We may be a benighted backwater, but our language is a lot more fun. Does anybody in English specialize in "Northern Literature?"
You make an excellent point, Invictus. "Southern Literature" when compared with "Northern Literature" is much more colorful, off- color, sordid, humorous, sensual, and unorthodox. "Northern Literature" just wouldn't sell as well. All in all, the values and behaviors reflected in Southern literature clearly demonstrate that the South is much more "liberal" than the conservative North. Children of the South grow up in that mysterious and wonderful environment, and they take it as a natural phenemonon much to the consternation of their NYC friends.
... I've been teaching this point in my classes for decades (some of my students would probably say "hammering.") Since it has little or nothing to with my subject matter, I suppose I can expect to be investigated. I would appear to be violating the rules of academic freedom under the narrow interpretation of SFT & Co.
But I thought we were supposed to encourage writing "across the curriculum". All classes are required to teach correct English.
Invictus wrote: William Odom wrote: I would appear to be violating the rules of academic freedom under the narrow interpretation of SFT & Co.
I trust before you're investigated you make it clear to the students that "y'all" is a distinct 2nd person plural (along the same lines as "vosotros" in Spanish or "ihr" in German). Regular Yankee English lacks this subtlety.
Indeed I do--but then again, I can relate most any damn thing to my subject matter. My point being that the effort by administration to restrict the definition of academic freedom to matters directly related to one's field is just further evidence of their desire to muzzle teachers any way they can--and leave themselves an avenue to prosecute when they feel one of their field hands is getting out of line.
William Odom wrote: Indeed I do--but then again, I can relate most any damn thing to my subject matter. My point being that the effort by administration to restrict the definition of academic freedom to matters directly related to one's field is just further evidence of their desire to muzzle teachers any way they can--and leave themselves an avenue to prosecute when they feel one of their field hands is getting out of line.
Goodness! I'd hate to think how singing on a foreign language exam might be interpreted!
Invictus wrote: William Odom wrote: I would appear to be violating the rules of academic freedom under the narrow interpretation of SFT & Co. I trust before you're investigated you make it clear to the students that "y'all" is a distinct 2nd person plural (along the same lines as "vosotros" in Spanish or "ihr" in German). Regular Yankee English lacks this subtlety. Indeed I do--but then again, I can relate most any damn thing to my subject matter. My point being that the effort by administration to restrict the definition of academic freedom to matters directly related to one's field is just further evidence of their desire to muzzle teachers any way they can--and leave themselves an avenue to prosecute when they feel one of their field hands is getting out of line.
Well, as one field hand to another -- get thee to the classroom and teach your subject matter (only)!
"Where do ya'll come up with this stuff?" Mire boy - any warm-blooded Southern American male knows that the contraction for you all is spelled y'all, and not ya'll. I typically allow you and Seeker to spell poorly without any problems, but I can't let you make this mistake any more - it might damage your credibility....
That is the only argument that any of y'all have won. I conceed this point.
Robert Campbell's Risk Manager wrote: Don't think you are female. Don't think you have an inkling of sense (or you might be female). You are scared because the good ol'boy system is about to tank. Be cantankerous about it - but don't bust somebody's in depth reports because it scares the Bejeesus out of you and that phony Thames. He lost his Vice Presidency because of WHAT?? Integrity isn't his middle name. He became President because of WHAT? It wasn't his intellectual or ethical integrity. Don't diss anybody unless you can defend the perfect aholyone who now is called USM's Prez. I don't have a risk manager, and I sure as hell wouldn't make the point the way this person did. But I do question FGD's bona fides. I'll believe that FGD is for real when she lays out some semblance of a plan for moving USM forward while protecting the university from further damage during Thames' lame-duck period. So far FGD has produced none. And she has that in common with Gracie's Mom, Above the Mire, and other phony advocates of reconciliation. Getting faculty members to shut up and stop criticizing Thames will not move USM forward or protect the university from further damage. Trying to marginalize those who have led the resistance to him will not move USM forward or protect the university from further damage. Let's start a new thread to discuss how to move USM forward. There are plenty of ways to counter Thames and his remaining henchpeople without being merely reactive to them. FGD can then contribute to that thread--or join Above the Mire and other trolls in an attempt to disrupt it. Robert Campbell
Do you have this stuff already typed so you can just press the reply key whenever the opportunity to spout off comes along. Your replies often don't match the message to which you reply. It's sort of like the reply you get from your congressman, except the congressman is more intelligent.
Do you have this stuff already typed so you can just press the reply key whenever the opportunity to spout off comes along. Your replies often don't match the message to which you reply. It's sort of like the reply you get from your congressman, except the congressman is more intelligent.
AtM,
You ran out of things to say maybe 15 messages ago. You admitted running out of things to say 3 or 4 mesages ago... better late than never.
Besides, you don't dare give detailed responses to anyone else's message because they might give away your relationship with the USM administration.
You won't succeed in getting this board shut down; you can't get the USM chapter of AAUP disbanded; and you aren't going to prevent anyone from criticizing Shelby Thames.
Rather than continuing to joust with RC, why not contribute to the "WAYS TO MOVE USM FORWARD" thread? I created it in response to your claims that we are not discussing this topic. Please offer your own contributions to that thread. I am particularly interested to know how you think USM can possibly move forward in the period while Shelby is still President. Thanks.
train station wrote: Well, it's worked for me. Classes (strict subject matter only) and research. I'm physically still here but have otherwise checked out. At least one can speak freely in cyberspace. The only problem is dodging the troll poop.
So it looks like what you're saying is: "Don't flush while the train is in the station."
"Exhorting everyone to knuckle under to Thames until 2007, and to keep the remaining members of his henchcrew in power after that." What an unmitigated crock of $hit. I never said, suggested, or implied that anyone should do any such thing. This is the most offensive utterance I've heard from you. I'd certainly have expected better. I hope you were simply having a bad day. That's all I've got. It's way past this girl's bed time. Best Regards, Faculty Grande Dame
Chill out before you have a stroke FGD. It's just Campbell channeling Howard Dean style buffoonery in his trademark accusatory tone. He probably screamed eeeeeaiiiii after punching the enter key. This is the way he entertains himself. Pay him no mind.
I apologized for responding in such an ugly manner ATM, so let it go. You seem so suspect to me - your attack on RC was so ridiculous and uninformed that I went overboard in my ill stated response. Don't bring it back up L'above the mire unless in the mire is where you seem to be most comfortable.
Apparently you haven't taken your meds today. Your message is incoherent.
I was hoping that by now you would have posted some suggestions (on the appropriate thread) about ways to move USM forward. We are all waiting to hear your ideas about how to get us out of the mire.
So it looks like what you're saying is: "Don't flush while the train is in the station."
Precisely. Just one way of dealing with working at a badly managed degree mill. Just my way of dealing with it. Purely a personal decision. Keeps the cynicism from turning into bitterness.
Apparently you haven't taken your meds today. Your message is incoherent.
I believe we've been taken in by mischievous message board jokesters. Go back and read Robert Campbell's posts and Liberty and Power blog from the inception of the Thames presidency. You'll see that the real RC is a sober, even tempered, serious contributor to this forum. More recently you'll notice that there's a second RC, an imposter, who also posts as Robert Campbell's Risk Manager. This person is a blowhard who specializes in bombast and name calling, typically emerging to post late at night. A careful examination of the tone and content of any post purporting to be Campbell's will tip you off as to it's authenticity. In fact, certain of the exchanges between Above the Mire and Robert Campbell appear to have been authored by the same individual. It makes for good theater, but is hardly flattering to the real RC.
No one else has been posting under my name. (Unless I've missed something, and I check the board regularly.)
Someone else has been posting as "Robert Campbell's Risk Manager," a handle I have never used. After seeing a couple of these items, I'm pretty sure that Above the Mire is behind them. Above the Mire's powers of impersonation are limited, because he has so little notion of the way that people with other points of view talk, but that hasn't kept him from trying.
Because of the screwed-up quotation feature in the current version of the message board software, AtM has replied at least once to a run-together quotation that was partly from the bogus Robert Campbell's Risk Manager and partly from the real me.
All of that said, I expect I wasted some bandwidth replying unnecessarily to AtM, and I apologize to the regulars here for my excesses in that regard. I was trying to bait him into revealing more about himself. But after his boasts about knowing the internal workings of the IHL Board and his proclamation about "our university," he was just smart enough to realize that if he went farther down that roead, it would allow everyone to identify him. So he quickly retreated into one-line insults and pointless changes of handle.
I guess that even AtM will eventually lose interest in going after the critics of Shelby Thames with much venom.
Here's the scoop. No one else has been posting under my name. (Unless I've missed something, and I check the board regularly.) Someone else has been posting as "Robert Campbell's Risk Manager," a handle I have never used. After seeing a couple of these items, I'm pretty sure that Above the Mire is behind them. Above the Mire's powers of impersonation are limited, because he has so little notion of the way that people with other points of view talk, but that hasn't kept him from trying. Because of the screwed-up quotation feature in the current version of the message board software, AtM has replied at least once to a run-together quotation that was partly from the bogus Robert Campbell's Risk Manager and partly from the real me. All of that said, I expect I wasted some bandwidth replying unnecessarily to AtM, and I apologize to the regulars here for my excesses in that regard. I was trying to bait him into revealing more about himself. But after his boasts about knowing the internal workings of the IHL Board and his proclamation about "our university," he was just smart enough to realize that if he went farther down that roead, it would allow everyone to identify him. So he quickly retreated into one-line insults and pointless changes of handle. I guess that even AtM will eventually lose interest in going after the critics of Shelby Thames with much venom. Robert Campbell
Robert,
Thanks for clearing that up. I've been out of town for a couple of weeks and just plodded through all eight pages of this thread earlier today. It was more than a bit confusing, almost requiring a flow chart to keep all the players straight. Above the Mire seems to have disappeared from view, along with "your" Risk Manager. He's probably in Jackson, immersed in the selection process for the new IHL Commissioner.
Special message for AtM: Rather than continuing to joust with RC, why not contribute to the "WAYS TO MOVE USM FORWARD" thread? I created it in response to your claims that we are not discussing this topic. Please offer your own contributions to that thread. I am particularly interested to know how you think USM can possibly move forward in the period while Shelby is still President. Thanks.
Look Symp, I don't know how to run a university. What I do know is that the faculty needs to be made to feel that they are involved in the running of the university. The university needs their input on major policy decisions. The president will ultimately have to make some tough decisions and they will seldom please everybody, but everybody should have the opportunity for input, and the reason for the decisions should be communicated clearly.
People should be treated with respect and deal with openly, honestly and consistently. Faculty should be treated as professionals and expected to act like professionals. I think this is one area where the aaup and I have our strongest disagreement based on recent history.
I feel that there should be incentives to reward those who perform at the highest levels. I have no idea how to make that fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy.
I feel the the alumni, the community, administration, staff and faculty should come together and work towards common goals. This is the one point I've preached since I first posted, and for some reason none of you can find the words to indicate even a small amount of agreement. I take that to mean that the aaup doesn't want to work with the rest of us. It wants control, and that will never happen.
As I have clearly stated, I think the aaup's "no quarter" policy has be far more destructive than it has been constructive. I know that the Shelby Thames' matter has been handled by other people in other ways, and that if you accomplished anything by you "no quarter" "labor union" tactics, you only angered a lot of people and polarized many of those outside the faculty community. People aren't against the faculty. They are against lies, libel, and the disregard for the feelings of others. You might feel that name calling and idle gossip under the name of an alias is cool, but it is not.
These are some of my ideas. Forgive me for being so general. I am not avoiding your question. I just can't tell you how to go about running the university, but to say that it has to be run through cooperation and teamwork. Name calling, accusation, an hidden agenda have to be made unacceptable whether it is you doing it or me.
I have no idea how to make that fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy.
Above the Mire,
This is not specifically directed toward you, but your comment does persuade me say something here. History is far more important at the university than is Polymer Science. Not just at this university but at any university. I am in neither of those disciplines, and I readily admit that History is far more important to any university than is my own discipline. I am, by the way, in a discipline where jobs are abundant. So just why can't it be made "fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy?" If it can't be made fair, something is seriously wrong with and at the institution. And it's become wronger and wronger on this campus.
Above the Mire wrote: Look Symp, I don't know how to run a university. What I do know is that the faculty needs to be made to feel that they are involved in the running of the university. The university needs their input on major policy decisions. The president will ultimately have to make some tough decisions and they will seldom please everybody, but everybody should have the opportunity for input, and the reason for the decisions should be communicated clearly. People should be treated with respect and deal with openly, honestly and consistently. Faculty should be treated as professionals and expected to act like professionals. I think this is one area where the aaup and I have our strongest disagreement based on recent history. I feel that there should be incentives to reward those who perform at the highest levels. I have no idea how to make that fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy. I feel the the alumni, the community, administration, staff and faculty should come together and work towards common goals. This is the one point I've preached since I first posted, and for some reason none of you can find the words to indicate even a small amount of agreement. I take that to mean that the aaup doesn't want to work with the rest of us. It wants control, and that will never happen. As I have clearly stated, I think the aaup's "no quarter" policy has be far more destructive than it has been constructive. I know that the Shelby Thames' matter has been handled by other people in other ways, and that if you accomplished anything by you "no quarter" "labor union" tactics, you only angered a lot of people and polarized many of those outside the faculty community. People aren't against the faculty. They are against lies, libel, and the disregard for the feelings of others. You might feel that name calling and idle gossip under the name of an alias is cool, but it is not. These are some of my ideas. Forgive me for being so general. I am not avoiding your question. I just can't tell you how to go about running the university, but to say that it has to be run through cooperation and teamwork. Name calling, accusation, an hidden agenda have to be made unacceptable whether it is you doing it or me.
Thanks for the response. You may want to copy-and-paste it onto the WAYS TO IMPROVE USM thread as well.
USM Sympathizer wrote: Special message for AtM: Rather than continuing to joust with RC, why not contribute to the "WAYS TO MOVE USM FORWARD" thread? I created it in response to your claims that we are not discussing this topic. Please offer your own contributions to that thread. I am particularly interested to know how you think USM can possibly move forward in the period while Shelby is still President. Thanks. Look Symp, I don't know how to run a university. What I do know is that the faculty needs to be made to feel that they are involved in the running of the university. The university needs their input on major policy decisions. The president will ultimately have to make some tough decisions and they will seldom please everybody, but everybody should have the opportunity for input, and the reason for the decisions should be communicated clearly. People should be treated with respect and deal with openly, honestly and consistently. Faculty should be treated as professionals and expected to act like professionals. I think this is one area where the aaup and I have our strongest disagreement based on recent history. I feel that there should be incentives to reward those who perform at the highest levels. I have no idea how to make that fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy. I feel the the alumni, the community, administration, staff and faculty should come together and work towards common goals. This is the one point I've preached since I first posted, and for some reason none of you can find the words to indicate even a small amount of agreement. I take that to mean that the aaup doesn't want to work with the rest of us. It wants control, and that will never happen. As I have clearly stated, I think the aaup's "no quarter" policy has be far more destructive than it has been constructive. I know that the Shelby Thames' matter has been handled by other people in other ways, and that if you accomplished anything by you "no quarter" "labor union" tactics, you only angered a lot of people and polarized many of those outside the faculty community. People aren't against the faculty. They are against lies, libel, and the disregard for the feelings of others. You might feel that name calling and idle gossip under the name of an alias is cool, but it is not. These are some of my ideas. Forgive me for being so general. I am not avoiding your question. I just can't tell you how to go about running the university, but to say that it has to be run through cooperation and teamwork. Name calling, accusation, an hidden agenda have to be made unacceptable whether it is you doing it or me.
AtM,
This was your best post. If you had posted this in the beginning you would never have been called a troll. I can agree with almost everything you say here.
What you did post earlier, and were corrected on, appears again in this post. You state, "... I take that to mean that the aaup doesn't want to work with the rest of us. It wants control, and that will never happen. As I have clearly stated, I think the aaup's "no quarter" policy has be far more destructive than it has been constructive. "
You have never provided reasons why you think the AAUP doesn't want to work to improve the situation once SFT leaves. You have never provided reasons why you think the AAUP wants "control". (I have no idea how the AAUP would get "control".) This is an open board and individuals have the "no quarter" attitude. That is not a "policy" of the AAUP. These are the things you said in the past that you were corrected on over and over and what lead to the troll label.
I believe you are confusing what you read on this board with positions of the AAUP. Also I believe you confuse what you read on this board and letters in the paper with positions of the faculty. The Faculty Senate speaks for the faculty.
Above the Mire wrote: USM Sympathizer wrote: Special message for AtM: Rather than continuing to joust with RC, why not contribute to the "WAYS TO MOVE USM FORWARD" thread? I created it in response to your claims that we are not discussing this topic. Please offer your own contributions to that thread. I am particularly interested to know how you think USM can possibly move forward in the period while Shelby is still President. Thanks. Look Symp, I don't know how to run a university. What I do know is that the faculty needs to be made to feel that they are involved in the running of the university. The university needs their input on major policy decisions. The president will ultimately have to make some tough decisions and they will seldom please everybody, but everybody should have the opportunity for input, and the reason for the decisions should be communicated clearly. People should be treated with respect and deal with openly, honestly and consistently. Faculty should be treated as professionals and expected to act like professionals. I think this is one area where the aaup and I have our strongest disagreement based on recent history. I feel that there should be incentives to reward those who perform at the highest levels. I have no idea how to make that fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy. I feel the the alumni, the community, administration, staff and faculty should come together and work towards common goals. This is the one point I've preached since I first posted, and for some reason none of you can find the words to indicate even a small amount of agreement. I take that to mean that the aaup doesn't want to work with the rest of us. It wants control, and that will never happen. As I have clearly stated, I think the aaup's "no quarter" policy has be far more destructive than it has been constructive. I know that the Shelby Thames' matter has been handled by other people in other ways, and that if you accomplished anything by you "no quarter" "labor union" tactics, you only angered a lot of people and polarized many of those outside the faculty community. People aren't against the faculty. They are against lies, libel, and the disregard for the feelings of others. You might feel that name calling and idle gossip under the name of an alias is cool, but it is not. These are some of my ideas. Forgive me for being so general. I am not avoiding your question. I just can't tell you how to go about running the university, but to say that it has to be run through cooperation and teamwork. Name calling, accusation, an hidden agenda have to be made unacceptable whether it is you doing it or me. AtM, This was your best post. If you had posted this in the beginning you would never have been called a troll. I can agree with almost everything you say here. What you did post earlier, and were corrected on, appears again in this post. You state, "... I take that to mean that the aaup doesn't want to work with the rest of us. It wants control, and that will never happen. As I have clearly stated, I think the aaup's "no quarter" policy has be far more destructive than it has been constructive. " You have never provided reasons why you think the AAUP doesn't want to work to improve the situation once SFT leaves. You have never provided reasons why you think the AAUP wants "control". (I have no idea how the AAUP would get "control".) This is an open board and individuals have the "no quarter" attitude. That is not a "policy" of the AAUP. These are the things you said in the past that you were corrected on over and over and what lead to the troll label. I believe you are confusing what you read on this board with positions of the AAUP. Also I believe you confuse what you read on this board and letters in the paper with positions of the faculty. The Faculty Senate speaks for the faculty.
I respectfully submit that if you come on here you are labeled "troll" and spend a lot of unnecessary time defending yourself. I would imagine that many get angry and leave or just say to heck with it and leave. Whatever the reason, the perception among some good reasonable people is not good. Maybe I haven't found the words to express it, but the chasm between the community (town, alum, etc.) and the faculty needs to be filled. Name calling and personal attack just won't do the job
I have no idea how to make that fair for the history prof compared to the polymer guy.
I thought you would be interested to know that it's hard to be fair to the people in the samedepartment when there is a prof in the MIDAS program. Yes, they bring in money, but they also bring colleagues more work and less pay.
When a MIDAS prof gets his/her academic year buy out they are no longer required to teach or do service. The teaching loads for other faculty will go good up unless a suitable adjunct can be found. However committee work also increases since most adjuncts are not qualified for this. During this SACS review this work became unreal.
All of this takes time away from fellow colleague's research efforts. Annual reviews for colleagues include teaching, research and service, but since the MIDAS prof bought out their time they are only evaluated in research, which is mighty strong since that is all they do. They get the highest department ranting and highest raise. (This is in addition to the MIDAS bonus.) This can only happen if other profs get smaller raises. Colleagues begin to feel they are subsidizing the MIDAS prof. Soon no one volunteers for committee work, etc. Departmental team is destroyed.
This thread has been going on so long that I've lost track of what has and has not been said. But here is my 2 cents worth. Several months ago this point was made by someone else, but I think it bears repeating because it is absolutely true.
Shelby Thames got the presidency without ANY support from the faculty and deans. It goes without saying that he always has been mean spirited and very, very arrogant, so what should we have expected? He immediately began to tear down the faculty in the eyes of the community and the IHL Board--if the faculty didn't want him, they must be lazy, old-fashioned, ignorant, etc. etc. Long before the dean firing and the Glamser/Stringer attempted firing, Thames and his minions were spreading this poison around.
The rift was not opened by the faculty. Yes, there are weak links in every organization. I certainly know folks who work in the corporate world who I wouldn't want handling my affairs, doctors I wouldn't use, lawyers I wouldn't trust, and teachers I wouldn't recomment. But USM HAD a faculty that was much better than its reputation in the larger academic world--people like Neil McMillen who had won the Bancroft prize--like Andy Griffin who was invited to teach at Cambridge. And the faculty who are still there are good, hard working people--some with international reputations. They are suffering from the vindictive and revengeful spirit of a man who should have never been appointed. The faculty's problem is that they knew this from the "git-go."