Hattiesburg vs. Academics - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Hattiesburg vs. Academics

Date: Jul 10, 2005

This is a non sequitur, joright. Look it up in your Thorndike Junior Dictionary.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

It is also an excellent question. Makes a good point.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

joright wrote:

I wonder, does the Hattiesburg community hate the academics on The Weather Channel (e.g., Dr. Lyons, Dr. Forbes, etc.)? I am asking because it seems the community hates USM faculty.

Nah. Not at all. We love the faculty. The faculty of USM is an integral part of the community. It's the aaup and this message board that we hate.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Above the Mire,

You've boiled down your entire message to four sentences. Nice and concise.

Too bad that no one outside the USM administration believes you...

RC

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

It's the aaup and this message board that we hate.

Tell us, AtM, how many members does this AAUP group you hate have? What I'm getting at is how large is your circle of hatred. The number, please.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

There is way too much "hate them" on this board. We would achieve our objectives more rapidly if we would focus on putting in place an administration at USM that has vision, guts, integrity and an understanding of what a quality academic institution is. I know that each of us is quite frustrated, and it is tempting to point to the "pointy headed liberals" or the "greedy capitalistic COBers". We really need to remember that the university is made up of a number of very diverse elements, each one of which contributes mightily to the stature of the overall institution. Could we think positively about what we need to do to improve this institution's reputation and academic standing?

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Mississippi Woman wrote:

There is way too much "hate them" on this board.

Far too much.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Mississippi Woman wrote:
There is way too much "hate them" on this board.

And then Love Handle wrote:
Far too much.

Yeah, doncha just HATE it?

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Bad Santa wrote:

Above the Mire wrote:
It's the aaup and this message board that we hate.
Tell us, AtM, how many members does this AAUP group you hate have? What I'm getting at is how large is your circle of hatred. The number, please.

Nobody knows how large the AAUP is at USM. Most of suspect that it is quite small considering that Dr. Young has refused many time to actually put an number on paid membership.

I suspect that the paid membership at USM is less than 35. That would be what less than 10% of the facutly?

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Seeker wrote:

Bad Santa wrote: Above the Mire wrote: It's the aaup and this message board that we hate. Tell us, AtM, how many members does this AAUP group you hate have? What I'm getting at is how large is your circle of hatred. The number, please. Nobody knows how large the AAUP is at USM. Most of suspect that it is quite small considering that Dr. Young has refused many time to actually put an number on paid membership. I suspect that the paid membership at USM is less than 35. That would be what less than 10% of the facutly?

What does the size of the membership of the AAUP matter when the faculty, through direct votes and through votes of their elected representatives, consistently support positions also supported by the AAUP? I can think of many organizations of which I am not a dues-paying member but whose positions I endorse and from whose actions I benefit. AtM wants to drive a wedge between the AAUP members and the rest of the faculty, when it has been shown on every single significant occasion that the rest of the faculty (or their elected representatives) take exactly the same positions as the positions endorsed by the AAUP.

In other words, this fixation on AAUP numbers is absolutely pointless. Pay attention to the numbers that really matter: the overwhelming vote of no-confidence in Shelby, and the subsequent faculty senate votes that have almost unanimously rejected various Shelby-sponsored initiatives.

Don't forget, too, the on-line HA polls, which Shelby consistently loses by margins of 90%.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

This fixation on AAUP goes back to SFT calling it a union in order to deceive the uninformed in the community into opposing the faculty. The trolls never give good reasons for hating this fine organization.

The AAUP is a national professional organization whose principles are the basis of most faculty handbooks followed by the vast majority of all universities. Even the other universities in this state employ AAUP guidelines and principles without people like JoJo, Above the Mire, etc. "hating" the members of the organization or the organization itself.

For the record, I'm not a member of AAUP and never was. But I may now join.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

What does the size of the membership of the AAUP matter

When you think about it, USM Sympathizer, the size of the AAUP membership does matter in terms of the context of the 90% no confidence vote. If only a few of the 90% are AAUP members, then the vast majority who voted "No Confidence" are not AAUP members. This shows that the voice of AAUP is shared by the faculty as a whole (or voice of the faculty as a whole is shared by AAUP). That's why I posed the question to Above the Mire who chronically complains about AAUP. But Above the Mire, who seems to have a wild hairball up his asophogus, didn't "get it."

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Seeker wrote:

Bad Santa wrote: Above the Mire wrote: It's the aaup and this message board that we hate. Tell us, AtM, how many members does this AAUP group you hate have? What I'm getting at is how large is your circle of hatred. The number, please. Nobody knows how large the AAUP is at USM. Most of suspect that it is quite small considering that Dr. Young has refused many time to actually put an number on paid membership. I suspect that the paid membership at USM is less than 35. That would be what less than 10% of the facutly?

I do not believe any President of the AAUP has ever refused to give approximate numbers -- the membership fluctuates. Last spring membership had moved to approximately 85 members I believe. Now that things are quieter, the membership (and much of the activity of the chapter) has diminished to some degree. That is natural as such organizations tend to grow in times of crisis and ebb when things are less critical. But the AAUP and similar organizations are almost never a majority of any body -- most people are reluctant to join and participate actively in advocacy organizations because they are pretty time consuming. This does not mean that many, if not most members of a faculty might not agree with much of what the AAUP stands for. Once gain, as already iterated on the Board, you have to look at the places where faculty opinion has been consistently tested and expressed: the various votes of faculty representative bodies; the vote of the general faculty; the votes of faculty on whom represent them in various bodies (AAUP has a suprisingly high representation on academic, graduate council and senate). The faculty knows the people it sends to represent them in these bodies and it seems to feel most comfortable with those who seem most supportive of the principles of governance promoted by the AAUP. You also have to look at the various polls and evaluations sponsored by AAUP, the Senate, and, yes . . . polls done by the HA and other bodies. While none of these are by themselves conclusive, I can't think of a single one that does not reflect significant disagreement with this administration.

Intimating that the AAUP is somehow an extremist organization flies in the face of the evidence both here locally and nationally. It is an incredibly parochial attitude and not in sync with the "real world."

Date: Jul 13, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

The faculty knows the people it sends to represent them in these bodies and it seems to feel most comfortable with those who seem most supportive of the principles of governance promoted by the AAUP.

That's essentially what I was trying to point out to when I said"

"When you think about it, USM Sympathizer, the size of the AAUP membership does matter in terms of the context of the 90% no confidence vote. If only a few of the 90% are AAUP members, then the vast majority who voted "No Confidence" are not AAUP members. This shows that the voice of AAUP is shared by the faculty as a whole (or voice of the faculty as a whole is shared by AAUP). That's why I posed the question to Above the Mire who chronically complains about AAUP. But Above the Mire, who seems to have a wild hairball up his asophogus, didn't "get it."

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Meanwhile, the IHL Board (Old Miss and MSU, mainly) are loving it. They stopped our momentum of the late 1990s with Shelboo and Roy Klumb and the used car dealers. And now with the further help of the rest of the BIDness community, we have managed to drive rifts among ourselves. Yep, just makes Old Miss and MSU look better. And they also stopped our initiatives on the Gulf Coast under Shelboo and fellow gnomes. I could not have imagined five years ago such a mess as the one we are now in. PATHETIC!

Date: Jul 13, 2005

donald wrote:
we have managed to drive rifts among ourselves.

Disagreements are not rifts. There will always be legitimate disagreements among faculty here and elsewhere. What do you see as the rifts among ourselves that divide us?

Date: Jul 13, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

This fixation on AAUP goes back to SFT calling it a union in order to deceive the uninformed in the community into opposing the faculty. The trolls never give good reasons for hating this fine organization.

For the record, the AAUP is a labor "union" as it engages in collective bargaining as is stated on its website:

"The basic purposes of the American Association of University Professors are to protect academic freedom, to establish and strengthen institutions of faculty governance, to provide fair procedures for resolving grievances, to promote the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and to advance the interests of higher education. Collective bargaining is an effective instrument for achieving these objectives."

While the USM Chapter is one of the many AAUP Chapters which does not serve as nor engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the USM faculty, the AAUP is none the less a "union." While SFT's use of the "U" word was with out doubt meant to cast the USM Chapter in a negative light, as in the general public "union" like "liberal" for most has a negative connotation, I do not believe this constitutes a deception as there is no falsehood, merely playing on public sentiment.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Coast Resident wrote:

For the record, the AAUP is a labor "union" as it engages in collective bargaining

Not in Mississippi it doesn't.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Bad Santa wrote:

USM Sympathizer wrote: What does the size of the membership of the AAUP matter When you think about it, USM Sympathizer, the size of the AAUP membership does matter in terms of the context of the 90% no confidence vote. If only a few of the 90% are AAUP members, then the vast majority who voted "No Confidence" are not AAUP members. This shows that the voice of AAUP is shared by the faculty as a whole (or voice of the faculty as a whole is shared by AAUP). That's why I posed the question to Above the Mire who chronically complains about AAUP. But Above the Mire, who seems to have a wild hairball up his asophogus, didn't "get it."

BS,

Normally I am skeptical of BS, but in this case I agree!

Date: Jul 13, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

I do not believe any President of the AAUP has ever refused to give approximate numbers -- the membership fluctuates. Last spring membership had moved to approximately 85 members I believe. Now that things are quieter, the membership (and much of the activity of the chapter) has diminished to some degree. That is natural as such organizations tend to grow in times of crisis and ebb when things are less critical. But the AAUP and similar organizations are almost never a majority of any body -- most people are reluctant to join and participate actively in advocacy organizations because they are pretty time consuming. This does not mean that many, if not most members of a faculty might not agree with much of what the AAUP stands for. Once gain, as already iterated on the Board, you have to look at the places where faculty opinion has been consistently tested and expressed: the various votes of faculty representative bodies; the vote of the general faculty; the votes of faculty on whom represent them in various bodies (AAUP has a suprisingly high representation on academic, graduate council and senate). The faculty knows the people it sends to represent them in these bodies and it seems to feel most comfortable with those who seem most supportive of the principles of governance promoted by the AAUP. You also have to look at the various polls and evaluations sponsored by AAUP, the Senate, and, yes . . . polls done by the HA and other bodies. While none of these are by themselves conclusive, I can't think of a single one that does not reflect significant disagreement with this administration. Intimating that the AAUP is somehow an extremist organization flies in the face of the evidence both here locally and nationally. It is an incredibly parochial attitude and not in sync with the "real world."

Excellent post (as usual).

Date: Jul 13, 2005

yep -- my fault as I was replying to Above the Mire through you ---

I should have gone back up to the original citation. Sorry.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Coast Resident wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: This fixation on AAUP goes back to SFT calling it a union in order to deceive the uninformed in the community into opposing the faculty. The trolls never give good reasons for hating this fine organization. For the record, the AAUP is a labor "union" as it engages in collective bargaining as is stated on its website: "The basic purposes of the American Association of University Professors are to protect academic freedom, to establish and strengthen institutions of faculty governance, to provide fair procedures for resolving grievances, to promote the economic well-being of faculty and other academic professionals, and to advance the interests of higher education. Collective bargaining is an effective instrument for achieving these objectives." While the USM Chapter is one of the many AAUP Chapters which does not serve as nor engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the USM faculty, the AAUP is none the less a "union." While SFT's use of the "U" word was with out doubt meant to cast the USM Chapter in a negative light, as in the general public "union" like "liberal" for most has a negative connotation, I do not believe this constitutes a deception as there is no falsehood, merely playing on public sentiment.

This is a distortion of the AAUP's position. It is a professional standards organization. It will engage in collective bargaining when asked to do so and that is usually on an ad hoc basis. That does not make it a union -- and particularly is an untrue statement when far more AAUP chapters do not engage in collective bargaining than do.

It would be far more accurate to say that the AAUP occasionally engages in collective bargaining activities. But no, it is much easier to provoke the anti-unionist sentiments of the workers living in the poorest and most exploited state in the country than to split the fine hairs of truth.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

stephen judd wrote:
I do not believe any President of the AAUP has ever refused to give approximate numbers -- the membership fluctuates. Last spring membership had moved to approximately 85 members I believe. Now that things are quieter, the membership (and much of the activity of the chapter) has diminished to some degree. That is natural as such organizations tend to grow in times of crisis and ebb when things are less critical.

Judd

You are wrong on this one, over the past two years I have asked no less than a dozen times for Amy Young to provide a hard number of paid members at USM, and to this point she has failed to do so.

Why she has not provided this information I won't speculate. You threw out 85, but to be honest, you have no idea. You and I are both to far from Hattiesburg to know, and Young has yet to post the number on this board.

I don't want an estimate, I want an exact number. But, I doubt I'll get it.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Seeker, for one thing the number changes from semester to semester. Many of the members have left. Also, Stephen Judd is on campus -- why do you say he's "too far" from Hattiesburg?
There are many faculty who are keeping their heads down because of not having tenure, being up for promotion, etc. There's a lot of fear associated with having your name on a list. Also, I don't know why Dr. Young is obligated to post a number just because you asked for it.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

Seeker, for one thing the number changes from semester to semester. Many of the members have left. Also, Stephen Judd is on campus -- why do you say he's "too far" from Hattiesburg?
There are many faculty who are keeping their heads down because of not having tenure, being up for promotion, etc. There's a lot of fear associated with having your name on a list. Also, I don't know why Dr. Young is obligated to post a number just because you asked for it.

You are correct, Judd is on campus, a brainfart on my part.

Like I said, I don't expect Young to provide the number for me, I stopped expecteding a year ago, but I will continue to ask for it.

I honestly believe the number at USM is very small, and it's not so much fear from the facutly that people don't join the AAUP at USM, as it is being associated with the individuals that are members. Many in the community and on camp feel that the AAUP is the most radically liberal faction of faculty members at USM.

That's my take, and I am not holding my breath for a membership number.

As for members that have left, heck you guys keep a running tally of every grounds keeper that leaves, surely a group of highly intelligent academics can figure out simple addition and subtraction to keep a running tally.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Stephen Judd wrote:

"This is a distortion of the AAUP's position. It is a professional standards organization. It will engage in collective bargaining when asked to do so and that is usually on an ad hoc basis. That does not make it a union -- and particularly is an untrue statement when far more AAUP chapters do not engage in collective bargaining than do.It would be far more accurate to say that the AAUP occasionally engages in collective bargaining activities...."

Stephen is right for the most part, I think, but it's still more accurate to say that a percentage of individual AAUP chapters serve as collective bargaining agents (if I remember correctly, it's about 25%). The heavy majority of chapters are not bargaining units, but traditional "advocacy chapters" (such as those in Mississippi). Surely, merely endorsing collective bargaining as a means to promote important principles does not make AAUP a union. If it does, then the Roman Catholic Church is a union too!

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Seeker wrote:

Like I said, I don't expect Young to provide the number for me, I stopped expecteding a year ago, but I will continue to ask for it. I honestly believe the number at USM is very small, and it's not so much fear from the facutly that people don't join the AAUP at USM, as it is being associated with the individuals that are members. Many in the community and on camp feel that the AAUP is the most radically liberal faction of faculty members at USM. That's my take, and I am not holding my breath for a membership number. As for members that have left, heck you guys keep a running tally of every grounds keeper that leaves, surely a group of highly intelligent academics can figure out simple addition and subtraction to keep a running tally.

One less thing to seek, Seeker:

According to AAUP national office, the number of current, paid members of the USM chapter is 61. Membership has dipped (from a high of over 100) for four reasons, I think: 1. The fear of assault on faculty has abated (after all, Pres. Thames has named the date he will step down); 2. Many early members have left USM by this time; 3. USM does not have automatic payroll deduction for AAUP membership (renewals are a struggle everywhere that deduction does not exist); and 4. The chapter leadership has devoted its energy to urgent matters, and not membership recruitment.

As Mississippi AAUP state conference president, I predict that USM's membership will stabilize at around 50 members; with energetic recruitment, it might be sustained at 75. Those are excellent numbers; national studies suggest that for every paid member, there are at least five "free riders," those who support and benefit from AAUP's activities, but simply don't want to pay the dues.

Date: Jul 13, 2005

I am sure some faculty do not join AAUP because they do not have tenure. I am also told by non-tenured faculty that they do not publicly support the Administration because they do not want repercussions from liberal faculty. Fear is an awful thing for these bright people to have to endure. Hattteisburg does not hate the USM family, they just want fairness on the campus--BOTH WAYS

Date: Jul 13, 2005

Seeker wrote:

... Many in the community and on camp feel that the AAUP is the most radically liberal faction of faculty members at USM. ...

Seeker,

Please explain for me, a person not from Mississippi, what you mean by calling the AAUP members "liberal"? Do you mean fiscal liberals, social liberals or people who interpret the bible a certain way? Oh, and is this suppose to be a bad thing?

Would you please mention at least one thing the USM-AAUP did that makes you or the community think they are "radical"? Have you tried to correct the community people to have them undersatnd that what they may consider "radical" is normal for academia?

Thanks.