As we leave this board in 2005 we need to make some resolutions for 06. There are many things that we could do but the best thing that we could do would be to use this board for its intended purpose.
I do not have to give examples. We all know the posters that use the board for their own purposes. Yes, we do have free speech. Let's just be more civil.
2006 will be a very important year in the history of our institution. We are closer to our goal than we have ever been. Let's look ahead in a positive manner and try to be ready to participate in a new beginning.
We will have issues, we will have differences of opinion; let's just address things in a more civil way.
Ripper wrote: Yes it is war, however, far too often the war spills over into faculty bashing other faculty. That will get us nowhere.
Unfortunately there are still many "faculty" who do the will of Thames with a willing heart. There are also administrators and faculty who have no allegience to the noble cause and are using the guise of "academic freedom" and "shared governance" to further their own causes. These faculty and administrators should be publicly horsewhipped, shot, and then drawn and quartered. Since we are prohibited from these actions, it is proper and necessary that these individuals be derided, exposed, and humiliated whenever and wherever their agendas surface.
Too few have heeded my post from long ago. The "war" is not over. Further, this is not a "civil" war. This is a street fight. Minimal rules apply, and no weapons have been excluded. I find that wringing hands over harsh words to wormtongued administrators and other faculty who have hidden agendas is unacceptable.
Flame if you wish. Remember, however, that the only thing keeping these vile individuals at bay is the fear of Thames' wrath. He is far from a lame duck. What will happen to CoAL when Thames is gone and Pood remains? How will he reward those who have publicly opposed him? What about the CoB? The CoH? The others?
For the body to die, one must cut off the head...not just give it a headache.
GWSA, you're assuming Pood et. al. will remain in place once Thames is gone. I give them about 15 minutes under any half-way decent president. At least they'll have a chance to move out of their offices and shake hands with people (if any will) which is more than G & S got.
The next president will be told to keep the existing deans. Rationale: it will improve stability. Outcome: faculty will be screwed worse by the emboldened deans than by SFT.
To reply to the concern of "Dear Poster", I would hold that most of the long-term participants here do exercise civility, and tend to respect the differences of opinion. However, the 'civility quotient' does indeed decrease as a result of the recurrent activity of the trolls, whose entire "raison d'etre" is to stir up controversy and then disappear, thus lowering the communication by their flame-baiting.
On a parallel thread, I'm afraid that "Sansabelt" is correct:
The next president will be told to keep the existing deans. Rationale: it will improve stability. Outcome: faculty will be screwed worse by the emboldened deans than by SFT.
The 'alternate rationale' will be that "the current Deans are the only 'institutional knowledge' remaining on campus", or else it will be more of the same old tired rhetoric that "faculty are hired to teach, and know nothing about administration."
Of course, this ad hominem argument ignores the concept that administrators usually arise from the ranks of 'senior faculty' -- unless you count the current Deans who came from assistant professor directly to junior administrator status, and who would be extremely 'under-qualified' if forced to return to the faculty.