Square peg, round hole wrote:

---

Gadfly's post, with its three caveats, might be reasonable if it were not for all of the other interfering variables of the time: the political battle with Hudson to be Thames' heir, the interference in academic affairs, and the complete misunderstanding of the role of grants in a comprehensive university - not to mention the misconceptions about the role of a university in the state's economy.

---

I mostly agree with your points, but I don't think (unless you have information to the contrary), that AD was fighting Hudson to be the next Prez. I think she was battling for influence and resources in the here and now--TH seemed more interested in staying on as the next Prez. But I could be convinced otherwise if you have the evidence.

I think the "ED" movement (I think this is what you are alluding too) is popular in Jackson and DC these days (see the recent Supreme Court ruling), so, I think that we are in many ways at odds with the power brokers' notions about grants and University funding (but AD was in step with these--and, Voila, she get the job). However, this doesn't make it a smart move to jump on the ED bandwagon (hey, the wealthy and powerful want wealth and power, they aren't motivated by doing right usually). I have very serious concerns about the commercialization of Universities, and I won't go into these here (it's been done on other threads).

Any alert readers out there read Cecil Burge's recent quote about this issue (in the context of MIDAS)? He seemed to be taking a subtle step back from the ED model. I hope I don't read too much into this, but could this mean that Cecil is distancing himself from the Boss just a bit?    

I think the "ED" movement (I think this is what you are alluding too) is popular in Jackson and DC these days (see the recent Supreme Court ruling), so, I think that we are in many ways at odds with the power brokers' notions about grants and University funding (but AD was in step with these--and, Voila, she get the job). However, this doesn't make it a smart move to jump on the ED bandwagon (hey, the wealthy and powerful want wealth and power, they aren't motivated by doing right usually).

My 2 cents is that ED is popular as it is a perfect vehicle for delivering pork.  Almost anything can be gussied up and called "economic development".  Even trolley cars running downtown from USM can be called ED (thank you Kenbot for perhaps the most ridiculous example ever).  Fads come and go in DC and we may be close to the peak for the life cycle there.  It may die harder in Jackson.  MS is very close, if not there already, to being just another stagnant backwater like parts of the West (the Dakotas) or some of the more blighted parts of the Southeast.  We've got a workforce not ready for the 21st century, a flight of talent that's been going on for decades, a less than stellar national reputation on many fronts, and now an ineffective state government.  BS like Mississippi Momentum and other such schemes seems to me like the local movers and shakers looking for the proverbial "magic bullet".  Like most such bullets, it's not there.  The alternative is the long hard slog involved in upgrading the labor force, improving infrastructure, running an effcient state government, weeding out corruption, and slowing down the waste of money involved in buying votes.  For a while in the 80s and 90s, the state government seemed to have a grip on this.  This newer crowd, of both parties, doesn't seem like they care for reality.  My best example of this is the new student union at USM.  It's pretty but you tell me how this is going to produce the more educated students that the state desperately needs.  The money could have been much better spent on vocational education at Jones or Pearl River.

Gadfly wrote:

---

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.

---

Gadfly,

I did see AD's vita, back in the days of the Fire Shelby board.  It was weak.  There was a good deal of suspicion that her claim to have been in the Department of English at UK Lexington wasn't the only bit of deliberate padding going on (among other things, AD appeared to be saying that she was a graduate teaching assistant when she was 19 years old).  But just sticking to the list of publications, she didn't present what you would expect from a respectable academic researcher.

Robert Campbell

 

A jab frequently directed at academic types is that they are great on theory, but don't get the real world.  It's usually a cheap shot, but occasionally those like "legal analyst" give credibility to the accusation.  Any trial lawyer reading this post would shake his head, laugh, and mumble something about those "crazy professors" and their books.  Trials don't work like "legal analyst" thinks.  They are a terribly unpredictable mix of conflicting stories, irreconcilable opinion testimony, and explosive politics.  Above all, they are expensive, and unpredictable.  The least conflict in material facts will justify submission of a case to the determiner of facts, the jury, composed of twelve members of the local community.  They work for Warren Paving, Hattiesburg Clinic, Copy Cat, et al.  None have tenure, many punch a clock, understand heavy lifting and outdoor work, and frankly, they don't have much sympathy for those who quibble about fine distinctions between complicated words.  To survive summary judgment, it's only necessary to show a genuine issue of material fact.  That's easily done by hiring an expert, one usually identified with a university faculty (ask SFT about that CA bridge).  In AD's lawsuit, she doesn't even have to hire one -- members of that KY administration have already stated that her vitae was close enough for government work.  There's your factual dispute.  But if she wanted more, she could hire lots of English professors to testify that her vitae was done in good faith and was reasonably accurate.  And as for damages, there would be testimony that her academic career was destroyed (she's not there any more, so maybe it was).  Any number of business school types would put a value on this for a reasonable fee (they've already got the program on their computers).  Trial lawyers with long careers count on one hand the number of directed verdicts they got in their career.  Even fewer fingers are required to count the number of SJ's they've seen.  And as for being required to pay loser fees for frivolous litigation, forget it.  It doesn't happen.  It's in the book, but it doesn't happen.  Meanwhile, those lawyers are charging $150-200 per hour to fight, and they fight a lot while you're not looking.  So if you win, you lose.  And AD gets a cut rate on her fees because she's got connections.  So remember S and G were under the gun.  Their case wouldn't have been tried in the AAUP message board.  Their appeal wouldn't have been to the faculty lounge.  They, unlike "legal analyst," were operating in the real world.

Mad Max wrote:

---

  Any trial lawyer reading this post would shake his head, laugh, and mumble something about those "crazy professors" and their books.

---

Those "trial lawyers" can thank those "crazy professors" and their books for making them successful. Without the "crazy professors" the trial lawyers wouldn't have been able to pass the bar examination.  

Mad Max wrote:

---

---

Mad Max, I read your post a second time and see that I completely misinterpreted it. I would like to retrate my reply. My comments in no way apply to you.

Gadfly wrote:

---

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.

---

Good point!

You need to take your Moltrin boys.  Your PMS is affecting your judgement.  If SFT had been wrong about Starsky and Hutch, the judge would have made him give them their jobs back, and they would have sued the school for about umpteen billion dollars.  Like usual you sound like a bunch of bitter, gossipy old women.  

 

Square peg, round hole wrote:

---

Third point, yes we're probably in sync and it's a universal problem (and challenge) in academe right now.  Your views about Cecil Burge's comments were intriguing so I re-read the MIDAS articles for them.  You may be right.  "I wouldn't automatically say if I was a historian, I couldn't get any external funds," Burge said. "There is external support out there for many of the things you want to do, and we try to work with all faculty to find support for their research." Sounds more like "let us help you find external monies to help you do what you already do" as opposed to "change what you do to find external dollars" and no fluff about grants being the panacea for the university.  Who knows?  He's somewhat of an enigma to me.

---

This is all very well and good, but when the library isn't buying books and when there isn't money to send me to even one conference (for several years), saying there is outside money to support my research doesn't mean much.

Gadfly,

Where AD would NOT have been accepted at most upper tier universities is in the area of her own research/tenure. Although the Provost/VP for Academic Affairs is directly responsible for promotion and tenure recommendations, in almost every case the VPR is on a very small committee that reviews these credentials and advises the Provost. Very few academics would have been comfortable with a non-researcher, not-really-tenured VPR carrying out those tasks.

Gadfly wrote:

---

Gadfly,
I did see AD's vita, back in the days of the Fire Shelby board.  It was weak.  There was a good deal of suspicion that her claim to have been in the Department of English at UK Lexington wasn't the only bit of deliberate padding going on (among other things, AD appeared to be saying that she was a graduate teaching assistant when she was 19 years old).  But just sticking to the list of publications, she didn't present what you would expect from a respectable academic researcher.

RC-

Padding on a CV! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Yeh, AD did engage in fluff and puff. But I've seen so many like that at USM, I'm more shocked when I see an honest CV here. Some folks take the approach that they need to put on their CV every time they go to the bathroom. I've seen thick binders of P&T materials here that are essentially filled with meaningless activities that would be laughed at in a P&T packet elsewhere.

Having served on numerous search committees, I can tell you that fluff and puff seems to be a way of life for some. AD's CV, in addition to padding, was sloppy. But there are many folks here (pre SFT and post SFT) who have weak CVs. That is why we were Tier IV when I got here, and remain Tier IV (I think the brief Tier III rating was a misprint and we should sue USNWR).

---

Gadfly,

You may be right about CV padding being common but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Toleration of this type of dishonesty breeds it and worse. And CV padding mocks the work of the university--all sorts of work--not just research but teaching and service. It is up to all of us to guard against it.

Above the Mire

You are confusing a hearing that is mandated as part of the USM Handbook with a legal trial. The Judge in this case was not acting as a Judge in a legal sense; rather he was a hearing officer. The outcome of the hearing was a compromise between the University and the two professors. If the professors were guilty of anything, why would SFT and the University compromise on anything? The answer lies in what the Judge detected in SFT’s testimony at the hearing. SFT lied under oath. Since the hearing recordings would be eligible to use in a legal proceedings, any lie or prejudicial misstep would become a legal issue. Unfortunately for the University’s case. SFT prejudiced himself in his testimony and this put pressure on the University to settle out of court. Since the two professors had already run up some large legal bills, it made sense for them to take their retirement from PERS and two years of salary for doing nothing for those two years. Both professors now have other employment plus two years of pay from USM. If SFT really had a case, he would not have had lie. However, when individuals in power make false claims on a routine basis, lying becomes second nature and the truth and lies become mixed beyond their ability to separate them.

Above the Mire wrote:

---

Your retorts need work.

---

Mire, the posters on this board are just too swift for you. JJo discovered that very early.

Cossack wrote:

---

Above the Mire

The answer lies in what the Judge detected in SFT’s testimony at the hearing. SFT lied under oath. Since the hearing recordings would be eligible to use in a legal proceedings, any lie or prejudicial misstep would become a legal issue. Unfortunately for the University’s case. SFT prejudiced himself in his testimony and this put pressure on the University to settle out of court.

---

for those of us who follow the USM case from afar, could you briefly explain the substance of Thames's perjury (they were under oath, I recall, with a court reporter recording the testimony)?