I've often wondered what would have happened had Thames handled the AAUP report differently. It would have been so easy for him to talk with her--to advise her to make a simple statement that she was dismayed to learn that her resume listed her Kentucky appointment in a manner that was not accurate, and that she did not realize that until it was brought to her attention and that she would correct it as soon as possible. (After all, that was the ONLY thing the AAUP report said--that it was misleading.) Instead, he chose to ignore it--and to ignore SACS--and go after two of the most honorable and respected faculty on campus.

Peas in a pod wrote:

---

Mitch, if you choose to answer LVN's question then perhaps you might also consider this one, at what point would AAUP sanction unprofessional faculty behavior, regardless of the college within which it occurs?

---

You're right, I too wonder what Mitch thinks about usmpride.com and Doty's remarks about the booze accounts and the private money being fun money, all while he was representing USM before another institution.  "Shame on you..."  --- that was pretty pathetic!

Mitch,

When does unethical intent become "okay" - especially when the money is fronted by the taxpayers.  Many of us have had marvelous opportunities for job enhancement IF we'd "look the other way". Would I?? No. Would that marvelous Angie D, who did lie on her CV - call that "brutal candor" on my part? Yes. Would you??

Spell & Grammar Checker wrote:

---

Peas in a pod wrote: Mitch, if you choose to answer LVN's question then perhaps you might also consider this one, at what point would AAUP sanction unprofessional faculty behavior, regardless of the college within which it occurs? Peas in a pod, I have taken the time to correct the incorrect grammar in your post. Perhaps you should have one of your staffers proofread your writing before it goes public. The corrected version appears below: Mitch, if you choose to answer LVN's question, then perhaps you might also consider this one: At what point would AAUP sanction unprofessional faculty behavior, regardless of the college in which it occurs?

---

Your time might have been better spent reading Lynne Truss.  Better yet, just talk to the hand!

Just got back from dinner. I am not sure what folks mean by a couple of the responses (Emma, Mitchman, and so forth). If a faculty member has a complaint, they should inform the faculty senate (Bill Powell) and the AAUP (me or Amy Young or Stephen Judd). We are working on a bunch of issues at the moment. Let me look back at the thread and see if I can respond to others.

Mitchman wrote:

---

enjoy your 15 minutes.

---

I think I understand. An anonymous slam. It's an open board, so enjoy... However, please attend the AAUP meeting on MArch 8 at 3:30 in 109 OMH.

Thank you for the courtesy of a response.

An open post/letter to all:

There is not one of us who has not, in his or her lifetime, acted in a manner that someone else might see as unprofessional or even unethical. Maybe it was an unkind word uttered to an undeserving individual. Perhaps it was a simple, unintended misstep. While most of us regret such actions, we often have no "Undo" button and consequently must live with the consequences of the action. Those of us who recognize our own faults often choose to reserve judgment regarding others' uncommon missteps unless they are truly heinous (e.g., murder or rape). We as human beings are bound by own honor (in the true sense of the word) to evaluate the missteps of others using the light of reason and compassion, two truly academic characteristics. Only when a true pattern of behavior (an an accompanying unrepentant nature) has been established do I personally allow myself to write someone off as being unethical or even unprincipled.

That said, the faculty at USM allowed SFT to establish such a pattern. First it was the 7am massacre, next the hiring of Hanbury and the Dvoraks, next the rewriting of the Handbook without faculty input, then the failed drug and alcohol policy, and finally the attempted firing of Glamser and Stringer. While there was no little protest over some of these issues, it was the culmination of these actions that led to the campus revolt. Glamser and Stringer may have thrown the switch, but the explosives had been set many days before.

What is one to do when placed in an ethical dilemma by an unprincipled administrator? Should one simply follow the command of the administrator, carrying out his nefarious plan? What would you do if SFT (post-G&S) gave you a task that was clearly counter to the mission of academia? Would you comply? Walk away from the University mute? Stand and speak out? The entire G&S affair was sparked by two professors who saw unethical behavior being perpetrated by one with a pattern of such behavior. They spoke out. They were sanctioned, and the campus rallied around them. Should we expect less from others? Suppose you knew that a USM Parking Services ticketer was tearing up tickets for students who paid him $20 on the spot and that he had presented many students with this opportunity. Would you report him, or would you turn your head? Is it ethical for you to not turn him in, given that this procedure is not outlined in the Parking Services rules, that not every ticketed student is presented with this option, and that not every student has an extra $20 to hand over on the spot?

As faculty we are often given the opportunity to simply turn our heads to unethical or unprofessional behavior in return for the promise of rewards to be delivered later. Our votes are solicited or possibly even coerced. Should we choose not to turn our heads, our freedoms are sometimes endangered (usually administratively) by threats of higher teaching loads, threats of no raises, threats of more service, or threats of termination or worse. At what point do we as a faculty have not only the right but also the obligation to buck such a corrupt system? Does it matter if the untoward pressure emanates from the Central Administration, the College Administration, or the Departmental Administration?

Given that many layers of administrators participate in such activity, can we rely on any administrator to take the faculty's part? There is obviously no relief to be found at the Dome. In many cases, there is no relief in our deans' offices. Relief must be found from within.

And there are somr of us who are suing these jerks.  Obviously, the details can't be divulged, but this admin. is being legally called to task right now. Other suits are waiting in the wings. Thst's what happens when an institution breaks the law (under lead of a unimpressive prez who should hope and pray that history will remember his impact with polymers and not with being in charge of a university).

Pencil Shavings wrote:

---

That said, the faculty at USM allowed SFT to establish such a pattern. First it was the 7am massacre, next the hiring of Hanbury and the Dvoraks, next the rewriting of the Handbook without faculty input, then the failed drug and alcohol policy, and finally the attempted firing of Glamser and Stringer. While there was no little protest over some of these issues, it was the culmination of these actions that led to the campus revolt. Glamser and Stringer may have thrown the switch, but the explosives had been set many days before.

---

I would respectfully disagree with "Pencil Shavings" over the assertion of faculty culpability.  The responsibility for the administrative excesses and "irregularities" is placed in the hands of the IHL.  Beginning with the Presidential Search, faculty provided input and feedback to the IHL, which has been consistently ignored. 

After the Thames presidency began, every instance of administrative malfeasance was objected through via the "appropriate channels" (Faculty Senate, Graduate Council), and when that failed, through direct contact to IHL and to the media.  It is still impossible to envision that a Vote of No Confidence from an overwhelming majority of faculty was so completely ignored by the ultimate authority (IHL).  That "failure of leadership" is why the university has experienced such an overturn of faculty, and now the attempts at SFT's "hand-picked" middle management to abandon the institution.