MSU ENGLISH - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 13, 2005

RE: MSU ENGLISH

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Old and New wrote:

in retrospect the details could have been done better and would have in the end made their case much stronger.

It wasn't G&S who dropped the ball. They did precisely what any responsible faculty member should do. They informed the proper university authority and they sought proper consultation at each step in the process. All of that is well documented.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Transcript wrote:

Old and New wrote: in retrospect the details could have been done better and would have in the end made their case much stronger. It wasn't G&S who dropped the ball. They did precisely what any responsible faculty member should do. They informed the proper university authority and they sought proper consultation at each step in the process. All of that is well documented.

In fact, not only did they report the issue to the President, who clearly was not inclined to act and would never have reported back to Gary or Frank since he does not acknowlege the AAUP as a professional organization, but Gary, in his capacity as a member of the faculty Senate (and I believe as comittee member on the Senate Committee charged with personnel issues but someone can clarify this for me) reported formally to the Senate on his findings. It was this report that later provided the basis for many of the Senate's subsequent attempts to contact AD and have her "clarify" her resume. That process, as many will remember, not only took many months, but involved a face saving admission and a susequent resignation by AG when she moved to her nwew position with the ADP. In the meantime, AG had made the public promise that she was considering bringing legal proceedings against both men. The "hearing" allowed AG to drop this key threat (clearly not a winning case but one that could certainly have provided a long period of legal harrassment against G&S) since one side of the agreement was that Gary and Frank wopuld remain silent for two years and the other was the advocate's encouragement (read stipulation) that Dvorak should leave them alone.

I don't know how this strong got to this subject -- but every time the subject comes up it is important to keep the history and circumstances clear of revisionism. At the time you had the legal weight of the state of Mississippi and a state university system (in a state well known for its cronyism, olicharcical leadership and its political corruption) arrayed against two individuals with limited resources and the support of an unpopular organization (the AAUP) and a faculty Senate that was under attack daily by the Princess of Darkness -- the undermining of the faculty as a whole not only has been a strategy this administration has used to gain control over every aspect of university life, but it used that issue as a club to weaken any support G&S (as faculty members) would have within the community.

It was a despicable campaign -- and something every faculty member should remember and never forget. No matter how much the LAW might be on our side, the resources of the state and the university will always be far greater than the resources and time any individual faculty member can afford. The aligned interests of state and business, the permeability of a system that actually puts business and political interests constantly in bed together is an extremely difficult alliance for individuals and small groups with no power base to win against.

These are the concepts that gave rise to labor unions -- and the reason why it is time that white collar workers in this state start to organize themsevles into collective bargaining agencies and overthrow the right to work laws that rule this state.

Human belongs are subject to corruptability. But I'd rather have to deal with the corruption that might arise within an organization whose premise is to defend workers who have little power than have no protection from the combination of corruption and overwhelming power that state and business use against workers.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

"...every time the subject comes up it is important to keep the history and circumstances clear of revisionism...."

Indeed, but not, one hopes, at the expense of keeping clearly focused on the future. It is reported that Dr. Thames is once again laboring mightily (credit Ms. Katrina one more bit of damage to USM) to wrangle a contract extension from the board. Now -- not six months from now -- is the time for all right-thinking USM patriots to rally against this frightful prospect.

AAUP, Faculty Senate, individual faculty, staff and students -- Deluge Mr. Meredith and the IHL members with letters that leave no doubt that a contract extension for Thames is unacceptable and will not be tolerated! Better to stand naked on Biloxi beach facing Hurricane Omega than to put up with even one more year of this inept and mean-spirited administration.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

It was this report that later provided the basis for many of the Senate's subsequent attempts to contact AD and have her "clarify" her resume. That process, as many will remember, not only took many months, but involved a face saving admission and a susequent resignation by AG when she moved to her nwew position with the ADP. In the meantime, AG had made the public promise that she was considering bringing legal proceedings against both men. The "hearing" allowed AG to drop this key threat (clearly not a winning case but one that could certainly have provided a long period of legal harrassment against G&S) since one side of the agreement was that Gary and Frank wopuld remain silent for two years and the other was the advocate's encouragement (read stipulation) that Dvorak should leave them alone. I don't know how this strong got to this subject -- but every time the subject comes up it is important to keep the history and circumstances clear of revisionism.

AD throughout, although the AG may have played an interesting role towards the end and this string is a place to make some strong points.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Thanks Stimulus --

I did mean AD in all places where I inadvertantly said AG.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

An excellent summary and analysis, Professor Judd, to which I would like to add that the hearing was not a trial as such. The recommendations were to go to the IHL. Let us not forget that timberman Roy headed up the IHL as its president. Hardly an unbiased group up there at the time. The entire process was like a kangaroo court already without Gary and Frank having to face that crew in Jackson. Further, megabucks were being spent by the "prosecutors" in preparing the case and probably at the taxpayer's expense. Clearly USM didn't have the vaguest notion about how to handle the matter in a manner which would ensure fairness and due procdess. Nobody but a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates would be able to provide the bucks to fight something like that which would probably last for many years as it worked its way through the court system. Take a look at the many benefits to the USM faculty. Thanks to Gary, Frank, and the USM-AAUP, things are a lot cleaner and greener at USM.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

You seem to be missing the point. I too agree with what G&S did. However, if you followed the case closely they did make some mistakes. They had SFT on the ropes, and might have been able to close in for the kill. Had they used their own equipment for the investigation (a rather simple thing to do) -- well there goes one major charge. Also, the SSN was a fairly big deal. Judge Anderson was called in to make certain that there was a settlement -- period. I agree. However, if there had been no hammer hanging over G&S, why settle? My only point was that had they taken a bit more care with their investigation we might have gotten rid of SFT earlier. Someone earlier said "look at the transcripts." No need for I have my own. I only wrote what I did as a clarification for JL. I still in no way have any problem with G&S for what they did or how they did it. I have great respect for them -- and they know it. Ask them if they made any errors in that trying time --- the answer is yes. I suspect that many of us did.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Thunder Road wrote:

An excellent summary and analysis, Professor Judd, to which I would like to add that the hearing was not a trial as such. The recommendations were to go to the IHL. Let us not forget that timberman Roy headed up the IHL as its president. Hardly an unbiased group up there at the time. The entire process was like a kangaroo court already without Gary and Frank having to face that crew in Jackson. Further, megabucks were being spent by the "prosecutors" in preparing the case and probably at the taxpayer's expense. Clearly USM didn't have the vaguest notion about how to handle the matter in a manner which would ensure fairness and due procdess. Nobody but a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates would be able to provide the bucks to fight something like that which would probably last for many years as it worked its way through the court system. Take a look at the many benefits to the USM faculty. Thanks to Gary, Frank, and the USM-AAUP, things are a lot cleaner and greener at USM.

This is the most accurate post I've read about this--though it says something that was said time and time again earlier. This should have been a dignified academic process --albeit one that should have never been set in motion-- but SFT and Co. turned it into a Kangaroo court with the final judge not Anderson--or the university advisory group--but Roy Klumb and his gang.

This was a horrible time for us all. But it was worse for G/S and their families. And I know that despite the help from the fund, they took a substantial economic hit themselves. Let it drop.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Bygone days wrote:

Thunder Road wrote: An excellent summary and analysis, Professor Judd, to which I would like to add that the hearing was not a trial as such. The recommendations were to go to the IHL. Let us not forget that timberman Roy headed up the IHL as its president. Hardly an unbiased group up there at the time. The entire process was like a kangaroo court already without Gary and Frank having to face that crew in Jackson. Further, megabucks were being spent by the "prosecutors" in preparing the case and probably at the taxpayer's expense. Clearly USM didn't have the vaguest notion about how to handle the matter in a manner which would ensure fairness and due procdess. Nobody but a Donald Trump or a Bill Gates would be able to provide the bucks to fight something like that which would probably last for many years as it worked its way through the court system. Take a look at the many benefits to the USM faculty. Thanks to Gary, Frank, and the USM-AAUP, things are a lot cleaner and greener at USM. This is the most accurate post I've read about this--though it says something that was said time and time again earlier. This should have been a dignified academic process --albeit one that should have never been set in motion-- but SFT and Co. turned it into a Kangaroo court with the final judge not Anderson--or the university advisory group--but Roy Klumb and his gang. This was a horrible time for us all. But it was worse for G/S and their families. And I know that despite the help from the fund, they took a substantial economic hit themselves. Let it drop.

I am one that will never "let it drop". I will forgive SFT right after I forgive O.J. Simson.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

The Elephant wrote:

I am one that will never "let it drop". I will forgive SFT right after I forgive O.J. Simson.

Elephant, this is one plank our platform shares in common.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

The Donkey wrote:

The Elephant wrote: I am one that will never "let it drop". I will forgive SFT right after I forgive O.J. Simson. Elephant, this is one plank our platform shares in common.

Opps! I picked the name because of the memory myth. I'm also a donkey.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

The Elephant wrote:

Opps! I picked the name because of the memory myth. I'm also a donkey.

Shhhh! Quiet. Let's not tell anyone. That would spoil the used car salesmens' perception that all academicians are liberals.