I reviewed the thread and found questions that were answered.  But ATM hasn't answered questions put to him/her.

ATM: Did we sink to fourth tier because of your outstanding efforts in the classrooms? If you are so good, how did we fall?  Are you really not very good, or did you sit down on the job?

 

LeftASAP: Troll Alert.

 

Primary Source: Here are the 7 variables on which those tier ratings are made:

Peer Assessment (25%)
Retention (20%)
Faculty Resources (20%, class size, faculty salaries, % faculty with terminal degrees, S/F ratio,
% faculty full time).
Student Selectivity (15%)
Financial Resources (10%)
Graduation Rate (5%)
Alumni Giving (5%)
 
Now, examine those 7 factors, one by one. Do you see how little is under faculty control? Instruction is listed nowhere. Most of the factors are under control of the administration - not the faculty.

ATM: Damned right I'm a troll, and damned right I'm angry. MY question is a very logical one.  How about an answer?  How do you sink to tier four without a hell of a lot of incompetence in the classroom? 

 

Your question was answered.

 

Concerning Robert Campbell

ATM: He's not even a flea on the elephant of my life, but he stands for a lot of things I detest sure enough. Not the least in being a hyopocrit.  He's always talking about lofty ideals like truth and acuracy, but he consistently throws out unsubstantuated allogations to back up his arguments.  He's a fake, and a pretty pathetic one at that. 

 

LeftASAP: Wow, Above the Mire has made a statement that can be backed up with evidence if he/she would provide examples form Robert Campbell’s post or blog.  We now can see what really bothers AtM about RC's statements.  This should be good since RC has written much.  So AtM how about picking out one thing RC posted that you don't like because it is "unsubstantiated allegations" and all here can discuss it.

 

 

Well, ATM, we’re waiting for your answer.

 

 

 

Robert Campbell wrote:

---

AtM, You're still dodging and weaving.  And still claiming that faculty members who complain about Shelby Thames are far worse than Thames could ever have been. The most obvious motive anyone would have for making this claim is... support for Shelby Thames. You say: There are several of us who have come on this board and let you know that we are not sorry to see Shelby Thames go - not because we hate him, but because it is obvious that our problems cannot be solved with him at the helm.  We have been insulted and accused of lying about this point.  I'm not sure what we would accomplish by lying to you about this, but somehow it is important to you to think so. We might believe you if you actually told us what you think Thames' shortcomings are.  That you should be a cinch for you--if you think he has any.  You've devoted many paragraphs to opining about all kinds of other stuff, but none to explaining why Thames has ended up as a failed president.  (References to dissension on campus don't count, unless they address Thames' role in producing it.) Over to you... Robert Campbell

---

I keep trying unsuccessfully to explain that the SFT saga is at an end.  Even though he is not gone, his days are numbered.  He is not going to be removed before the date announced.  What constructive good can be accomplished by going over his errors?

Just as important, I am under no compulsion or obligation to defend him or to spend myh time evaluating his performance.  He is on the way out, and if we play the cards right, we can get the school back on track.  If we continue to flog this dead horse we accomplish nothing.

Oh and by the way RC, is it beyond the realm of possibility that I could be a nonaaup member of the faculty?  Hmmmm?

Above the Mire wrote:

---

He shocked and angered too many key people.  The difference between the people who influenced his exit and the aaup is that the key people had the good sense to use discretion to avoid damaging the reputation of the university any more than absolutely necessary.   

---

How dare you even attempt to lay out this presumption.  Talk about being a flea on an elephant...

I would wish everyone, RC and Symp included, would cease responding to AtM. His/her story and approach changes with nearly every post. This person's only goal is to provoke and annoy. Reconciliation is not achieved on a message board -- none of us has ever suggested that. This is simply a forum, open to everyone, including many supporters of USM like myself who are not faculty. (A fact which many like AtM like to ignore.)

AtM has been asked repeatedly to clarify his position, to explain his purpose for continuing to post, and other direct questions which have never been answered, and never will be. If AtM is not GM, SofB, etc. he or she is a close ally. The approach and language are quite similar.

Continuing to talk to this individual is a complete waste of energy.

LVN wrote:

---

I would wish everyone, RC and Symp included, would cease responding to AtM. His/her story and approach changes with nearly every post. This person's only goal is to provoke and annoy. Reconciliation is not achieved on a message board -- none of us has ever suggested that. This is simply a forum, open to everyone, including many supporters of USM like myself who are not faculty. (A fact which many like AtM like to ignore.) AtM has been asked repeatedly to clarify his position, to explain his purpose for continuing to post, and other direct questions which have never been answered, and never will be. If AtM is not GM, SofB, etc. he or she is a close ally. The approach and language are quite similar. Continuing to talk to this individual is a complete waste of energy.

---

You're probably right (as usual), LVN.  AtM's lack of response to my good-faith suggestions is pretty telling.  I guess I have been wasting my time.

Above the Mire wrote:

---

An old senator wrote: When SFT pulled his shenanigans with the deans, the Kenbot, and the attempted firings, word was out all over the academic world.  The faculty did not have to talk.  I could not agree with you more that that single act was Shelby's death knell.  Once that was done, he was undone.  Many of us realized at that point that the damage could never be repaired, and at that point the groundwork for his exit began to be laid. Shelby could not have survived that single act.  He shocked and angered too many key people.  The difference between the people who influenced his exit and the aaup is that the key people had the good sense to use discretion to avoid damaging the reputation of the university any more than absolutely necessary.  On the coat tails of the Horace Fleming debable that was imperative. Unfortunately the aaup didn't exercise that same good judgement.  You ranted and raved.  You kept your pc's hot with email.  You burned up the telephone lines, and you told every colleague at every university in the country what a mess thing were at USM.  You had a great deal to do with exacerbating the decline in the perception of the quality of our university.  Yes, Shelby did damage with his firings, but that damage could have been contained until a reasonable succession could have been implemented. The damage you caused by your "No Quarter" campaign will take much longer to repair if it is repairable at all. Your actions were unfortunate. First, you exercised poor judgement. Then you compound the problem by this circuitous denial process.  Several have approached you on this board and through other ways to attempt reconcilliation.  We have all failed.  You are not interested in reconcilliation.  I am not sure what it is that you are interested in, but the opportunity rational discussion is about gone. Soon you will not be bothered by anyone with a disenting opinion, and you can go back to your mutual admiration society.  I do wish, though, that you would have your president remove that "freedon of speech" letter at the top of the message board.  True freedom of speech has never been conditional of toeing the party line.    

---

In this case, for many of us, to have done otherwise would have only reinforced the administration's power.

In this case -- SILENCE = DEATH.

I say that, because while it seems to you perhaps that silence and working beihind the scenes would have been sufficient, it would not have been. The firing of the Deans was followed by a series of successive acts, one after another over a period of time that quite clearly were not only bad policy and bad management  . . . but threatened a significant group of stakeholders, the faculty. And I remind you that the blame for going public must, at the very least, be shared by the administration. The AAUP did not go public first. It went public to defend itself and the faculty. This is similarly true of the senate.

I'd change your home wrecking analogy to this: If I were a member of a family and someone married my widowed mother, thus becoming my father, and then proceeded to enact arbitrary rules and beat the children and accuse them of being bad even though there was little evidence that they were discipline problems, you bet I'd fight back. In this case, respect for the Father, an important rule, is preempted by the need to defend the home and those who have less power from an abusive authority figure who will, in the end, wreck the home.

We might disagree about this. Obviously we do. I will acknowledge that you may be sincere in whatever beliefs you have about the university, and in your love for it. But I'm damned if I'll allow you to claim it as a superior love or that you have a superior claim to owndership than mine or the other majority of the faculty who have clearly, time and again, clearly expressed their concerns and their anger with this administration. AND who have made sacrifices on behalf of this university that are every bit as significant, if not more so, than your own.

There are some disagreements that are so profound that the two sides simply cannot meet in agreement. That has become the case here. So it has become a battle to the end -- and that is unfortunate. But it was destined from the day Shelby came into power -- not because the faculty automatically hated him -- but because it was already clear from his past history what he would do. It was already clear from his past history that he does not understand how to manage, but only how to command. He does not know how to lead, but only how to intimidate. He does not know how to build alliances with those who work under them - he sees them as extensions of himself and his own ambitions. Like many faculty, I sucked in my breath and went to work after the President was appointed, hoping for the best, but fearing for the worst.

And things, as you will remember, were relatively quiet until the January reorganization. I don't want to argue about the reorganization -- it is a farily debatable point about whether it was called for, whether it could be affective, whether it was the right decision. But I'm clear that when you reorganize you don't treat people the way these people were treated. You don't brag to businessmen outside the community of scholars about what you are about to do -- and then you sure as hell don't swagger into a room full of stunned scholars and announce that it will "no longer be business as usual" at USM after summarily relieving the Deans of their duties. The message of intimidation was clear -- and NO Academic community can exist under such a threat without resisting it. In totalitarian regimes resistence tends to be quiet and subtle because the results of too open an opposition are too terrile. In a democracy . . . we know how to make noise.

The AMAZING THING is how unusual it is for an academic community to come together on anything . . .  much less over a long period of time. This is nearly unheard of. Controversy, discussion, argumentation, dispute -- and yes. . .  passion and anger sometimes (within the framework of civil discourse) are the meat of academic life. That is not true in the outside world, where people are encourgaed to submerge those instincts to dispute for the sake of the community. But an academic community that is quiet is an academic community thatis profoundly failing. We are not afraid when we argue -- we are afraid when too many heads nod in agreement to quickly and too easily.

This is why corporate culture and academic culture have a hard time coexisting -- and why, when the corporate culture is in a position to dominate academic culture, academics will always fight back.

Get used to it. You should feel lucky to have such a community in your midst. In Amherst, in Chapel Hill, in Palo Alto, in Athens, in Oxford  -- they understand this. What is the problem here?  

stephen judd wrote:

---

    In this case, for many of us, to have done otherwise would have only reinforced the administration's power. In this case -- SILENCE = DEATH. I say that, because while it seems to you perhaps that silence and working beihind the scenes would have been sufficient, it would not have been. The firing of the Deans was followed by a series of successive acts, one after another over a period of time that quite clearly were not only bad policy and bad management  . . . but threatened a significant group of stakeholders, the faculty. And I remind you that the blame for going public must, at the very least, be shared by the administration. The AAUP did not go public first. It went public to defend itself and the faculty. This is similarly true of the senate. I'd change your home wrecking analogy to this: If I were a member of a family and someone married my widowed mother, thus becoming my father, and then proceeded to enact arbitrary rules and beat the children and accuse them of being bad even though there was little evidence that they were discipline problems, you bet I'd fight back. In this case, respect for the Father, an important rule, is preempted by the need to defend the home and those who have less power from an abusive authority figure who will, in the end, wreck the home. We might disagree about this. Obviously we do. I will acknowledge that you may be sincere in whatever beliefs you have about the university, and in your love for it. But I'm damned if I'll allow you to claim it as a superior love or that you have a superior claim to owndership than mine or the other majority of the faculty who have clearly, time and again, clearly expressed their concerns and their anger with this administration. AND who have made sacrifices on behalf of this university that are every bit as significant, if not more so, than your own. There are some disagreements that are so profound that the two sides simply cannot meet in agreement. That has become the case here. So it has become a battle to the end -- and that is unfortunate. But it was destined from the day Shelby came into power -- not because the faculty automatically hated him -- but because it was already clear from his past history what he would do. It was already clear from his past history that he does not understand how to manage, but only how to command. He does not know how to lead, but only how to intimidate. He does not know how to build alliances with those who work under them - he sees them as extensions of himself and his own ambitions. Like many faculty, I sucked in my breath and went to work after the President was appointed, hoping for the best, but fearing for the worst. And things, as you will remember, were relatively quiet until the January reorganization. I don't want to argue about the reorganization -- it is a farily debatable point about whether it was called for, whether it could be affective, whether it was the right decision. But I'm clear that when you reorganize you don't treat people the way these people were treated. You don't brag to businessmen outside the community of scholars about what you are about to do -- and then you sure as hell don't swagger into a room full of stunned scholars and announce that it will "no longer be business as usual" at USM after summarily relieving the Deans of their duties. The message of intimidation was clear -- and NO Academic community can exist under such a threat without resisting it. In totalitarian regimes resistence tends to be quiet and subtle because the results of too open an opposition are too terrile. In a democracy . . . we know how to make noise. The AMAZING THING is how unusual it is for an academic community to come together on anything . . .  much less over a long period of time. This is nearly unheard of. Controversy, discussion, argumentation, dispute -- and yes. . .  passion and anger sometimes (within the framework of civil discourse) are the meat of academic life. That is not true in the outside world, where people are encourgaed to submerge those instincts to dispute for the sake of the community. But an academic community that is quiet is an academic community thatis profoundly failing. We are not afraid when we argue -- we are afraid when too many heads nod in agreement to quickly and too easily. This is why corporate culture and academic culture have a hard time coexisting -- and why, when the corporate culture is in a position to dominate academic culture, academics will always fight back. Get used to it. You should feel lucky to have such a community in your midst. In Amherst, in Chapel Hill, in Palo Alto, in Athens, in Oxford  -- they understand this. What is the problem here?  

---

WOW!  Has Stephen Judd been taking eloquence pills?  If so, where can they be purchased?  This is the second amazingly cogent and effective post of his I have read today as part of this thread.  While reading it, I felt like standing up, saluting, and singing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."  Great post!

Dr. Judd:

You do argue eloquently, but your arguments come through shaded glass along with the reassurances from your aaup colleagues.  You severely damaged the reputation of a fine public institution in your "end justifies the means" attack.  I doubt that we will live to see USM regain the momentum we had at our highest point.  I don't claim a higher stake in the university than you, and you are wrong to infer such.  Just as you though, I'll be damned if I'll allow you to claim a higher equity position than me, and that is exactly what you are trying to do. 

USM is my university just as much as it yours, and I know that I would never damage it just to protect my selfish interest.  It is obvious that not only do you fralize that you have damaged the university, but you also feel that you are justified.  I wish you could see the arrogance of that position.

You are wrong that the two sides cannot come together.  My side could, because it is a "side" only in the context that it is against taking sides in the first place.  It is your side that won't move off your narrow stand, and that, my friend, is the most dangerous single issue left in this ugly mess.  

Above the Mire wrote:

---

Dr. Judd: You do argue eloquently, but your arguments come through shaded glass along with the reassurances from your aaup colleagues.  You severely damaged the reputation of a fine public institution in your "end justifies the means" attack.  I doubt that we will live to see USM regain the momentum we had at our highest point.  I don't claim a higher stake in the university than you, and you are wrong to infer such.  Just as you though, I'll be damned if I'll allow you to claim a higher equity position than me, and that is exactly what you are trying to do.  USM is my university just as much as it yours, and I know that I would never damage it just to protect my selfish interest.  It is obvious that not only do you fralize that you have damaged the university, but you also feel that you are justified.  I wish you could see the arrogance of that position. You are wrong that the two sides cannot come together.  My side could, because it is a "side" only in the context that it is against taking sides in the first place.  It is your side that won't move off your narrow stand, and that, my friend, is the most dangerous single issue left in this ugly mess.  

---

AtM,

Would you PLEASE tell us how YOU propose to improve USM in the post-SFT era (assuming it ever arrives).  Your complaints about other people are getting awfully old (and boring). 

 

Above the Mire wrote:

---

Dr. Judd: You do argue eloquently . . . I don't claim a higher stake in the university than you, and you are wrong to infer such.  Just as you though, I'll be damned if I'll allow you to claim a higher equity position than me, and that isexactly what you are trying to do.  USM is my university just as much as it yours, and I know that I would never damage it just to protect my selfish interest.  

---

See your passage below in which you clearly subdivide the house not into family factions but into insiders and outsiders. This makes it pretty clear that you do not see this disagreement as one within a community -- but you see your "side" as having a claim to a higher stake . . . .  

"Dr. Judd, I had sincerely hoped for more than this from you. . . .  Can you honestly tell me that even with all these modern advances you wouldn't mind if I came into your home and started telling you that everything about it including your family was corrupt?  Would changing social mores and technological advances keep you from kicking my ass out of your house?"

If this wasn't what you intended then I'm open to clarification . . .  but your example doesn't leave much to my limited imagination.

I'm not sure I agree it is "your" university as much as it is mine, as I don't understand what your relationship to the university is. It is true that the "university" belongs to every citizen in the state. That allows each citizen to have a vote in things that affect the university . . . . it does not mean that citizens have direct control over the university because, in fact, they do not understand what a university is any more than I understand how a government office is run. If you are a student here, then it is "yours" to the point where you spent your four years here, and hopefully that four years were good ones and the university returned to you what it promised. Hopefully, your loyalty to the university is aligned to that and you maintain a high interest in seeing the university prosper. But unless you are actually in the university, as a faculty, staff, or administrator, you can never, in a practical sense, "own" it to the degree that those who work here year after year, contend with a changes that a university experiences over the course of years and decades, and the investment of time, energy, creativity and hope that any good and long serving emplyee of the university possesses. I'll be willing to say that there are probably some unique exceptions to this. But in the main, few people can "own" a university like the people who work there.

Please don't misunderstand me -- I am not saying that the opinions of those outside the university (or those closely associated with the university but not working for it) do not matter -- they do. But your perspective is limited . . . and it is further conditioned by the fact that you are not one of those who are the object of actions by others, but are rather a perhaps interested, but detached observer.It is relatively easy to be an observer, however strong your emotional investment. But your "stake", I'm sorry to say, is your view of the university and your memories of what you believe it to have been and want it to be. But if the university falls apart it won't chnage your life or the conditions in which you live. We have all of that to contend with -- and we also have to contend with the conditions under which we work, the reasons why we do the work we do, and watching the effects of bad decisions and poor behavior affect everyone around us, including students -- especially when those results are not apparent to outside observers.

I wouldn't mind continuing this discussion, but it isn't easy to get over my resentment at someone who consistently signals that my opposition to this administration MUST derive from ambition, a need for power, or some other reason besides a pretty clear set of ideals, articulated over thirty years of practice as an professional artist and as a university professor (not necessarily at the same time). You may disagree with the AAUP or those faculty members who oppose the administration -- but please quit implying that the primary motivations are other than what they are  . . . a nearly universal revulsion at watching a good university, growing in reputation and respect throughout the academic community (which is, in the end, the community academicians most care about) being destroyed by an administration that may be sincerely -- but is sincerely wrong about the nature and culture of academic life.

Please note that the "hatred" of Shelby you have attacked is misplaced. This Board is not responsbile for statements made by individuals who use it -- as a place of Free Speech we are not in that kind of controlling position (and should not be). But to my knowledge, the most consistent posters, and my colleagues on the AAUP have all sincerely indicated their belief that the President is not evil incarnate. Most of us all believe the Presdient loves the university -- though I believe most of the people he hires as administrators are far less loyal to the university than the faculty who stay -- and many who have been forced through discouragement to leave. But it is true that many of us do "hate" his management style and the uncompassionate way in which people are treated, and the petty vindictiveness that has permeated the last three years here. These things are very real for many of us -- and you, I suspect, do not have to live with the fear that is here or the way that that fear stifles the kind of discussion that would move the university forward.  

 

stephen judd wrote:

---

  See your passage below in which you clearly subdivide the house not into family factions but into insiders and outsiders. This makes it pretty clear that you do not see this disagreement as one within a community -- but you see your "side" as having a claim to a higher stake . . . .   "Dr. Judd, I had sincerely hoped for more than this from you. . . .  Can you honestly tell me that even with all these modern advances you wouldn't mind if I came into your home and started telling you that everything about it including your family was corrupt?  Would changing social mores and technological advances keep you from kicking my ass out of your house?" If this wasn't what you intended then I'm open to clarification . . .  but your example doesn't leave much to my limited imagination. I'm not sure I agree it is "your" university as much as it is mine, as I don't understand what your relationship to the university is. It is true that the "university" belongs to every citizen in the state. That allows each citizen to have a vote in things that affect the university . . . . it does not mean that citizens have direct control over the university because, in fact, they do not understand what a university is any more than I understand how a government office is run. If you are a student here, then it is "yours" to the point where you spent your four years here, and hopefully that four years were good ones and the university returned to you what it promised. Hopefully, your loyalty to the university is aligned to that and you maintain a high interest in seeing the university prosper. But unless you are actually in the university, as a faculty, staff, or administrator, you can never, in a practical sense, "own" it to the degree that those who work here year after year, contend with a changes that a university experiences over the course of years and decades, and the investment of time, energy, creativity and hope that any good and long serving emplyee of the university possesses. I'll be willing to say that there are probably some unique exceptions to this. But in the main, few people can "own" a university like the people who work there. Please don't misunderstand me -- I am not saying that the opinions of those outside the university (or those closely associated with the university but not working for it) do not matter -- they do. But your perspective is limited . . . and it is further conditioned by the fact that you are not one of those who are the object of actions by others, but are rather a perhaps interested, but detached observer.It is relatively easy to be an observer, however strong your emotional investment. But your "stake", I'm sorry to say, is your view of the university and your memories of what you believe it to have been and want it to be. But if the university falls apart it won't chnage your life or the conditions in which you live. We have all of that to contend with -- and we also have to contend with the conditions under which we work, the reasons why we do the work we do, and watching the effects of bad decisions and poor behavior affect everyone around us, including students -- especially when those results are not apparent to outside observers. I wouldn't mind continuing this discussion, but it isn't easy to get over my resentment at someone who consistently signals that my opposition to this administration MUST derive from ambition, a need for power, or some other reason besides a pretty clear set of ideals, articulated over thirty years of practice as an professional artist and as a university professor (not necessarily at the same time). You may disagree with the AAUP or those faculty members who oppose the administration -- but please quit implying that the primary motivations are other than what they are  . . . a nearly universal revulsion at watching a good university, growing in reputation and respect throughout the academic community (which is, in the end, the community academicians most care about) being destroyed by an administration that may be sincerely -- but is sincerely wrong about the nature and culture of academic life. Please note that the "hatred" of Shelby you have attacked is misplaced. This Board is not responsbile for statements made by individuals who use it -- as a place of Free Speech we are not in that kind of controlling position (and should not be). But to my knowledge, the most consistent posters, and my colleagues on the AAUP have all sincerely indicated their belief that the President is not evil incarnate. Most of us all believe the Presdient loves the university -- though I believe most of the people he hires as administrators are far less loyal to the university than the faculty who stay -- and many who have been forced through discouragement to leave. But it is true that many of us do "hate" his management style and the uncompassionate way in which people are treated, and the petty vindictiveness that has permeated the last three years here. These things are very real for many of us -- and you, I suspect, do not have to live with the fear that is here or the way that that fear stifles the kind of discussion that would move the university forward.    

---

Just for the record, I don't ever recall reading a more consistently excellent series of posts in one day by one poster that the ones SJ has made today to this thread.  LVN may even be wrong (I shudder to think it) in urging us not to respond to AtM.  If SJ had not responded, we would not have some of the best writing posted to this board in a long time.  Many thanks to him.

USM Sympathizer wrote:

---

Above the Mire wrote: My question remains unanswered.  It is a serious question that needs to be answered.  I'm not sure which question you are referring to; I assume it's the one about how to improve USM after Shelby is gone.  I'll venture a couple of suggestions: 1. Find a new president with solid academic credentials who also has a proven track record as a successful and trusted academic administrator.  Shelby may have had the first; he surely never had the second. 2.  Let this new president behave as good presidents do: let him (or her) consult widely with all the appropriate "stakeholders" (faculty, staff, alumni, students) and then, after such wide consultation, help him enact whatever policies may have been agreed upon. 3.  Announce as loudly and widely as possible that a new day has dawned for USM, that the era of Shelby Thames is definitely over, that the new administration wants to avoid the kinds of mistakes Shelby specialized in.  Making this change widely known will help the university to (a) recruit talented faculty; (b) begin to win back some of the reputation Shelby squandered; (c) help begin to restore the morale, trust, and confidence of the faculty and staff who stuck it out through The Shelby Fiasco. I could list more suggestions, but let's focus on those three for the time being if you seriously want to have a genuine conversation.    

---

I agree with all your suggestions except for the loud and public proclamation that the day of Shelby Thames is over.  What would that accomplish?

Your first suggestion is very idealistic, but I would like nothing better.  Therein lies a major problem, however.  Who would have the job?  We have not had a candidate like that in the last two go arounds to my knowledge.  Why would one want it now.  If I were a betting man, I would bet a lot of money that we end up with no real top notch people to choose from. If we end up with a weakling, and the changes are very good that we will, we might never recover from it.  That's the situation that your "No Quarter" campaign has helped create. 

Our reputation sucks, and your aaup has been a factor in getting it to this level.  That is the point I started out trying to make, and that's the point insist on.  You have damaged the reputation of this university, and it didn't have to be done. 

The public perceives that we have now lynched two presidents in a row.  Who wants to be number three?  I would venture to say that no one but someone desperate for a job. 

You guys are very vocal about your "No Quarter" position.  You are against anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, or who thinks you might not be perfect.  I'm sure there are hundreds of highly qualified prospects that want to take on a situation like that.  If you were a hot young administrator on a fast carreer track, would you want to come into a situation that is perceived as ours?  Chances are that a sharp candidate would dial up Shelby and talk with him about the situation on campus.  Want to talk about that perception problem? 

You aaup people are unwilling to listen to anybody.  I don't pretend to know as much about academics as you, and I wouldn't presume to tell you how to do your jobs.  I can, however, tell you how a broad segment of the rest of the world perceives you and your actions, and whether you agree with the validity of that perception or not is moot.  Your refusal to listen is interpreted by most as supreme arrogance, and your reaction to that perception is of no consequence. 

I've been vocal and harsh, but you need to listen to me, because if you indeed support USM then we shouldn't be enemies.  We can't go back and turn wrongs into rights.  We can only act in the present, and if you continue to attack anything that moves outside your camp, I'm very sorry for you.  Most of us that you have chosen to treat as enemies are not, but we all have limited time and limited energy.  I promise I have better thing to do than to argue with you folks.

I don't really have much more to say.  I have indeed done some bobbing and weaving, but it is very difficult to fight off a dozen or so attacks at the same time, and it is very difficult to convince some of you that at this point I couldn't care less about Shelby Thames one way or the other.  I would like nothing better than to debate a single issue in a civilized manner.  If you will be fair and go back to the beginning of this thread and read it through, you haven't practiced what you preach on that point with very much consistency.

 

 

Faculty Grande Dame wrote:

---

 I guess I'm the lone ranger (rangerette?) here, but I think ATM is correct about the futility of continuing to flog the already dead horse. I also wouldn't rule out his being a member of the faculty.  He sounds much like some of our colleagues I've spoken with since Thames' departure date was announced by the IHL. They don't see any value in spending more time stewing over past injustices, and frankly neither do I. It takes too much time and energy, both of which are in short supply in my world. Thames is history. It's time to look forward.

---

FGD,

AtM consistently refuses (a) to indicate what he would do to improve USM in the post-Shelby world or (b) to respond to his pleas that others should offer solutions.  He is the one mainly responsible for keeping the focus on Shelby in this thread.

As to whether "Thames is history," I hope you're right, but we have posters here who think that this may not be the case, and some who even claim to be organizing on his behalf.  What do you think of these possibilities?  Some people (I suspect) will not be confident that "Thames is history" until he stumbles out the door and turns out the light.  Can you let us know why you are so confident that his era really is over?

Above the Mire wrote:

---

I could not agree with you more that that single act was Shelby's death knell.  Once that was done, he was undone.  Many of us realized at that point that the damage could never be repaired, and at that point the groundwork for his exit began to be laid. Shelby could not have survived that single act.  He shocked and angered too many key people.  The difference between the people who influenced his exit and the aaup is that the key people had the good sense to use discretion to avoid damaging the reputation of the university any more than absolutely necessary.  On the coat tails of the Horace Fleming debable that was imperative.    

---

Above the Mire / Son of Bubba / whatever other handles you've been using,

What you have said about Thames' bad decisions is incoherent.

Old Senator was referring to at least three different incidents spread over a period of more than a year: the sham reorganization and purge of the deans in January 2003, the attempt to fire Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser in March 2004, and who knows what involving Ken Malone--probably everything from his initial hire in 2003 to the Black Friday Memo of February 2005.

You say that Thames could not have survived one of those.  Let's assume it was his attempt to fire Glamser and Stringer, because it is the one that made him nationally and internationally notorious.  Few observers would agree with your assessment, seeing how the IHL Board had an excellent opportunity to fire him in April 2004--and decided to keep him instead.  In any event, you don't say how any particular decision by Thames laid the groundwork for his exit.

Still, you keep insisting that the local AAUP chapter did only harm.  Who, then, were the "key people" who worked behind the scenes to remove Thames?  Whose efforts were hampered by USM faculty members who vocally opposed his misrule?

I'll bet you can't name one such "key person."  You are blowing smoke, just as you were doing when you pretended to know what was going on behind the scenes at the IHL Board.

I suppose you might not be a Shelbyite, anxious to keep a grip on power now that you know your sponsor is on the way out.

You might just be a complete phony, pretending you want reconciliation when all you really aim to do is anger and confuse as many contributors to this board as you can.

Robert Campbell