This message posted on Gulf Coast faculty list last week by "Vincent" in reply to HA Article about cost of Glamser/Stringer Affair (Article follows posting). Who is "Vincent" ? Since it was on the faculty list he must be faculty, right? Got this third hand. Warning: metaphor alert. __________________________________________________________________
"Where are the Women of Mississippi?
Much less, the women at this university?"
Amazingly, I get an email from a faculty member that quotes a sophomore (that's right, we are now supposed to defer to sophomoric wisdom) as saying (in reference to the negotiated "forced retirement" package of two professors who took it upon themselves to be - private investigators, officials of the inquisition, males who look into female success, or were they just males who enforced the "glass ceiling"), "That's a lot of money. I think it could be spent in a better place,"
Well, isn't that nice?
In defense of the sophomore who made this rather naive statement, I, too, believe that the money could have been spent in "a better place!" On the other hand, it would appear that students (this student, at least) have somehow forgotten that it was not the Administration that erred, but the faculty members who agreed to a severance package (they were not fired, per se), as a part of their dismissal from the university!
Additionally (and incredibly), a junior at the university stated (according to this email that was so important that it had invaded everyone's email - like SPAM) junior Kevin Hundt said. "I actually had professor Glamser as a sociology professor and he was one of my best professors. I didn't think he should have been fired. None of this would have happened if they didn't try to fire the professors."
"They" did not try to fire the professors - the professors left and asked "not to be sued" by the woman they investigated! How hard is this to understand? I am happy "Glamser" was a good professor, but did he not leave his students with the skills to think? For example, If the professors were serial killers, does the fact that they taught a good class dismiss their murders of countless women as "OK, 'cause they taught good classes?"
Is there a reason we do NOT look for students to define equality, morality, and even fair play at the university level? If so, why would Watkins, et al. disseminate this tripe?
So (not to offend the southern belles of Mississippi - God forbid), in California, women at the university level (in any capacity) would have been outraged that these two so-called "men" took it upon themselves to "investigate" the credentials of women (a woman) who had earned a position(s) in higher administrative levels of academia! These two so-called"males" who commented that their (physical) offices contained more important stuff than the "purses of the secretaries" they entrusted their life's work to, were chauvinistic fools to say the least!
Make no mistake about it, women at universities in California (any university in California) would have been incensed to learn that "male" professors (who saw the culmination of their life's work to be private investigations of women's credentials) were locked out of their offices! Indeed, they (women of California) would have demanded these chauvinistic jerks be locked IN their offices! The strategy of these women would have been to have some NOTICEABLE effect on chauvinistic thinking, when they set fire to the buildings in which these jackasses were officed! Women of Mississippi, make no mistake about this difference between you and the women of industrialized nations (states). You should be ashamed that you let jackasses like Will Watson address you in this manner!
The fact that males at this university insist on making light of the fact that a woman was (perhaps illegally) investigated by "male" faculty members is disgusting! I can stand up for women everywhere; however, women in Mississippi need to learn to stand up for themselves!
>Hattiesburg American 6/28/05 > >Deal, fees cost USM $457,000 > >By Reuben Mees > >The attempted firing of two University of Southern Mississippi professors has >left students and taxpayers bearing the burden of approximately $457,000 in >expenses. > >The state College Board recently reported paying law firm Adams and Reese >$107,589 in fees associated with the case that rocked the university in the >spring of 2004. > >Those fees are on top of the approximately $350,000 settlements with sociology >professor Frank Glamser and English professor Gary Stringer - both of whom >walked away from the university with full salary packages for two years. > >"That's a lot of money. I think it could be spent in a better place," said >sophomore Madison Moore. "I understand that legal fees can add up, but I think >the university could have taken it on in a better manner." > >The legal costs began adding up when Southern Miss President Shelby Thames >attempted to fire the two tenured professors who were looking into the >background of a former administrator. > >It concluded after a public hearing with Glamser and Stringer getting two >years of full salary in exchange for not speaking of the matter. They will be paid >through the 2005-06 school year. > >Thames and Glamser both said they were bound by the agreement to not >discuss the matter for at least two years. > >"When this matter was settled, it was agreed by the parties that there >would be >no further comments about this matter and, therefore, I am precluded by the >agreements from making comments," Thames said in a prepared statement. > >Alumna and Thames supporter Bonnie Drews said she was shocked to learn of the >extent of the legal fees from the case. > >"Wow. That's something way out of my sphere of information and I doubt if very >many alumni are in that loop either," she said. "I doubt if very many >people at all know about this." > >Some faculty and students also feel the price tag was high. > >"I was really surprised to see the amount of money that was spent," said >retired physics professor Ray Folse. "I was also surprised to see the payment came in last August and it took (the College Board) this long to approve it." > hate to see all that money spent that way," junior Kevin Hundt said. "I >actually had professor Glamser as a sociology professor and he was one of my >best professors. I didn't think he should have been fired. None of this would >have happened if they didn't try to fire the professors." > >American Association of University Professors chapter president Amy Young, who >handled fund raising for Glamser and Stringer's legal defense, said the group >raised about $42,000 from local faculty and residents as well as from >academics across the country. > >Those funds covered most of their legal expenses but the professors were >required to pay some of their own costs as well. > >Originally published June 28, 2005 >
Remember the appearances of John Belushi as guest commentator on the old Saturday Night Live news segments? Initially he’d be relatively laid back, but as his commentary progressed John would work himself into a lather. The commentary often ended with Belushi propelling himself from his chair and crashing to the floor. Of course my description doesn’t do his performance justice. John was a very funny guy.
Reading Vincent’s post brought back this pleasant memory. Thanks, Vincent.
Just for the record for the uninformed, the Glamser/Stringer investigation of Dr. Dvorak had nothing to do with her gender. It had to do with her credentials. Drs. Glamser and Stringer would have investigated her if she had been male and said she was a tenured associate professor of English at the University of Kentucky (which she wasn't).
What a pile of cr$p! Gender had nothing to do with this incredibly stupid fiasco - unless you count the fact that the idiot that instituted it had his brains stored in a male appendage.
What a pile of cr$p! Gender had nothing to do with this incredibly stupid fiasco - unless you count the fact that the idiot that instituted it had his brains stored in a male appendage.
Mississippi Woman wrote: What a pile of cr$p! Gender had nothing to do with this incredibly stupid fiasco - unless you count the fact that the idiot that instituted it had his brains stored in a male appendage.
Amen, preach it sister. This idot sorta conveniently forgets that the woman being investigated was an opportunist, a liar, and totally unfit for her job.
Invictus wrote: This is funny? "Vincent" is obtuse to the point of stupidity. Obscurity doth not satire make, if this be satire. If it's not satire, it is dangerous.
Yes, it is funny. Do not be afraid, my friend. Vincent is just a ranting fool.
I hope that "Vincent" is not a faculty member. I wouldn't want my daughter to be taught by someone who seems to be so loose with the facts. Vincent? Something about her post leads me to believe that Vincent may really be a Vincinella.
Continue to be amazed at how the administration's undercover spokes"persons" try to spin this. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with gender and everything to do with crendentials.
P.S. It was NOT (absolutely NOT) neither. Glamser nor Stringer who asked that the "do not sue" clause be included. I know that for an absolutely true fact.
astounded wrote: Continue to be amazed at how the administration's undercover spokes"persons" try to spin this. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with gender and everything to do with crendentials.
P.S. It was NOT (absolutely NOT) neither. Glamser nor Stringer who asked that the "do not sue" clause be included. I know that for an absolutely true fact.
AD had no cause upon which to sue. Any pledge by her not to pursue legal action was valueless. What cause: Slander? Defamation? No way. Where's the harm? It was G&S acting to protect the value of integrity that were harmed.
It would have been delightful to see her on the stand before a jury, no doubt in tears, describing the pain and career harm inflicted by G&S. Then on cross, she would have been asked why she made a public threat to sue immediately after the G&S announcement--wasn't that really an attempt to intimidate--and were not the findings of the G&S investigation absolutely accurate. Which they were.
After the directed verdict, G&S's attorney's would have filed for the plaintiff to reimbursement of legal fees & costs, slapping AD with a legal bill the size of a large mortgage.
Of course all of this would never happen, because any suit filed by AD would get thrown out on summary judgement.
astounded wrote: Continue to be amazed at how the administration's undercover spokes"persons" try to spin this. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with gender and everything to do with crendentials. P.S. It was NOT (absolutely NOT) neither. Glamser nor Stringer who asked that the "do not sue" clause be included. I know that for an absolutely true fact. AD had no cause upon which to sue. Any pledge by her not to pursue legal action was valueless. What cause: Slander? Defamation? No way. Where's the harm? It was G&S acting to protect the value of integrity that were harmed. It would have been delightful to see her on the stand before a jury, no doubt in tears, describing the pain and career harm inflicted by G&S. Then on cross, she would have been asked why she made a public threat to sue immediately after the G&S announcement--wasn't that really an attempt to intimidate--and were not the findings of the G&S investigation absolutely accurate. Which they were. After the directed verdict, G&S's attorney's would have filed for the plaintiff to reimbursement of legal fees & costs, slapping AD with a legal bill the size of a large mortgage. Of course all of this would never happen, because any suit filed by AD would get thrown out on summary judgement.
Dr. Vincent is quite a character, but he is also a pretty good instructor and toes line on many issues that were close to FG's heart, such as grade inflation. academic rigor, and integrity (ironic, given Vincent's post). Knowing both of these fellas, I think they would enjoy a beer together. But the gist of Vincent's post is wrong (and he has no ties to the administration that I know of--these are really just his thoughts).
FG and GS were treated abysmally, and they had every right to question AD's credentials. However, and I know most of you will disagree with me on this, AD was probably in the ballpark in terms of credentials for the VPRED. I say this having seen her CV and the CVs of many. many others applying for these types of positions (I have served on a boatload of search committees for admin types, and know what these folks look like at higher Tier Universities also). If there was a national search, however, we might (and probably) would have done better. And that is the rub. There was no national search for this position, for which national searches with strong faculty representation are the norm. Despite this inauspicious beginning for her time at USM, AD could have served us reasonably well if (1) MD and JH did not become part of the package, (2) we had a President who knew how to manage his mistakes instead of compounding them, (3) AD would have publicly stated, "Gee, I can see how that could be misconstrued. My apologies, and I'll correct it immediately," and let it go (no tears or threats).
When she was VP, AD treated us well at the department level, and was supportive of our research efforts (and we are not in COST or CISE). At a somewhat smaller institution under the watchful eye of a competent President, she might have prospered. Under SFT, she became her own worst enemy.
Go Girl! First time on this board that I've seen even a glimmer of the truth regarding that unfortunate incident. If those two bums had been alumni, administrators, or just plain citizens, you nazis would have crucified them in the rose garden. The only fact that sways you to their side is that they were faculty Shades of Jimmy Hoffa! It they're union men, they can do no wrong.....regardless of how much wrong they did. If they were such great professors, they should have stuck to being professors, because they were lousy gestapo troopers. They got caught, and it cost the state almost a half million $ to get rid of them. Never has there been a better example of why tenure should be eliminated or why the AAUP should be abolished. If you all had your way, you'd be kicking doors down and hauling us off to the gas chambers by now.
This discussion is in many ways off-base. The problem was that SFT forced out two outstanding faculty for no real reason, and slandered them in the public media with intimations of "criminal" conduct which were base lies.
Keep in mind that the AAUP meeting in which GS announced the results of his findings was in January (as I recall). After that it was forgotten. It just wasn't all that newsworthy. It only became so when SFT tried to fire them. If Thames were smart, he would have ignored the whole thing and it would have pretty much gone away. But he isn't smart; it didn't go away, and it will be remembered for the GS debacle above all else.
As for the value of tenure. GS are posterboys for why tenure needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Mississippi has a long history of firing and harrassing professors who expouse unpopular views (like opposition to Gov. Bilbo's packing Universities with cronies or racial integration). Its one of the reasons why all of Mississippi's universities enjoy such low reputations across the nation.
Gadly wrote: AD was probably in the ballpark in terms of credentials for the VPRED. I say this having seen her CV and the CVs of many. many others applying for these types of positions (I have served on a boatload of search committees for admin types, and know what these folks look like at higher Tier Universities also). If there was a national search, however, we might (and probably) would have done better. And that is the rub. There was no national search for this position, for which national searches with strong faculty representation are the norm. Despite this inauspicious beginning for her time at USM, AD could have served us reasonably well if (1) MD and JH did not become part of the package, (2) we had a President who knew how to manage his mistakes instead of compounding them, (3) AD would have publicly stated, "Gee, I can see how that could be misconstrued. My apologies, and I'll correct it immediately," and let it go (no tears or threats). When she was VP, AD treated us well at the department level, and was supportive of our research efforts (and we are not in COST or CISE). At a somewhat smaller institution under the watchful eye of a competent President, she might have prospered. Under SFT, she became her own worst enemy. Okay, flame away.
Gadfly,
I can't imagine AD getting hired as VP for Research at Clemson (a Tier 2 university) with the kind of background she had. Even if her inflated vita had been accepted at face value...
We may never know exactly how SFT made the hiring decision, but don't you think that AD expected JH and MD to be part of the package? And do you really think she needed SFT's bad example to respond to questions about her credentials with bullying and threats of a lawsuit?
Above the Mire wrote: Go Girl! First time on this board that I've seen even a glimmer of the truth regarding that unfortunate incident. If those two bums had been alumni, administrators, or just plain citizens, you nazis would have crucified them in the rose garden. The only fact that sways you to their side is that they were faculty Shades of Jimmy Hoffa! It they're union men, they can do no wrong.....regardless of how much wrong they did. If they were such great professors, they should have stuck to being professors, because they were lousy gestapo troopers. They got caught, and it cost the state almost a half million $ to get rid of them. Never has there been a better example of why tenure should be eliminated or why the AAUP should be abolished. If you all had your way, you'd be kicking doors down and hauling us off to the gas chambers by now.
"Above the Mire,"
Is it OK for administrators to lie on their resumes?
WHY NOT? Most of the information on this Board is a lie. When you get caught, you call it water cooler talk.
During JoJo's last two series of postings, I refrained from calling for a boycott. But his posts have become so irrelevant, time consuming, and nasty, the time has come to get out the FLIT. I suggest that he be allowed to post his fool head off; but please, please, lets not respond to him.
Gadfly, I can't imagine AD getting hired as VP for Research at Clemson (a Tier 2 university) with the kind of background she had. Even if her inflated vita had been accepted at face value... We may never know exactly how SFT made the hiring decision, but don't you think that AD expected JH and MD to be part of the package? And do you really think she needed SFT's bad example to respond to questions about her credentials with bullying and threats of a lawsuit? Robert Campbell
RC-
Have you seen AD's CV? I did quite awhile ago (no, I don't have it to disseminate). It wasn't stellar, but it was in line with many research admin types at surprisingly good universities. But you make a good point (which is the one I was trying to make)--no one seems to know how the hiring decision was made. I don't know if the bad boys were a priori part of the package, but it would't surprise me a bit. I also agree that AD was perfectly capable of throwing the fit she did without SFT's bad example. My point was that a good and competent President would never have allowed that to happen--he or she would have reined her in in a heartbeart. But a good and competent President would not have made a hire in this way.
Go Girl! First time on this board that I've seen even a glimmer of the truth regarding that unfortunate incident. If those two bums had been alumni, administrators, or just plain citizens, you nazis would have crucified them in the rose garden. The only fact that sways you to their side is that they were faculty Shades of Jimmy Hoffa! It they're union men, they can do no wrong.....regardless of how much wrong they did. If they were such great professors, they should have stuck to being professors, because they were lousy gestapo troopers. They got caught, and it cost the state almost a half million $ to get rid of them. Never has there been a better example of why tenure should be eliminated or why the AAUP should be abolished. If you all had your way, you'd be kicking doors down and hauling us off to the gas chambers by now.
ATM-
I hope you realize that your post sounds a bit like a psychotic rant. I can't imagine why my post triggered this. I am an AAUP member, and I don't think that G&S did wrong--they were well within their rights.
This discussion is in many ways off-base. The problem was that SFT forced out two outstanding faculty for no real reason, and slandered them in the public media with intimations of "criminal" conduct which were base lies. Keep in mind that the AAUP meeting in which GS announced the results of his findings was in January (as I recall). After that it was forgotten. It just wasn't all that newsworthy. It only became so when SFT tried to fire them. If Thames were smart, he would have ignored the whole thing and it would have pretty much gone away. But he isn't smart; it didn't go away, and it will be remembered for the GS debacle above all else. As for the value of tenure. GS are posterboys for why tenure needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Mississippi has a long history of firing and harrassing professors who expouse unpopular views (like opposition to Gov. Bilbo's packing Universities with cronies or racial integration). Its one of the reasons why all of Mississippi's universities enjoy such low reputations across the nation.
QWERTY-
Yes, the G&S fiasco was bad, but, please, let's not forget the midnight sacking of the nine deans. In many ways, that has had as bad, if not worse, impact on us. I believe that we would not be on SACS probation if SFT had just left well enough alone with the university structure. And if the oldtimers were in place, I don't think the G&S mess would have happened.