Sad time for MSU and USM - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Sad time for MSU and USM

Date: Mar 28, 2006

brown bag wrote:

He will probably reallocate money to MSU's specialties - ag, engineering, vet.

I seriously doubt that, Brownie. Most likely the new president will aggressiely bolster MSU's liberal arts and sciences in an attempt to make that university a major player nationally in the image of top land grant institutions. Just because the new president holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering doesn't mean he doesn't know what it takes to move a univerity forward. Unless something is done very soon, I see the gap continuing to increase between USM and Mississippi's "other two."

Date: Mar 28, 2006

And then there were two wrote:

...Just because the new president holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering doesn't mean he doesn't know what it takes to move a univerity forward. ...

Chemical Engineering ???!!!! Isn't that about the same as Polymer Science? Hey, this has possibilities!

Date: Mar 28, 2006

I seriously doubt that, Brownie. Most likely the new president will aggressiely bolster MSU's liberal arts and sciences in an attempt to make that university a major player nationally in the image of top land grant institutions. Just because the new president holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering doesn't mean he doesn't know what it takes to move a univerity forward. Unless something is done very soon, I see the gap continuing to increase between USM and Mississippi's "other two."

This is the accurate assessment.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Retiree 3 wrote:

I seriously doubt that, Brownie. Most likely the new president will aggressiely bolster MSU's liberal arts and sciences in an attempt to make that university a major player nationally in the image of top land grant institutions. Just because the new president holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering doesn't mean he doesn't know what it takes to move a univerity forward. Unless something is done very soon, I see the gap continuing to increase between USM and Mississippi's "other two." This is the accurate assessment.

Except that MSU has no chance to be a major player nationally.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

joright wrote:

Except that MSU has no chance to be a major player nationally.

You might be surprised how many MSU doctorates are highly respected faculty members in A&M universities across the nation. Given the right leadership MSU will make it in other areas too. The General may be that leader.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Joker wrote:

Chemical Engineering ???!!!! Isn't that about the same as Polymer Science? Hey, this has possibilities!

Most good presidents (as well as deans) at other schools go out of they way not to favor their own discipline. There is no reason to believe that the new MSU president will be an exception to that general rule.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Cow bells ringing wrote:

joright wrote:
Except that MSU has no chance to be a major player nationally.
You might be surprised how many MSU doctorates are highly respected faculty members in A&M universities across the nation. Given the right leadership MSU will make it in other areas too. The General may be that leader.

Cow bells ringing--you are absolutely right about this.

Joright--MSU has a much better chance than USM now.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Retiree 3 wrote:

Joright--MSU has a much better chance than USM now.

There was a time when USM was but a short third behind MSU and Ole Miss. Now USM is a distant third and is getting even further behind as the finish line approaches. USM shot itself in the foot and is limping badly. It was an inside job with a little help from the jockeys in Jackson.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Disregarding how good or bad the General will be for MSU, I hope his works out for the sake of MSU. Upon reflecting about the selection process at MSU and many of the quotes, I am struck by how the job of President of a university is viewed. For instance, anyone who has been successful in managing something other than a university is considered a good candidate for president of a university. In the eyes of some, it is a bonus if they are not an academic. Only in a very few instances does it work the other way. Retiring as a president of a university will not put you in the running to be a general in the military on the basis that he/she is not qualified because of not coming up through the ranks. Even if the ex president served four years or even eight years before moving up in the administrative ranks. Once in a great while an ex university president is hired as a CEO of a corporation, but that is rare.

There are multiple answers to this situation. Perhaps, once you become a faculty member it is prima facie evidence that you are an incapable human being. Perhaps managing a university is so easy that almost anyone who can walk and chew gum can do it, but then why spend so much time and effort searching?

Date: Mar 28, 2006

joright wrote:

Except that MSU has no chance to be a major player nationally.

This isn't exactly correct. I'm at a land grant institution in another state and can attest that MSU's programs in engineering and veterinary medicine are highly respected here and I believe throughout the country. We have several MSU PhD's on our faculty and they're all regarded as top notch. I can't speak to their other programs however.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

I believe that having a military officer head a university is a big mistake. He will bring attributes such as love of country and love of the military,beliefs that don't go over well with college faculty. Sure,professors will say ,"we love our country,"but actions speak louder than words. All the profs want their school to be just like the "Tier 1" schools. You know the Tier 1,they're the folks who prohibit ROTC on campus. I know if it were up to the faculty they'd have the ROTC unit in Richton,instead of on campus.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

AB, you can rephrase your comment.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Moderator wrote:

AB, you can rephrase your comment.

Would something containing the phrase "where the sun don't shine" be acceptable?

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Cold and True wrote:

I believe that having a military officer head a university is a big mistake. He will bring attributes such as love of country and love of the military,beliefs that don't go over well with college faculty. Sure,professors will say ,"we love our country,"but actions speak louder than words. All the profs want their school to be just like the "Tier 1" schools. You know the Tier 1,they're the folks who prohibit ROTC on campus. I know if it were up to the faculty they'd have the ROTC unit in Richton,instead of on campus.

This is not so much the issue. The issue is that as "commander in chief" he will bring a top-down management style that does not respect the traditions of shared governance in academia.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

foot soldier wrote:

This is not so much the issue. The issue is that as "commander in chief" he will bring a top-down management style that does not respect the traditions of shared governance in academia.

And you know this how? Are you acquainted with the man? Have you ever spoken with anyone who is acquainted with him, or is familiar with his management style? Have you any evidence whatever to support your statement other than the fact that he achieved high rank in the Air Force?

Date: Mar 28, 2006

And you know this how? Are you acquainted with the man? Have you ever spoken with anyone who is acquainted with him, or is familiar with his management style? Have you any evidence whatever to support your statement other than the fact that he achieved high rank in the Air Force?

The same we know about other issues that have probabilities. The same way that a military officer anticipates what an enemy will do. We depend on prior information and forecasts. The transition from military to university president is not trivial. The record of military people running universities is not good. USM has a sample of 1, McCain who used the lessons learned in the military to run USM and ran it badly. Simply put, there is not a great deal of overlap between the skills of a successful military officer and a successful college president. Your request is that we should judge him as an individual rather than as a statistic. Since he chose to be a secret candidate, we already know something about him that is not good. He did not have the courage to say, I will not be a candidate in a search that is secret. Thus, he has to prove to MSU that he should be president rather than telling the MSU faculty that they have to wait before determining if he is up to the job.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

foot soldier wrote:

Cold and True wrote: I believe that having a military officer head a university is a big mistake. He will bring attributes such as love of country and love of the military,beliefs that don't go over well with college faculty. Sure,professors will say ,"we love our country,"but actions speak louder than words. All the profs want their school to be just like the "Tier 1" schools. You know the Tier 1,they're the folks who prohibit ROTC on campus. I know if it were up to the faculty they'd have the ROTC unit in Richton,instead of on campus. This is not so much the issue. The issue is that as "commander in chief" he will bring a top-down management style that does not respect the traditions of shared governance in academia.

I'm not sure this is true, although I agree with probabilities are at least sobering. Of at least equal concern is whether someone from so far outside of academia will be able to find an excellent provost -- I'm not sure what pool he has on his own. The problem with not being closely connected to academia is that you then have to rely on an awful lot of advice that may not be counterweighted by your own experience.

Stil, he has been connected to the intelectual community in other ways, so this is not without some possibility. Contemporary military officers in high mangerial positions are often extremely well educated and quite sophisticated. Given Fogelson's command locations, i'd expect him to be pretty enightened.

By the way, it is interesting to me that while it seems to be common for people to think that any good executive can head a university, the reverse is not true. Haven't heard of many university Presidents being hired to run GM or take the reigns at CENTCOM (or even the War College, for that matter).

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Cossack wrote:

The same we know about other issues that have probabilities. The same way that a military officer anticipates what an enemy will do. We depend on prior information and forecasts. The transition from military to university president is not trivial. The record of military people running universities is not good. USM has a sample of 1, McCain who used the lessons learned in the military to run USM and ran it badly. Simply put, there is not a great deal of overlap between the skills of a successful military officer and a successful college president. Your request is that we should judge him as an individual rather than as a statistic. Since he chose to be a secret candidate, we already know something about him that is not good. He did not have the courage to say, I will not be a candidate in a search that is secret. Thus, he has to prove to MSU that he should be president rather than telling the MSU faculty that they have to wait before determining if he is up to the job.

Cossack, this reaction surprises me, especially coming from you. For starters, I've made no request. I don't know the individual beyond having examined his vita, which I find impressive. I was merely posing the obvious questions. How do you know he chose to be a secret candidate? Perhaps he was honoring the selection process mandated by the IHL? Are you suggesting that any candidate considered by the committee, be he a professional academic or otherwise, is lacking in courage for having complied with IHL selection procedures? Judging from his vita, if he's lacking in any quality I seriously doubt it's courage. Do you further generalize that anyone who was a candidate for the MSU presidency has something about them which you deem, a priori, as "not good," or are you condemning only the general? What examples can you give of unsuccessful university presidencies of individuals with military experience other than McCain, who by any objective assessment was an autocratic dinosaur? Is there data to support your assertion? Can you not also recount similar, or worse examples of non-military types who authored equally disastrous presidencies, such as Thames? Why are you summarily dismissive of military experience? Do you believe Frank Glamser and the many other former military officers who later joined the academy are forever tainted? While I certainly understand and support an open search process with faculty input, in this case it didn't occur and you seem to hold the new president responsible for the actions of Meredith and the IHL, and the prior actions of McCain. It seems a stretch to write off General Fogelson (or is it Fogelberg?) before he's uttered a word. For my part, I hope he's a brilliant administrator who does great things for MSU.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Former Officer, Now A Prof wrote:

...It seems a stretch to write off General Fogelson (or is it Fogelberg?) before he's uttered a word. ...

The name, sir, is General Fogelsong!! And don't you forget it. Do you now have that straight? I don't want to come down here again.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

The Name wrote:

Former Officer, Now A Prof wrote: ...It seems a stretch to write off General Fogelson (or is it Fogelberg?) before he's uttered a word. ...

The name, sir, is General Fogelsong!! And don't you forget it. Do you now have that straight? I don't want to come down here again.

I'm very sorry General Fogelsong. It was a keystroke error. It won't happen again.

By the way, I just read in another thread that the General took the stage and chimed in on a Lynyrd Skynyrd tune at a recent function. While it's not Dylan, I like the sound of it, referring to his style and not his singing voice.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Former Officer, Now A Prof,

Where to start? Like you, I hope he will be successful, not for his sake but for MSU. Perhaps a sports analogy might help. Let us assume that we are considering hiring a football coach for MSU. Among the candidates are many football coaches with varying degrees of success and General Fogelsong. You want MSU to have a competitive football program and at least beat Ole Miss. The search committee does the search in secret which hacks off many of the athletic boosters. The boosters are told that there is no need for them to be involved in the search. They grumble but they go along with the process. Lo and behold, the committee picks General Fogelsong since he once played football for West Virginia (that part is made up of course, but humor me). The boosters respond negatively, likely in a manner that makes MSU faculty's negative respond seem incidental. You make the same post to the MSU football boosters. While we have no evidence at this point, would you be able to speculate how the boosters would respond to your post? I imagine you would be subject to what has been term "serious dog cussing" by the boosters. If you cannot see the analogy, I will retire from the discussion.

Your defense of General Fogelsong going along with the secrecy because the Board wanted it pretty much shoots down your description of his character. If he disagreed with the secrecy issue, but went along to please the Board, it demonstrates that he is not very independent. It also demonstrates that he did not know before hand the problems it will cause him, or that he knows and fully intends to ignore faculty.

One other issue that comes up from your post and many other posts is that until we have more information we should refrain from making judgments. It is circular reasoning; we do not have information because it was a secret search. General Fogelsong may soon provide a great deal of information or he may not. If he does not, then we are supposed to hold judgment until when? None of us have been critical of General Fogelsong as a military officer. In that capacity we have a great deal of information which points to being very successful. I also would like to believe that his actions during the search were due to ignorance of university search processes in general and ignorance about the hole it puts him at MSU. Whether or not you think it is fair that we make judgments, they will and have been made by faculty at MSU. General Fogelsong can take the SFT approach and tell faculty to go pound sand or quickly get up to speed with his mea culpas and gain the support of faculty. Time will tell.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Former Officer, Now A Prof, Where to start? Like you, I hope he will be successful, not for his sake but for MSU. Perhaps a sports analogy might help. ......If you cannot see the analogy, I will retire from the discussion. Your defense of General Fogelsong going along with the secrecy because the Board wanted it pretty much shoots down your description of his character. If he disagreed with the secrecy issue, but went along to please the Board, it demonstrates that he is not very independent. It also demonstrates that he did not know before hand the problems it will cause him, or that he knows and fully intends to ignore faculty. One other issue that comes up from your post and many other posts is that until we have more information we should refrain from making judgments. It is circular reasoning; we do not have information because it was a secret search. General Fogelsong may soon provide a great deal of information or he may not. If he does not, then we are supposed to hold judgment until when? None of us have been critical of General Fogelsong as a military officer. In that capacity we have a great deal of information which points to being very successful. I also would like to believe that his actions during the search were due to ignorance of university search processes in general and ignorance about the hole it puts him at MSU. Whether or not you think it is fair that we make judgments, they will and have been made by faculty at MSU. General Fogelsong can take the SFT approach and tell faculty to go pound sand or quickly get up to speed with his mea culpas and gain the support of faculty. Time will tell.

I have no problem with your football analogy so you can shelf that resignation from this discussion. Certainly I understand the faculty ire over not having been included in the search process. And once again, I am not mounting a "defense of General Fogelsong." I merely speculated on one possible explanation for a candidate accommodating the search process established by his potential employer, in this case the IHL. I don't know any more about him than do you. I'm simply posing questions begged by various of your assertions. You apparently hold General Fogelsong accountable for a secret search process devised and implemented by Meredith and the IHL. That seems beyond the pale. What standing does an applicant have to demand that he be interviewed in a particular manner? You ascribe character defects to him based on what? Assumptions you've made about his participation in the search, a process we know to be used by universities far more prestigious than MSU. I'll ask again whether you feel all candidates recently considered for the MSU presidency are, in your opinion, lacking in courage and suffering from a weakness of character because they participated in the process? Do you have the same low opinion of recent candidates for the presidencies of UNC-Chapel Hill, or Texas A&M, or UT-Austin? As for the fairness of making judgements, it matters little what I may think. We all make them every day and hopefully, more often than not, they're based on evidence. "Serious dog cussin" is fine too, not to mention greatly therapeutic. I only hope the Starkville (and Hattiesburg) snipers will hold their fire until such time as the gentleman provides them with a legitimate reason to be attacked. And mea culpas? For what? Gimme a break.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Former Officer, Now A Prof wrote:

... Do you have the same low opinion of recent candidates for the presidencies of UNC-Chapel Hill, or Texas A&M, or UT-Austin? ...

Former Officer, do you know that these institutions had the same type of "secret" process? Just because an institution has some part of the process secret doesn't make it similar to the process the IHL used. People are holding these examples of higher tier institutions using the "secret"process, but I'm not certain they were at all the same as the search at MSU. Thanks for any insight you can give on this.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

You apparently hold General Fogelsong accountable for a secret search process devised and implemented by Meredith and the IHL.

Nope, I only hold people accountable for their choices. I think that any candidate who has ambitions to lead a faculty is doing himself a disservice by being part of a secret process. However you interpret my concerns, I really do hope that he is successful. I also believe that he may have not thought at all about the issues surrounding the search. On another thread, there is a statement attributed to him that he wants to quickly gain the trust of the faculty. That is a good signal. Hopefully he will follow up with positive and timely action. I will avoid signing off any retorts such as give me a break. I think the positions you take on this are not unreasonable. However, I disagree with some of them, which seems to be offensive to you.

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Not A Bulldog wrote:

I'm at a land grant institution in another state and can attest that MSU's programs in engineering and veterinary medicine are highly respected here and I believe throughout the country. We have several MSU PhD's on our faculty and they're all regarded as top notch.

Not a Bulldog - I concur with you 100%. MSU Ph.D.s were highly regarded at all of the 3 land-grant institutions where I worked (Rutgers, LSU, and Virginia Tech).

Date: Mar 28, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I will avoid signing off any retorts such as give me a break. I think the positions you take on this are not unreasonable. However, I disagree with some of them, which seems to be offensive to you.

Cossack:

I'll attempt to be brief as my wife and daughter are awaiting a dinner out, on me. I take no offense at anything you've said. Quite the contrary, if your comments had been posted by anyone else I doubt I'd have taken the time to respond. I count you, LVN, SCM and a couple of others as the most consistently objective and thoughtful contributors to this forum. If you believe that "Gimme a break" is an unnecessarily flippant remark, then I apologize. That said, I stand by my earlier position that it's unreasonable to hold Fogelsong or any other candidate to the standards you apparently espouse, particularly when the IHL's selection process, undemocratic as it may be, is hardly the fault of the candidates. I posed several questions to you concerning your attitude toward other candidates for the MSU presidency, and other respected universities. I also asked whether you possessed data to support your assertions concerning the historically poor university stewardship by former military officers. Unless I missed it, I didn't see your answers. It seems to me that many faculty members at MSU, and USM, are thoroughly pi$$ed at the Meredith and the IHL for their under-the-table approach to selecting a president, and rightly so. Those hostilities are now being directed at Fogelsong rather than those who devised the system. That's my beef, and that's why I said gimme a break to your suggestion that Fogelsong should proffer mea culpas. If anyone should apologize, it's the individuals who devised and approved this secret process. Thanks for listening.

Date: Mar 29, 2006

Cossack:

I commend to you the opinion piece by Sid Salter printed in today's Jackson Clarion Ledger, "Foglesong Deserves A Fair Chance At MSU Command." Mr. Salter expresses my sentiments concerning the IHL, Dr. Meredith, General Foglesong, and the secret MSU selection process far better than I've been able to muster in my previous attempts. In better times, it's something I might have written. The link to his commentary is found in another thread, posted earlier this morning. I'll rest on Salter's words and apologize to you again for any comments I've made that you found flippant or personally offensive.

Date: Mar 29, 2006

Former Officer, Now A Prof,

I have read the Salter column and agree with it and you. It appears that we disagree because your view focuses on how we should respond to this situation. It would be great if MSU faculty and supporters do act as you propose. What I am suggesting is that should and will often are different. The new president's job has been made more difficult because of the nature of the search, and he will be handy for the faculty to blame. Life is not fair and, to some extent, the manner of his appointment will rankle for quite a while. Every mistake he makes, and we all do, will be magnified. It could have been avoided. He will have to spend much of his valuable time building fences internally when he could have been out raising money and support. He already faces a huge task in that he will HAVE to change his management style, and that also is a distraction. The Board has handicapped him with their action. Ironically, he likely would have applied regardless if it were secret or not, he had no job to protect. Hence picking him disproves Meridith's claim that good people will not apply if it is an open search. I do have one word of advice for him. He should drop the word General and dissuade anyone from using that term. He served our country well and we should be grateful, but he wears a different hat now and the past is the past. He now wears a different hat.

Date: Mar 29, 2006

Cossack wrote:
I do have one word of advice for him. He should drop the word General and dissuade anyone from using that term.

Even if he drop the term "General," his constituency will undooubtdly continue to use it when referring to him. Have you observed how many of the old guard in the South continue to be called "Colonel"? Yep, it'll be "The General" when the name of the new MSU president is mentioned.