COEP DEAN - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 9, 2006

COEP DEAN

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Piercing it Together wrote:

Is anyone else as outraged as I am that Pierce is being virtually ignored in the newest debacle of this College???

Evidently not.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

I am!!!!! I'm especially outraged after the Dean attended our faculty meeting today and told us how special we are, how hard we work, and how he supports us. When I asked him what public support we could expect from him, given recent events, he basically told us that he wouldn't do anything publicly (although he'd continue to "plod along" [his words] in his efforts to work with the Provost and President).

And now, to borrow from the legendary Charlie Noblin:
There, I said it.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

HEST wrote:

I am!!!!! I'm especially outraged after the Dean attended our faculty meeting today and told us how special we are, how hard we work, and how he supports us. When I asked him what public support we could expect from him, given recent events, he basically told us that he wouldn't do anything publicly (although he'd continue to "plod along" [his words] in his efforts to work with the Provost and President). And now, to borrow from the legendary Charlie Noblin: There, I said it.

Outrage, disappointment, dismay, confusion, disbelief; are there any other descriptors? I could see it on the face of us all; senior and junior faculty. We came to the meeting today hoping to gather some sense of hope, but did not leave with much, if any. It is obvious to me that the data that keep being produced regarding the Psychology Department (and we know how to do data!!!!) do not merit the cancellation of all our searches. No matter how one looks at it, our data suggest that we merit at least some of our searches, if not all. But this I know, we deserve at the very least for people to be honest and forthright with us. Many of us have devoted a great deal to this University, and this is the least that we are due.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

to Joe--many of us who have had contact with you over the years know how much you have given to this university. I am sorry that you and your colleagues are going through this. I am sad for you---for all of those who have given and been kicked in the face.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

It's so obvious that this is blatant retaliation. However, what would happen if Dean Pierce resigned tomorrow? Would Dana be appointed as "interim"? Could Dean Pierce be painted into a corner, powerless against Thames, but still holding that one card of keeping her out of the position? This is just a thought.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

This will be an interesting test of how much Dr. Meredith will stand for. Is Psych at any risk with their accrediting body?

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Psychology Faculty:

It really hurts when your dean sells you out to Thames, doesn't it?

Sincerely,

The Entire CoB Faculty

Date: Mar 9, 2006

This seems so big and important (especially when also held up alongside the course load moves). Is it time for the faculty to consider another vote of no confidence? SFT has obviously found a way to gnaw through the weak bands of his IHL imposed muzzle. Maybe it is once again time to make a stand.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

COB, I forget -- which of your departments is being singled out for punishment by the Dome because faculty members directly confronted Dr. Thames, or took leadership roles in AAUP, or even posted to this board with their own names?

One would think that your troubles would make you more sympathetic, rather than stooping to cheap shots.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

LVN wrote:

COB, I forget -- which of your departments is being singled out for punishment by the Dome because faculty members directly confronted Dr. Thames, or took leadership roles in AAUP, or even posted to this board with their own names?

One would think that your troubles would make you more sympathetic, rather than stooping to cheap shots.

I don't recall much sympathy when Doty was intimidating junior faculty in an effort to ram the online MBA down the CoB faculty's throat because Thames told him to do so.

I don't recall much sympathy when Doty went after the faculty member who exposed his crooked contract for promotion.

I don't recall much sympathy when the CoB's Grad Assistants were being taken away and reallocated to CoEP, CoST, and CoAL by Grimes.

We exposed our issues on the board and got no substantive assistance from our sister colleges. You all stood by mute while a policy was passed that was favorable to you but unfavorable to the CoB. Don't expect much sympathy from us now that the tables have turned.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

You did not answer my question.

As for the particulars of your other comments, I'm not on the faculty and I can't address them, but I'm sure others on this board can. Nevertheless, I'm trying to think of a COB faculty member who has stood against Thames (not your Dean, but Thames directly) openly and by name. I am trying to think of a COB faculty who posts on this board by name.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

LVN wrote:

You did not answer my question. As for the particulars of your other comments, I'm not on the faculty and I can't address them, but I'm sure others on this board can. Nevertheless, I'm trying to think of a COB faculty member who has stood against Thames (not your Dean, but Thames directly) openly and by name. I am trying to think of a COB faculty who posts on this board by name.

I can, but if I put his name up here, he will only get attacked. There has been enough slander about him written on this board. I'm pretty sure he doesn't post to this board, but he finds or makes his own venues. He has stood up to Thames and Doty inspite of attacks by the administrative toadies. Speaking of Gary Cooper in High Noon ....

Date: Mar 10, 2006

LVN wrote:

You did not answer my question.

As for the particulars of your other comments, I'm not on the faculty and I can't address them, but I'm sure others on this board can. Nevertheless, I'm trying to think of a COB faculty member who has stood against Thames (not your Dean, but Thames directly) openly and by name. I am trying to think of a COB faculty who posts on this board by name.

Oh, Honey. You still believe this is about standing up to Shelby? This is nothing more than an internal squabble that has gone public. First the Psychology department declares open war on Dana Thames and then they expect their dean or the president to back them? It's really sweet that you're so naive at your age.

You say that you're trying to think of CoB faculty who have stood up. While you're thinking, why don't you think of the fact that the CoB turned out en masse to vote No Confidence against Shelby, even with all the spies around? Why don't you think of the CoB faculty senators who spoke out in the Hattiesburg American and on WDAM regarding the FS No Confidence vote, Shelby's inept leadership, or the other ills of USM? Why don't you think of the CoB PUC representative who sat across the table from Shelby and openly criticized Shelby's plans on a regular basis, again quoted in the Hattiesburg American and this board?

In your world, there's apparently only one way to fight Thames. That way is to post some anti-Shelby sentiment on this board using your real name. If your apparent beliefs are true then you're one of the most clueless people I've ever heard of.

But this isn't about any of that. What it is about is a department with a 2/2 teaching load asking for more lines and getting denied. Now they're pissed and want someone else to blame. At flagship institutions all over the South, research active faculty who teach in doctoral programs teach a 2/2 load or MORE. Psychology has advanced the argument that a 2/2 is a heavy load for such individuals. This was an attempt to make life a little sweeter in Psych and it failed. Who can blame Shelby for denying the positions when the stated goal is to get faculty down to half of their IHL-mandated 4/4 teaching load?

Psych should have gone to the table with a better argument than "We need a 2/2." or "But you gave your daughter's department their positions!" Who didn't expect inclusion of Dana Thames in the argument to anger Shelby? Again, the whole thing is incredibly naive.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

LVN wrote:

You did not answer my question. As for the particulars of your other comments, I'm not on the faculty and I can't address them, but I'm sure others on this board can. Nevertheless, I'm trying to think of a COB faculty member who has stood against Thames (not your Dean, but Thames directly) openly and by name. I am trying to think of a COB faculty who posts on this board by name.

LVN,

The comments of letter bomber do not reflect a generally held position with in COB. Many of us in COB are very concerned about the situation in the psychology department. A colleague and I enjoyed lunch on Tuesday with a member of the department. As for the situations in COB described by the letter bomber, the comments are a perverted twist of the truth.

The comment of “I don't recall much sympathy when Doty went after the faculty member who exposed his crooked contract for promotion” is a total distortion of truth. The victum was not the whistle blower but the colleague that had his privacy violated by the University committee on tenure and promotion. This faculty member deserves an apology from the University Committee. The ability of some of my colleagues to “twist the truth to make traps for fools” is most unfortunate. I have been gratified by the ability of posters from outside the college to engage some Cob posters in rational thought and to challenge their assertions. As for not posting on this board by name, you have read the threads on COB and pretty much decided to stay away from them as they are irrational, abusive and often devoid of facts. Anyone who uses their name in a COB thread is likely to be flamed by people like the bomber. In addition, I always enjoy your posts to the board. Thank you, LVN

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Why in the hell does USM have to be second-rate to Ole Miss and State? They teach 2-2 loads if their department has a PhD program - that is the norm nation wide. Don't denigrate a department that already does more than their share in every standard of measurement for simply trying to meet a nation-wide standard. Don't talk to us about IHL mandated this or that when the reality at Ole Miss and State is so different from here. USM is not only not "world class" it is not "American class" or even "Mississippi class."

Date: Mar 10, 2006

LVN wrote:

COB, I forget -- which of your departments is being singled out for punishment by the Dome because faculty members directly confronted Dr. Thames, or took leadership roles in AAUP, or even posted to this board with their own names? One would think that your troubles would make you more sympathetic, rather than stooping to cheap shots.

Hey you guys -- even if this person is from the COB he/she can't speak for all of that faculty. Don't let him/her create or execerbate divisions between colleges -- we are all in the same boat one way or another. We sink together or we float together.

On the other hand, it would be apropriate for the psych facuty to urge their colleagues in Ed to stand up for them -- that will do more than anything else. The CISE folks need to think beyond what they stand to gain for the moment and look at the long term damage this is going to create in their college, the loss of morale, the divisiveness.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Letter Bomb wrote:

LVN wrote: You did not answer my question. As for the particulars of your other comments, I'm not on the faculty and I can't address them, but I'm sure others on this board can. Nevertheless, I'm trying to think of a COB faculty member who has stood against Thames (not your Dean, but Thames directly) openly and by name. I am trying to think of a COB faculty who posts on this board by name. Oh, Honey. You still believe this is about standing up to Shelby? This is nothing more than an internal squabble that has gone public. First the Psychology department declares open war on Dana Thames and then they expect their dean or the president to back them? It's really sweet that you're so naive at your age. You say that you're trying to think of CoB faculty who have stood up. While you're thinking, why don't you think of the fact that the CoB turned out en masse to vote No Confidence against Shelby, even with all the spies around? Why don't you think of the CoB faculty senators who spoke out in the Hattiesburg American and on WDAM regarding the FS No Confidence vote, Shelby's inept leadership, or the other ills of USM? Why don't you think of the CoB PUC representative who sat across the table from Shelby and openly criticized Shelby's plans on a regular basis, again quoted in the Hattiesburg American and this board? In your world, there's apparently only one way to fight Thames. That way is to post some anti-Shelby sentiment on this board using your real name. If your apparent beliefs are true then you're one of the most clueless people I've ever heard of. But this isn't about any of that. What it is about is a department with a 2/2 teaching load asking for more lines and getting denied. Now they're pissed and want someone else to blame. At flagship institutions all over the South, research active faculty who teach in doctoral programs teach a 2/2 load or MORE. Psychology has advanced the argument that a 2/2 is a heavy load for such individuals. This was an attempt to make life a little sweeter in Psych and it failed. Who can blame Shelby for denying the positions when the stated goal is to get faculty down to half of their IHL-mandated 4/4 teaching load? Psych should have gone to the table with a better argument than "We need a 2/2." or "But you gave your daughter's department their positions!" Who didn't expect inclusion of Dana Thames in the argument to anger Shelby? Again, the whole thing is incredibly naive.

LB -- you aren't paying attention. They did go with a better argument -- they went with facts and stats. TO DATE the administration has not countered the Psych argument with its own facts -- but have merely asserted that it has different facts. TheProvost did not even know that the 2/2 was new this year and the reasoning behind it -- so how deep could the administration's research have been.

The dome operates on anecdote and the biases of its chief. No more, no less. A less academic process could hardly be invented.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Professor Judd:

Fact: USM's standard load is a 4/4 by IHL mandate.
Fact: Psych has a 2/2 load.
Fact: Psych wants to hire more faculty.

Regardless of other "facts" presented or "statistics" concocted, this is indefensible. What will Psych do with the new lines? Decrease loads to a 1/1? Lighten the number of students on the current 2/2?

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Direct personal attacks on posters will be deleted.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Moderator wrote:

Direct personal attacks on posters will be deleted.

Then you need to start deleting lies told in an attempt to further an agenda as well.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Letter Bomb wrote:

Professor Judd: Fact: USM's standard load is a 4/4 by IHL mandate. Fact: Psych has a 2/2 load. Fact: Psych wants to hire more faculty. Regardless of other "facts" presented or "statistics" concocted, this is indefensible. What will Psych do with the new lines? Decrease loads to a 1/1? Lighten the number of students on the current 2/2?

SFT's personal load in the Polymer Program was 1/0 for many years as a university distinquished professor before becoming president.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

OK. . .all my attempt to ignore Letter Bomber aren't working for me anymore. Sorry to the rest of you. . . I know you all already know this about us in psychology.

1) No, we don't want to go to a 1/1, and we've never asserted that 2/2 is too heavy a load for anyone. We're in our first year of an attempt to see what a 2/2 load will do for unit productivity. We're asking for a chance to demonstrate this plan CAN work (and is, based on our data). We have high standards, set by Stan, for what we have to do to keep our individual 2/2 loads. We want to be able to maintain a research active teaching load (and BTW, not all faculty in the dept. on on the 2/2) and be able to increase our undergraduate offering as well as cover our grad classes. It'd be nice to be able to offer some alternative, elective courses (e.g., Psychology of Women, Psych of Religion, ABA, etc.) to our undergrads once in a while.

2) As Joe has pointed out before, we have plenty of data to support our request for at least some of our lines.

3) Dana T -- Trust me, we have far better things to do in our day-to-day lives than worry about her. Or rather, we have better things to do, but the seemingly preferential treatment of her dept does now impact our day-to-day. Some of us don't particularly care for her, the way she manages her department, or the manner in which she interacts in professional settings. But we don't have the time or energy to come together as a dept. to declare war on her. We're just pointing out what seems to be inequitable treatment. Come by and see the data some time, unless you're one of those people who don't like data to confuse them.

We're tired of justifying our very existence constantly. It actually keeps us from doing what we love to do -- teach, mentor, and research. I have a handful of manuscripts I could have worked on the last few days, but I spent all my time pulling together data justifying a hire in school psychology. Now that I'm done with that, I'll get back to my writing.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

HEST--two questions. 1--how many faculty are on the 2/2 load? 2--what criteria are used to determine whether someone gets that load?

Date: Mar 10, 2006

HEST wrote:

We're tired of justifying our very existence constantly. It actually keeps us from doing what we love to do -- teach, mentor, and research.

Just one point. Justifying your "existence" and justifying a "2/2 load" are very different things.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Letter Bomb wrote:

Professor Judd: Fact: USM's standard load is a 4/4 by IHL mandate. Fact: Psych has a 2/2 load. Fact: Psych wants to hire more faculty. Regardless of other "facts" presented or "statistics" concocted, this is indefensible. What will Psych do with the new lines? Decrease loads to a 1/1? Lighten the number of students on the current 2/2?

This was the line put forth by Dr. Thames, almost word for word. Interesting.

Dear Dr. Thames:

A 2/2 load for research active faculty in a psychology doc program is indefensible? Better call the Presidents of Ole Miss, Alabama, Florida State, Tennessee, and Miss State and school them. I'm sure they would appreciate the insight.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Are the ten psychology lines ten NEW positions or are some of them replacement? CISE is getting 14, but aren't some of those replacements?

Also, based on the quick look I got at letter bomb's nasty post before it vanished, he's somebody in the cob.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Little point -- Yes, you're right. They are two different things. But when we are constantly asked to provide data and justification to the the Central Administration (who seem to think micromanaging is a good use of resources and chairs can't make reasonable decisions), it starts to wear on you. And you do feel as if you spend the majority of your work time justifying your existence).

SCM -- No, I can't tell you how many faculty teach above the 2/2; I don't have anything to do with the teaching schedule outside of my own program. I can think of at least 2 faculty offhand, though. But if you look at our publications levels of our faculty (I believe Mitch posted them on another thread recently), the 2/2 seems to be justified for those on it. I don't have the criteria here with me either today, sorry. Maybe someone else in psych can post it, but it comes down to x number of publication and grant submissions per year.

Please Clarify -- All lines are replacements as far as I know. We've lost a lot of people in the last few years (see one of the departure lists). Some lines are shifts -- e.g., moving a line from the defunct I/O program to another area, but I'm pretty confident when I say that the 10 lines are all existing lines (I might be wrong, though). Five of the 14 searches for CISEs are new lines.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

A teaching load of two 3-hour courses per semester for productive faculty members is not unusual in doctoral-granting departments of psychology. Mitch, HEST (whoever that is) and Joe Olmi are correct. I've known such a reduction to be standard for productive faculty members at all of the five major doctoral-level universities where I held appointments during my 42 years in academics.

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Stephen wrote:

LVN, The comments of letter bomber do not reflect a generally held position with in COB. Many of us in COB are very concerned about the situation in the psychology department. A colleague and I enjoyed lunch on Tuesday with a member of the department. As for the situations in COB described by the letter bomber, the comments are a perverted twist of the truth. The comment of “I don't recall much sympathy when Doty went after the faculty member who exposed his crooked contract for promotion” is a total distortion of truth. The victum was not the whistle blower but the colleague that had his privacy violated by the University committee on tenure and promotion. This faculty member deserves an apology from the University Committee. The ability of some of my colleagues to “twist the truth to make traps for fools” is most unfortunate. I have been gratified by the ability of posters from outside the college to engage some Cob posters in rational thought and to challenge their assertions. As for not posting on this board by name, you have read the threads on COB and pretty much decided to stay away from them as they are irrational, abusive and often devoid of facts. Anyone who uses their name in a COB thread is likely to be flamed by people like the bomber. In addition, I always enjoy your posts to the board. Thank you, LVN

Joe Olmi, if you ate lunch on Tuesday with "Stephen" and his colleague, then you almost definitely got a very distorted view of what went on regarding the a promotion in the CoB. You should talk to others.