MSU ENGLISH - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 6, 2005

MSU ENGLISH

Date: Nov 6, 2005

What is this all about? Give us some more info.

Ask Noel.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

JAP Just Ask Polk. wrote:

What is this all about? Give us some more info. Ask Noel.

Is this it?

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051104/NEWS01/51104007/1002

Date: Nov 6, 2005

Polk had nothing to do with this. LAY OFF.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

JA{ Just Ask Polk wrote:

Polk had nothing to do with this. LAY OFF.

Polk certainly had nothing to do with this situation. But, I think other posters may be pointing out that the actions of this individual will reflect badly on the MSU English Dept as well as the University as a whole. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

It is also a reminder that no professional situation that any of us find ourselves in is perfect.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

Seeker wrote:

no professional situation that any of us find ourselves in is perfect.

Very true, Seeker. But few universities I know of have the imperfections of USM.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

"If found guilty of plagiarism, Vice faces disciplinary action ranging from a letter of reprimand to termination of employment, university officials said."

I imagine at MSU it is the same as here (at least in CoST), that a student flunks if caught doing the nasty "P". Lettter of reprimand sounds pretty light, I believe MIT just canned outright a biologist caught for "P"ing.

Love his last name, destined for glory

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Mississippi State's policy on "Ethics in Research and Other Scholarly Activities" states that an inquiry committee must determine whether the ethical complaint against Vice has merit. If so, an investigative committee must determine what action to take.

Too bad USM's administration didn't see fit to conduct an above board investigation of Angeline Dvorak's credentials.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Irony abounds wrote:

Too bad USM's administration didn't see fit to conduct an above board investigation of Angeline Dvorak's credentials.

The loss of institutional memory has often been cited as a travesty of this administration. I wonder how many of the campus community do not even understand the above statement and it hasn't been quite two years.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Best Practices wrote:

Irony abounds wrote:
Too bad USM's administration didn't see fit to conduct an above board investigation of Angeline Dvorak's credentials.
The loss of institutional memory has often been cited as a travesty of this administration. I wonder how many of the campus community do not even understand the above statement and it hasn't been quite two years.

You've got to be kidding!

Date: Nov 7, 2005

I don't understand your response, Far Away Alum. Two academic years have started since the fateful investigation that provided the stimulus for this board and its predecessor. Two classes of students not here at that time and two years of fauclty/staff turnover. How well versed do you think all these new folks are in the events of that time?

Date: Nov 7, 2005

It wasn't a criticism. It was just a cry of dismay. I certainly do believe you. But it is a shame that such a shameful incident is gone from the institutional memory. What is it the historians say? Learn from the past so you won't make the same mistakes?

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Best Practices wrote:

The loss of institutional memory has often been cited as a travesty of this administration. I wonder how many of the campus community do not even understand the above statement and it hasn't been quite two years.

Yes, Best Practices, Southern Miss' institutional memory is rapidly disappearing. I wonder how many of the current faculty and students know the names Glamser and Stringer. (All the more reason for preserving those two names in stone by the naming the COAL building at the earliest possible time.)

Date: Nov 7, 2005

May I propose a clinical term for USM's "institutional memory" problem? How about "institutional dementia?"

Date: Nov 8, 2005

I think plagiarism is overated as an offence. We all do it a little. Its hard to be original.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

Yes, Best Practices, Southern Miss' institutional memory is rapidly disappearing. I wonder how many of the current faculty and students know the names Glamser and Stringer. (All the more reason for preserving those two names in stone by the naming the COAL building at the earliest possible time.)

why name a building after 2 people who took the money and ran?

Date: Nov 12, 2005

memories wrote:
why name a building after 2 people who took the money and ran?

Troll alert! Call in the Flit person. Evidently Dumbo here wasn't at the hearing - or has lost all recollection thereof.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

Flying Elephant wrote:

memories wrote:why name a building after 2 people who took the money and ran?

Troll alert! Call in the Flit person. Evidently Dumbo here wasn't at the hearing - or has lost all recollection thereof.

Yes, you took those words out of my mouth. It's funny how some trolls say SFT pushed them out and this troll says they "took the money and ran".

I can't wait for May when the terms of the "agreement" ends so that GS and FG can again speak out publicly during SFT's extension year. That should be a fun time.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

I am afraid that in the end they did.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

Alerted wrote:

I am afraid that in the end they did.
Did what? And who is "they?"

Date: Nov 12, 2005

He means that in the end, they did "take the money and run." In other words, they decided not to spend thousands more of their personal money (above and beyond our donations) nor subject themselves and their families to a long and agonizing ordeal. Or have you never been in a lawsuit?
I also have it on pretty good authority that Judge Anderson made it clear that his mission was to get a settlement, period. I'm sorry only that Dr. Thames was never cross-examined. That testimony would have been of great interest. Or have we already forgotten about email monitoring? I would like to have heard his explanation as to how he obtained certain emails.

We have had the "Frank & Gary should have fallen on their swords" debate about a half-dozen times already. I anticipate May with great interest. Perhaps when all the truth can be told, some people will understand their position more clearly.

PS if you haven't ever been in a lawsuit, I don't advise it unless you enjoy stress, anguish and expense.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

LVN wrote:

PS if you haven't ever been in a lawsuit, I don't advise it unless you enjoy stress, anguish and expense.

Or you have unlimited money & time, and are absolutely certain you're gonna win.

My understanding is that FG & GS didn't have unlimited mone & time. It's pretty certain, however, that had the case gone into a bona fide court of law, SFT would probably have multiple termini for his digestive system. The operative word in SFT's "testimony" at the so-called hearing is "perjury."

I do wish that the two professors had had unlimited resources, because the outcome would have been real justice. But they didn't. What my major prof on my doctorate liked to call "reality constraints" saved Shelby's glutes.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

FG & GS landed firmly on their feet with their heads held high. Texas A&M & Tulane/Coast were the beneficiaries. USM was the loser. An unexpected .positive effect of that horrid and unsuccessful attempt to fire them is that it opened up communication among USM faculty on important academic issues at a level never before seen on this campus. Their contribution will endure. At the very least, the COAL building should carry their names.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

Brick & Mortar wrote:

...At the very least, the COAL building should carry their names.

It will even if the night caulker has to do it each night.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

I agree that May will be an interesting time. I also appreciate what F&G did, though they left themselves open to trouble by how they handled their investigation of D. It must have been very hard on them, and I cannot and I do not blame them or harbor any ill will over how it ended. They made the best decisions that they could in times of trouble - and who can second guess that? However, I will say that I was more than a little let down. It began as a struggle for academic freedom, and ended with a good deal. Again no ill will whatsoever - but that is the way it was. I very much would have liked to see the second half of the "trial", for I believe that SFT was on the ropes. With a bit of a push we could have gotten rid of him then -- not after more years of turmoil. Many folks stood up and put themselves on the line -- and I for one could not but feel a great letdown as to how it all ended. Many who took lead roles in the fight are now gone -- leaving those who are left feeling rather alone. Again people have to do what is best for themselves and their families -- no doubt there. Howver, that does not make my feeling of incompleteness and frustration any less valid.

Date: Nov 12, 2005

"I very much would have liked to see the second half of the "trial", for I believe that SFT was on the ropes. With a bit of a push we could have gotten rid of him then -- not after more years of turmoil. "

- - - and that, dearie, is exactly what the good judge was sent to prevent. We were all disappointed, and I suspect G & F most of all.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Old and New wrote:

I also appreciate what F&G did, though they left themselves open to trouble by how they handled their investigation of D.

Which was how, au juste? They immediately turned the papers over to her superior, who did nothing. They then proceeded, carefully and dispassionately, to protect the academic integrity of the institution, for which they were publicly. The problem was not with the investigators, but with the investigatees.

No matter how many times this issue is rehashed, Gary and Frank will emerge as the courageous, principled people that they were.

JL

Date: Nov 13, 2005

I left a word out. "For which they were publicly maligned." JL

Date: Nov 13, 2005

How did this thread go from the problem at MSU to Glamser and Stringer? Does the faculty put its head in the sand about the crime at MSU? What happened to discussing ethics on a campus? I supprted Glamser and Stringer, but I am beginning to think they may have had some exposure in the matter and took the money and ran.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

JL -- if you watched the proceedings closely there were points of detail on which G&S were indeed in trouble. No matter whether or not it is ethical to read our emails -- they would have been better served to have used their home accounts to do their sleuthing. Just that simple. Also the use of the SSN was an open question -- no matter how they got it. Again I am not implying that they did anything "wrong" here -- just that in retrospect the details could have been done better and would have in the end made their case much stronger.