Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> A Question About the MSU/USM Presidential Searches
Post Info TOPIC: A Question About the MSU/USM Presidential Searches
brown bag

Date:
A Question About the MSU/USM Presidential Searches
Permalink Closed

I have read several newspaper articles and all of the posts on this message board regarding the MSU presidential search, Fogelsong's appointment, and the feelings about the pending USM presidential search.

Why does anyone here think that the MSU search is in any way indicative of how the USM search will go? I cannot remember the last time I truly thought that the way MSU is treated and the way USM is treated are in any way related. Has USM ever been treated equitably in comparison to UM and MSU?

My immediate thought is that USM will have a completely "open" search with a bunch of dog candidates, plus the favorite of Meredith. By comparison, Meredith's choice will look acceptable to the public, and the IHL will name that person to succeed Thames. Faculty will look like whiners if we raise a flag in that situation -- we will have gotten a much more "open" search in terms of candidates' names being public, yet the outcome will still be decided by the private IHL vote, just as it was at MSU.

The Meredith candidate for USM would, in that instance, get no more support than Fogelsong will get at MSU because the USM faculty will feel like another president has been rammed down its throat.

In short, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't think USM's search will look anything like MSU's for the reasons stated above.



__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

brown bag,

There are some flaws in your logic. First, Meredith personally believes in secret searches and has made the point very clear. This was not situation specific. Second, to run a secret search at MSU and then an open search at USM without an intervention from the Board would only rile MSU supporters up more

__________________
Honest

Date:
Permalink Closed

At least the IHL search was an honest search.  They didn't want input from faculty or other groups, they didn't provide a means for input and kept the search totally closed for the beginning.  I think they learned their lesson from the Shelby Thames fiasco.  That also was a closed search, but it appeared to be open because input was allowed and provided by many stake holders.  But it wasn't really open.  The IHL never intended to pay attention to the input.  They weren't honest in that search, and only made the appearance of openness.

__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

At least the IHL search was an honest search. They didn't want input from faculty or other groups, they didn't provide a means for input and kept the search totally closed for the beginning. I think they learned their lesson from the Shelby Thames fiasco. That also was a closed search, but it appeared to be open because input was allowed and provided by many stake holders. But it wasn't really open. The IHL never intended to pay attention to the input. They weren't honest in that search, and only made the appearance of openness.

I agree with you. I do not like criminals who are sneaky and steal when you are not looking. I want them to stick a gun in my face and demand my money. Wait a minute, maybe not. I am confused, if I lose the money either way, which one would I choose? Am I concerned about the process or the outcome? Obviously, I need help with my thinking.

__________________
Jean Moulin

Date:
Permalink Closed

Meredith's "secret searches" are essential to instituting the new governance model, which makes the chief institutional officer accountable to the commissioner, and not one or more political faction(s) represented on the board.  Meredith (and the reformers on the board, who are at least for now are in charge) had to choose between a clean but closed process, and an apparently "open" process riven with politics and behind-the-scenes king-making shenanigans.  Such is the sorry state of university governance in Mississippi.


On the other hand: It may be benevolent dictatorship, but it's still dictatorship.  University faculty, staff and their representative bodies have no choice but to agitate for greater engagement in the process.  Having a new president announced without meaningful opportunities of input at various points in the search process simply won't do, no matter how pure the intention or beneficial the outcome.



__________________
Ralph Nader Memory

Date:
Permalink Closed


Cossack wrote:
I do not like criminals who are sneaky and steal when you are not looking. I want them to stick a gun in my face and demand my money. Wait a minute, maybe not. I am confused, if I lose the money either way, which one would I choose? Am I concerned about the process or the outcome? Obviously, I need help with my thinking.


Being pecked to death by a duck is still fatal.

__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

Meredith's "secret searches" are essential to instituting the new governance model, which makes the chief institutional officer accountable to the commissioner, and not one or more political faction(s) represented on the board. Meredith (and the reformers on the board, who are at least for now are in charge) had to choose between a clean but closed process, and an apparently "open" process riven with politics and behind-the-scenes king-making shenanigans. Such is the sorry state of university governance in Mississippi.

I have a problem believing that this search has avoided "behind-the-scenes king-making shenanigans" since Sonny Montgomery has one of his supporters

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> A Question About the MSU/USM Presidential Searches
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard