent question was never answered.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Q: "Have you stopped selling child porn?"

A: " I have never sold, nor will I ever sell, child porn."

To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Horton the Elephant wrote:

Q: "Have you stopped selling child porn?" A: " I have never sold, nor will I ever sell, child porn." To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.

But you never answered my question about stopping.

I also need to retire, Good evening all.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Horton the Elephant wrote:

A: " I have never sold, nor will I ever sell, child porn."

Then am I correct to assume you are giving it away?

Date: Jun 11, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Horton the Elephant wrote:
Q: "Have you stopped selling child porn?" A: " I have never sold, nor will I ever sell, child porn." To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.

But you never answered my question about stopping.
I also need to retire, Good evening all.

Confucius say:

"Man cannot stop what has never begun."

also:

"Man who smoke joint on toilet high on pot."

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Hecho en China wrote:

As a faculty member at USM, I am aware of the potential differences in weightings for teaching, research, and service. I am aware that, according to the USM Faculty Handbook, the standard teaching load is four courses per semester (12 hours per semester). I am aware that release time is available for research active faculty. The 12-hour standard teaching load (or, for that matter, even a 9-hour teaching load) means that USM is much more teaching oriented than UM or MSU, whose handbooks discuss teaching, research, and service but do not specify a "standard" teaching load. As a point of casual empiricism, UM's faculty teach far fewer sections per semester on average than does USM's.

HeC,

Assertions of fact I can deal with. What I'm tired of is repeated assertions that professors who object to bad administration must be worse than the administrators they're objecting to.

12 hours is still the official standard at Clemson, although hardly any professor actually teaches 4 courses a semester. In Psychology, it's gone from 3 per semester (1990s) to 3 one semester and 2 the next (since around 2000) and pretty soon it will be 2 per semester--but of course the research expectations have been ratcheting up. In Engineering, it's been 2 per semester for years, and is less than than that for some researchers.

I believe your statement that the average professor at Ole Miss teaches fewer classes per semester than the average professor at USM. But I wouldn't overinterpret the language in faculty handbooks. If you read the Clemson Faculty Manual literally, you'd think we were a lot less research-oriented than we actually are.

Robert Campbell