As promised.....as I've been grading I have been thinking about this:

SFT's delusional claim that USM is already a "worl'-class" university has been a fixture of his short and unfortunate administration, and clearly of his self-appointed mission.  The end is clearly laudable, but the means toward it have been laughable.  Let us interrogate his assertion.

A world-class university has:

--An experienced, competent and professionally non-controversial administration as accomplished as its Faculty. Transparent searches are the norm for all levels of hires.

What do we see here under SFT?  A largely amateurish, parochial upper Administration, and one congenitally controversial, though with a few encouraging high-lights (I am thinking of V.P. Lassen, actually).

--A Library that qualifies for membership in the Association of Research Libraries.

Here?  Due to unwise funding and staffing decisions made by SFT since he became president, we have one that just barely qualifies only for the Association of South Eastern Research Libraries, though we still are not a member.  Why?  Is there any evidence that SFT's priorities include decisive investment in USM's Library system?  Instead he has continued to weaken our library resources.

--A competitive Sabbatical policy, i.e., affording select tenure-track faculty 1 semester (half-year) at the 4th year, and a possible full academic year for tenured faculty every 7th year, or something like that.

USM's world-class policy?  A single semester every 7th year, if you are lucky.  Yet have we seen any emphasis on investment in sabbatical support in SFT's 'vision' and 'strategic' policy initiatives?  Is is even on his radar?  Given his general trashing of the faculty, and apparent encouragement of such in the public discourse of his scandals, could he ever effectively advocate for this with the IHL Board and the state, including legislators, who already are largely anti-intellectual to begin with?  Instead, the word is that SFT constantly talks about 'dead-weight' and 'dead-wood'.  He constantly undermines the public trust in his own faculty, making increased sabbatical support even more unlikely.

--A Research based teaching load, generally 3/3 base and 2/2 (or 3/2) research level.

At least here, with no thanks to SFT but creditably to the far-sighted deans and chairs, USM does actually approach world-class status.  SFT, however, clearly is betting the bank on increasing USM's enrollment as the supposed panacea for our underlying financial weaknesses.  And yet faculty are leaving in droves (many driven away by SFT "hisself"), and by the way, anyone who actually teaches also knows just how close to the bottom of the proverbial barrel we are scratching already, and just how is SFT planning on squaring these circles?  Has he ever said?

--Comparatively competitive admission standards, though not necessarily selective ones.

Our reality?  Nearly open admissions, a tendency toward less-than-reliable reporting of numbers, and a kind of mercenary "sink or swim" attitude toward the students we do have.  Reports are that under SFT the average ACT scores have declined from 21 before to perhaps 19 now.  As far as I have seen the only real standard is for a 24 for GED applicants, a good idea actually, but note that there has been little administrative concern with drop-out (oops, 'retention') rates, especially for the 25 percent of our students who might be termed "challenged" (coming as they do from some of the lowest-funded school districts in one of the poorest states in the country).  What is glaring under SFT is the utter lack of a university-wide peer-tutoring program.  The demonstrated need is great, but the recognition of it has been minimal.  Where is the requisite commitment in SFT's vision for Student Affairs?  What is USM's reportable graduation rate anyway?  Is it indeed 'world class'?  The admissions revolving door is practically a scam, and earlier this year there were rumors of a federal investigation (as so many of these hastily admitted students qualify for Pell Grants and federally subsidized loans).

--At least 1 excellence (signature program) in at least 3 basic university units.

We do have Polymer Science (though apparently it is a hateful place to work), and History and English (though both are weakening), and of course the whole Study Abroad industry.  But the former College of The Arts was cut down into schools.  And then SFT killed off the internationally renowned Donne Variorum Project, beheaded the Nursing unit (whose graduates are no longer automatically certified by virtue of their degree, as had been the case before SFT), abuses the Music program, and drives off both promising and accomplished faculty throughout, especially in the liberal arts.  No world-class university purposefully weakens its Liberal Arts unit, even tech schools.

--Serves as a brain-magnet and a regional motor of economic development.

Granted we are in one of the poorest states in the country, but SFT has been obssessed with whipping the tail into wagging the dog.  USM was (and perhaps still is) the key to local economic development, and yet we are still dependent on politically unpopular local tax increases to fund planned needs.  But did anyone notice how SFT's development staff recently abused Hattiesburg's city council, who would bear the political cost of any increase in local taxes?  And whatever happened to Fleming's capital campaign anyway?  And what about that supposed $9 million for which the USM Foundation cannot account?  Let's guess.

--Last but not least, a world-class university evidences a real commitment to diversity.

One would think that in Mississippi an aspiring university would incorporate into its basic practice an authentic and structural understanding of how diversity serves the institution's mission; this clearly was a hallmark of Fleming's administration (and what perhaps undermined his support among the local poobahs?).  But just look at Ole Miss.  What do we have here?  I think we all know the answer to that.  Perhaps it is instructive that the portrait of Osceola McCarty, whose selfless charity made (positive) international news, and which used to hang in the President's formal reception room in the Dome, has disappeared.  No room for local black heroes in a redneck administration.

However there has been real success in disability access, due no doubt to federal mandates.

And yet, whereas fully one-quarter of our students are minority (mostly African Americans), there is not even an African-American studies minor for example, or some equivalent, nor a relevantly defined minority student affairs deanship, or whatever.  SFT has evinced absolutely no interest in confronting the hard truth of the nearly lily-white reality of the Faculty, nor in addressing the peculiar historical burden of schools like USM in states like Mississippi.  Instead we got a highly paid "risk management" bureaucrat whose incompetence got himself fired.  Of course, SFT's no....well, historian.  All evidence points instead to the historically familiar "ol'-boy" world of yesteryear.  This, however, is 2004, not 1984 or 1974 or 1964 or.....

In the end, of the 8 categories that I think of as markers of "world-class" status, under SFT Southern Miss has perhaps a score of 2 or at best 3.

But by constantly claiming that USM is "world-class" SFT can avoid investing in the real, nuts-and-bolts prerequisites and instead throw money down the rat-hole of "economic development."  By emphasizing the latter, he shows that he fails to understand the real mission of a great university.

As this is final-exam time, any grading system would give SFT's USM an "F" on the question of world-class status.  But like a student who gets an F on a mid-term, with the right combination of commitment and grit and guidance (and humility) one could still theoretically pull out an A for the course.  To carry the analogy to its conclusion, however, SFT should simply cut his losses and 'drop' this class.  Just as I am sure all faculty here have heard from students at one time or another, SFT is like the one who eventually says "I'm just not good at that subject."  Contrary to my usual practice, this time I would agree.

NO QUARTER.

 
[Eugene Volokh, 3/9/2004 09:13:39 AM](See posts that link to this one)
Academic freedom and academic governance: Someone asked me why I'm so troubled by the University of Southern Mississippi controversy. After all, the university is trying to fire the professors not for their scholarship or their teaching, but for their involvement in an investigation of an administrator's alleged fraud (or, according to the University, for their unspecified misconduct in this investigation). What's the big deal?

     Well, to begin with, I think that academic freedom should secure the faculty's right to comment on all sorts of matters, from politics and science to the way the university conducts its affairs. In other workplaces, including government workplaces, the need to maintain good working relations or prevent tension, controversy, or public disapproval of the employer may justify restrictions on what employees can do. But the premise of academic freedom is that universities operate better as centers of learning and inquiry when they allow a broad range of speech, even despite these costs.

     But there's also a much more specific reason to protect this speech: Academic freedom also embodies a tradition of internal governance, by which many of the decisions about the way the university operates are made by faculty, or at least with the advice of faculty. This self-governance is preservative of other aspects of academic freedom, but it's also supposed to be helpful in maintaining the quality of research and teaching as well. To my knowledge the norm in serious American universities is that the faculty get to make many decisions, such as hiring, curriculum, academic standards, and so on, and while the administration may sometimes veto some such decisions, and may take the lead in other decisions, the faculty generally plays a serious and important role (sometimes as the primary decisionmakers and sometimes as influential advisors).

     If this is so, then the faculty -- as joint governors of the school -- must have the right to criticize the administration, which must of course include the right to investigate alleged resume fraud by the University's vice president of research. If the University is right that the faculty members whom it's trying to fire engaged in defamation (i.e., were themselves lying) or real misuse of university facilities, then its actions might well be proper. But if the University is just trying to silence faculty members whose criticisms it sees as disruptive, that's very dangerous indeed. Shared governance, whether in Washington, D.C. or in a university, necessarily involves some disruption and tension. Trying to eliminate that disruption and tension is impossible unless one abandons the shared governance project.

======================================================

[Eugene Volokh, 3/13/2004 05:26:20 PM](See posts that link to this one)
More on the University of Southern Mississippi controversy: Ralph Luker is on top of the story. I can't tell for sure who's right and who's wrong here, since the university is apparently restricted by confidentiality policies from telling its side of the story. But from all I've heard, my tentative sense of the matter is that the faculty members whom USM is trying to fire are in the right, and the University's actions are a grave breach of academic freedom.

http://volokh.com/2004_03_07_volokh_archive.html#107882001337611771
 

http:// www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=&url=http://volokh.com%2F2 004_03_07_volokh_archive.html%23107879035707294419

In my inbox this morning:

May 5, 2004

Friends of Mississippi:

I am writing you tonight because our state is under attack from within. Somehow, a very narrow-minded man with little taste for the core American values of democracy and shared governance has been allowed to hold the reins at the University of Southern Mississippi, and has, in two short years, almost undone the fine work of prior presidents and administrators. This man, Shelby Thames, has been promoted to his level of incompetence, and has likewise lined his cabinet not with the good and decent faculty gathered at Southern Miss over the years under many administrations, but with a handful of under-trained and ill-educated individuals with little or no experience in higher education, and he has subsequently gone on a rampage the like of which I’ve never seen in Mississippi public life. 

He has fired senior administrators without so much as a consultation or the grace of a personal note or call; he has forced an obviously ill-fitting combination of academic disciplines into five colleges in order to say he’s “streamlining” the university; for every penny he has saved by downsizing faculty he has lost two by hiring unnecessary and overpaid administrators; he has tried to fire two perfectly fine professors who did nothing more than question the credentials of a senior administrator who, it must be acknowledged, either knowingly or unknowingly slightly falsified her credentials on her resume; he has reneged on the agreements of his predecessor with regard to certain faculty members; he has brought several (many?) law suits upon himself and our previously quiet, stable university; he has empowered his “risk management” lawyer to instruct the deans to illegally refuse to respond to one or more Freedom of Information Act requests; he has made an agreement with a representative of the IHL regarding the settlement of the Glamser/Stringer matter, and promptly broken that (legally binding) agreement by speaking in public and continuing to assert the illegality of the professors’ actions, even though no such illegality was ever demonstrated or adjudicated; he has, without proper notification to faculty and staff, illegally read and publicized private e-mails of individuals (faculty and students) not under investigation for, or even suspected of, any illegal act; he has, whether by design or accident we do not know, reported grossly inflated enrollment figures to the College Board and others, and clearly scapegoated a mid-level administrator when the untruth was revealed; he has attempted to impose a ridiculously oppressive drug and alcohol policy that was broadly rejected by even his supporters among USM administrators; he has mobilized the faculty in a remarkable show of unanimity to offer him a 430 to 32 vote of No Confidence; he has made the administration at Southern Miss a remarkable bastion of cronyism and nepotism and personal favoritism, recalling the darkest days of our state’s history; he has reserved raises for his friends and supporters among the faculty (giving his own daughter the largest percentage raise of any person on the USM campus!), and he has attempted to hide both the process and the product of these so-called “stealth” raises—the list of Shelby Thames’ affronts to good management and good sense is nearly endless.

This is a role call of incompetent and inadequate leadership, a demonstration of how not to run a university, which is, after all, supposed to be the heart of the best minds of a community, a state, a country. A university is not, by nature, a profit making organization, and I find it hard to believe that the IHL board, as much as it might want to belt-tighten, meant to give carte-blanche to a rash, impulsive, self-centered, vindictive, untested, fledgling administrator such as Thames. Perhaps the board was not fully aware of Thames’ record in administration (twice removed, I believe, from high administrative posts at the University of Southern Mississippi), and perhaps the board, like so many of us, simply has too much on its plate to be constantly vigilant with regard the inner workings of the institutions of higher learning in our state. 

But now, after two solid years of travail from the top, after two years of trouble brought upon the university and the state by a single individual, now perhaps the College Board can take this opportunity to reflect on what it might want out of its college presidents, on what kinds of men and women are best suited for these roles, on what are the responsibilities of the colleges and universities themselves and how these might best be dispatched, on what a college or university is in fact, how it fits into the political and social fabric of the society which it serves.

I offer this definition--in the simplest possible terms, a university is its faculty. It is the faculty that go day in and day out into the classrooms with our sons and daughters, the faculty that have the expertise, earned the hard way at other fine institutions around the nation, to pass along to our families and children, the faculty that finally confer the degrees awarded to the graduates.  I urge you to look at your diploma, hanging on your wall, or in a closet at your home, and note that it likely says “the faculty at” your college or university confers upon you the degree of . . . etc. It does not say the “administrators” confer the degree, and for very good reason. From the time in distant history when the idea of a university first took shape, the notion of it being comprised of its faculty was central; indeed, a colleague reminds me that the Oxford English Dictionary, that dean of all dictionaries, as well as most other dictionaries, first define “university” as “the body of faculty and students at a university.”

The University of Southern Mississippi is on the ropes as a consequence of being in the hands of this president. It is possible that he means well, that his intentions are immaculate, that he is devoted to Southern Miss as he says, but it is simply not possible that this is a passing phase in an ultimately successful transformation of the school. Shelby Thames is burning down the house right in front of your eyes, with the whole state, and certainly the whole of higher education nationwide watching in horror. I plead with you now to see to it that this extraordinarily damaging and violent episode in the history of the University of Southern Mississippi be put to an end as soon as possible. You have it in your hands, and in the hands of your friends and powerful acquaintances, to rescue this university from a despotic reign, to stop the plunder and the pillage, to set us again on the path toward quality education, and I beg you act now, act quickly, before it is too late.

With every good wish,

(as) Jean Tawdry

The University of Southern Mississippi

That's no council... it's a defensive line

Universities are charged with the task of teaching students the basic democratic values of American civilization. That is why public universities in all 50 states practice what they teach: they themselves have democratic governance systems. Public universities in all 50 states have faculty senates, staff councils, and student government associations. Each of these bodies regularly converses with the administration.

Imagine how bizarre it must be, then, to realize that rather than speak with the USM Faculty Senate, as administrations in public universities do in all 50 states, this administration has chosen instead to create yet another bureaucratic institution: the President's University Council. The members of this council are all chosen by the administration, by the very deans this president himself hired, most of whom do not have tenure. What sort of dialogue can emerge when only one of the two sides in this conversation, the administration, gets to pick the people with whom it will converse?

We have elected bodies willing and able to speak to the administration, just as does every other public university in the nation. With regard to the Faculty Senate in particular, this university president has refused to communicate. It would appear that at USM the free and open exchange of ideas can occur only in an environment that the administration can control - an environment, in short, where the exchange of ideas is neither free nor open.

The fact that the administration of an American university would so boldly challenge and subvert the every premise of our society is nothing short of amazing.

JONATHAN BARRON
Hattiesburg

I've sent this to Clarion-Ledger, Hattiesburg American, Sun Herald. They probably won't publish it at its present length, so I thought I'd share it here with any who care to read it, perhaps even the board. NP

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE COLLEGE BOARD

I’m writing this out of considerable frustration that the IHL Board, my bosses, have chosen not to intervene in the ongoing crisis at USM. They have chosen to allow Shelby Thames to continue as president in spite of the serious, perhaps irreversible, damage his presidency has done to the university and in spite of the manifest and quickening opposition to him of faculty, students, members of the community, and of educators across the nation.

            ; But for the moment I want to try to look beyond these particular frustrations and plead with the newly-constituted Board to rethink the way it deals with the faculty at Mississippi’s eight state universities. As it stands, you don’t really deal with us at all; true, some of you do indeed respond to letters and phone calls from individual faculty members, but others of you, like Mr. Klumb, have publicly criticized the faculty in ways that let us know where we stand in the educational scheme of things.

For all of the 27 years I’ve been a professor here, in my native Mississippi, the Board has listened only to the presidents; we, faculty, have been almost completely excluded from discussions about education policies, even though we are the ones who know best how policies made at Board and administrative levels affect education: we are the ones who have to deal with those policies in the classroom.

If faculty have problems with department chairs, we appeal to our dean; if we have problems with our dean, we appeal to the provost; if with the provost, we appeal to the president. But if we have problems with our president, we have no forum for appeal within the system: because you won’t listen to us we have no choice but to go public with our legitimate complaints. You, the board, seem for some reason committed only to the presidents when you ought to be committed to the system, which includes faculty.

To give faculty a regular voice in your deliberations would accomplish two very important things: First, it would make us feel more a part of the educational system than we now feel. As it stands, faculty and Board members too often view each other as antagonists rather than as colleagues, to the detriment of higher education.

Second, and speaking very practically, regular input from us could have saved us all the strain, the diversion, and the embarrassment of the travesty still ongoing at USM and the embarrassment, some years ago, of similar faculty protests at MUW. Wouldn’t it be better for everybody if we could solve such problems behind closed doors, working together? We could, if you would just listen: remember, we’ve been trying to tell you for two years that something is wrong with the way Dr. Thames is doing things at USM. This struggle has been going on for two years, years that have interrupted education at USM, has cost money we needn’t have spent so needlessly, and wrecked lives; in those two years, you’ve listened only to Dr. Thames’s side of things. Can this be reasonable? Can this be good management of a multi-million dollar enterprise?

Mississippi’s university faculty are highly-educated people trained in universities all over the world. Scholars all over the world listen eagerly to what we have to say and we are regularly invited to distinguished universities in other states and countries to lecture. Why should it be so difficult to get our own bosses to listen to what we have to offer? It’s a crying shame to waste so much intelligence, intelligence that we would so willingly, so eagerly, share. We want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. That's why we are professors.

Please, please, listen to us. We hate fighting with our leaders. We would much rather be teaching and doing the work that you hired us to do. It just doesn’t make sense—educational or economic—to treat us as antagonists. Like it or not, we really are the heart of the system, essential to our mutual mission to educate.

Quite simply, it is in everybody’s best interests for the Board to start listening to faculty on a regular basis, to make our input a regular and necessary part of the information you get about how the universities are being run and about what needs to be done. You can’t continue to operate in a vacuum from what we know and what we can bring to the discussion table.

Noel Polk

Professor of English USM

707 Adeline St.

Hattiesburg MS 39401

601.543.0333

601.266.4326

Thanks again to Otherside for stimulating me to do some reading I might not otherwise have done!  Here is just a small sampling of the kind of thing I am finding:

DIVERSE SNIPPETS CONCERNING THE IDEAS OF RICHARD FLORIDA, WHOSE THEORY ABOUT ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS JUST BEEN NAMED TO THE _HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW_'S LIST OF BREAKTHROUGH IDEAS FOR 2004:

Human creativity is the ultimate source of economic growth. Every single person is creative in some way. And to fully and tap and harness that creativity we must be tolerant, diverse and inclusive.

=================================

Public policy and regional development books are often considered best as a cure for insomnia, but Florida's work is challenging many of the verities of the field. He claims that the world has moved away from the old "organizational" era of corporations and homogeneity and into the "creative" era, which is spearheaded by 38 million workers -- from scientists to IT workers to artists and writers -- with a variety of lifestyles and needs. ...

FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD FLORIDA:

My argument is that in order to harness creativity for economic ends, you need to harness creativity in all its forms. You can't just generate a tech economy or information economy or knowledge economy; you have to harness the multidimensional aspects of creativity. So the book says that there are three types of creativity: technological creativity, which is innovation, new products and ideas and technologies; economic creativity, which includes entrepreneurship, turning those things into new businesses and new industries; and cultural and artistic creativity, the ability to invent new ways of thinking about things, new art forms, new designs, new photos, new concepts. Those three things have to come together to spur economic growth.  

===========================
  
What that means for cities is that instead of "underwriting big-box retailers, subsidizing downtown malls, recruiting call centers, and squandering precious taxpayer dollars on extravagant stadium complexes," the leadership should instead develop an environment attractive to the creative class by cultivating the arts, music, night life and quaint historic districts -- in short, develop places that are fun and interesting rather than corporate and mall-like. It's advice that city and regional leaders can take or leave, but Florida contends that his focus groups and indices -- reporting the important factors needed for economic growth in the creative age, from concentrations of bohemians to patents to a lively gay community -- are more accurately predicting the success and failure of metropolitan areas.  

=================================

... In short, as Paul Romer, a professor of economics at Stanford University put it, there is growing recognition that when it comes to economic growth, "the relatively well educated and relatively creative are disproportionately important."

Where Mr. Florida adds a new twist, however, is to argue that while the creative class is unquestionably a blessing to the economy as a whole, at the regional level the picture is hardly so rosy. Heralding a "pattern of geographic and class segmentation far worse than any we've ever had," he says, the creative class may mean boom times for one city and obsolescence for another. The reason, he contends, is that this tattooed and espresso-sipping set is unusually finicky. According to conventional economic theory, workers settle in those cities that offer them the highest-paying jobs in their fields. But creative-class workers, Mr. Florida says, are more particular: they choose cities for their tolerant environments and diverse populations as well as good jobs. ...

This, in essence, is Mr. Florida's "creative capital theory." As he put it during a recent interview in Manhattan, "You cannot get a technologically innovative place unless it's open to weirdness, eccentricity and difference."  ...

Most economists would agree, but that doesn't mean they buy Mr. Florida's creative capital theory as the explanation. "My view is that the best thing in terms of economic development is to invest in your centers of higher education," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a company in West Chester, Pa., that tracks regional growth. "It's no surprise that Austin came up in the last 10 to 15 years. The University of Texas got all that oil money and invested it in technology." ...

Mr. Cushing went on to test the human-capital theory. But though he found an impressive correlation between a city's percentage of college-educated people and growth, he was not completely satisfied. "There are more than 100 university communities, and only 20 cities stand out as places in which it would appear that high-tech development is quite outstanding," Mr. Cushing said. "How do we explain Austin?" Finally, and with a good deal of doubt, he turned to Mr. Florida's theory. "When you hear about these cities that have gays or bohos, it doesn't sound scientific," he said. "It sounds gimmicky." To his surprise, the creative-capital theory turned out — at least after preliminary testing — to provide the best explanation for Austin's high-tech transformation. "I started the exercise very skeptical of the creative-class notion," said Mr. Cushing, whose findings are discussed in a continuing series of articles in the American-Statesman. "And was astonished by the results."
 
EVERYTHING REPRODUCED ABOVE CAN BE FOUND AT THE WEB SITE BELOW (WHERE'S THERE'S MUCH, MUCH MORE):

http://www.creativeclass .org/index.shtml

==================================

ANOTHER SNIPPET FROM MY READING:

Reverse brain drain threatens U.S. economy

By Alan M. Webber

Until recently, if Americans heard the words "brain drain," they knew clearly what that meant: Bright, talented scientists, engineers and other techies from all over the world were migrating to the United States. They were drawn here by the world's best universities, the most dynamic companies, the freest economic and social environment and the highest standard of living.
Today, while many of these conditions still apply, Americans are starting to hear a new term: "reverse brain drain." What it suggests is the United States is pursuing government and private-sector policies that, over the long run, could lead to a significant shift in the world's balance of brainpower.

Recently, President Bush's chief economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, touted the advantages for U.S. firms of outsourcing jobs overseas. But that trend, if left unattended, could have serious implications for this country's economic competitiveness.

For its part, the federal government seems intent on letting "controversial" scientists — for example, those dealing with research that touches on the issue of abortion — go to other countries and keeping foreign talent out. U.S. companies are happy to outsource knowledge work while, at the same time, buying out the contracts of their most experienced workers — all in the name of reducing costs. And the one sure way to grow new brains — a high-quality educational system — has failed to produce enough homegrown talent.

As the economy globalizes, and as first-class creative minds go abroad, stay abroad or are produced abroad, other nations may challenge the United States' role as the leader in innovation and creativity. The prospect of that challenge tomorrow — more than the loss of jobs today — is what the debate over America's economic future ought to be about.

First, recent government policies are sending talented U.S.-based researchers overseas and clamping down on the arrival of new researchers to this country. A recent article by Carnegie Mellon professor Richard Florida in The Washington Monthly magazine makes a persuasive case that the Bush administration's policies are shooting this country's economy in the, well, the brain. Florida's book, The Rise of the Creative Class, demonstrates that the most competitive communities are those that have the highest concentration of talented individuals, a high degree of technological innovation and a high level of tolerance for diverse lifestyles.

But, Florida says, the United States is losing its edge in these categories. . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-23- economy-edit_x.htm

MORE GLEANINGS FROM MY READING:

Study Shows that the Nonprofit Arts Industry Generates $134 Billion in Economic Activity and $24 Billion in Tax Revenues in U.S.

Study Is Based On Surveys Of 3,000 Local Arts Organizations And 40,000 Attendees At Arts Events In 91 Cities In 33 States Washington, D.C.— June 10, 2002 —

Americans for the Arts announced today the results of the most comprehensive impact study of the nonprofit arts industry ever conducted in the United States. Entitled Arts & Economic Prosperity: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts Organizations and Their Audiences, the report is based on surveys of 3,000 nonprofit arts organizations and 40,000 attendees at arts events in 91 cities in 33 states, plus the District of Columbia. The study reveals that America’s nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year, resulting in $24.4 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues. The $134 billion total includes $53.2 billion in spending by arts organizations and $80.8 billion in event-related spending by arts audiences:
The $53.2 billion represents a 45 percent increase (from $36.8 billion) since 1992, when Americans for the Arts last studied spending by arts organizations.
The $80.8 billion in event-related spending by arts audiences reflects an average of $22.87 per person in spending for hotels, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, refreshments, or other similar costs—with non-local attendees spending nearly twice as much as local attendees ($38.05 compared to $21.75). The $134 billion in total economic activity has a significant national impact, generating the following:
4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs
$89.4 billion in household income
$6.6 billion in local government tax revenues
$7.3 billion in state government tax revenues
$10.5 billion in federal income tax revenues“When communities invest in the arts, there is a tendency to think that they are opting for cultural benefits at the expense of economic benefits,” stated Robert L. Lynch, President and CEO for Americans for the Arts. “This study demonstrates that the arts are an industry that generates extraordinary economic activity, jobs, and tax revenues. When we say that the arts mean business, that’s not just a slogan; it’s the truth.” The study was conducted by Americans for the Arts in 91 communities in 2000 and 2001. The diverse communities range in population (4,000 to 3,000,000), geography (Anchorage to Miami), and type (rural to large urban). Local arts agencies—public and private organizations working to increase community access to and participation in the arts—served as local research partners, collecting detailed expenditure data from 3,000 nonprofit arts organizations and 40,000 audience members. The project economists, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, customized input/output analysis models for each of the 91 communities to provide specific and reliable economic impact data about their nonprofit arts industry. The national estimates were derived by using a conservative four-step process. First, the 91 communities were stratified into six population groups, and an economic impact average was determined for each group. Second, the nation’s 19,372 cities were assigned to one of the six groups based on their population (supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau). Third, each city was then assigned the economic impact average for its population group. Finally, the values of these 19,372 cities were added together to determine the national economic impact of the nonprofit arts industry. The three largest U.S. cities (New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago)—each with more than $1 billion in organizational expenditures alone—were excluded from this study to avoid inflating the national estimates. The study was funded by the American Express Company, the National Endowment for the Arts, and community-based arts partners in each of the 91 cities. “Our involvement in funding the arts has shown what an important role the arts play in the quality of the community.  We also have seen how the arts are central to the economic growth and vitality of communities around the world,” said Mary Beth Salerno, President, American Express Foundation.  “This study adds to the prior research and we hope it will be a tool that can continue to build the case that investing in the arts is good policy and good business.” The full text of the report is available at www.AmericansFo rTheArts.org/EconomicImpact Americans for the Arts is the leading nonprofit organization for advancing the arts in America. With offices in Washington, DC, and New York City, it has a 40-year record of objective arts industry research. Americans for the Arts is dedicated to representing and serving local communities and creating opportunities for every American to participate in and appreciate all forms of the arts. Additional information is available at www.AmericansForTheArts.org. #             ;          #             ;          #

 http://artsusa.org/p ress/prcontent.asp?id=59

MORE GLEANINGS:

Study of ARTS AND THE KENTUCKY ECONOMY performed at The University of Kentucky (the one in Lexington, by business professors tenured there) during the period when AD was a resident of that state:

http://www.kyarts.org/artsecon.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"MORE GLEANINGS: Study of ARTS AND THE KENTUCKY ECONOMY performed at The University of Kentucky (the one in Lexington, by business professors tenured there) during the period when AD was a resident of that state:http://www.kyarts.org/artsecon.htm"

---

Here's the hot link:  http://www.kyarts.org/artsecon .htm

I had to figure out the hard way that you have to hit the enter button after pasting a link or it won't be a hot link.