The average student at USM has no idea how to conduct himself or herself appropriately in many settings. Part of this is the awful culture that the Oak Grove community has on their children -- give them everything, make them work for no thing, and teach them by example that those in service industries (including public servants like educators) are a caste or two below. Couple this with the lack of respect (for authority, for education, for traditional means of elevating oneself) culture from downtown Hattiesburg, and Hattiesburg (the entire area) in general is not a very nice place to live. Courtesy is a dying concept as more and more young people are raised to believe that their wants are all that matters and that others exist to serve them. Parents fail to provide perspective in many instances, allowing or (worse) encouraging children to stand against rules they don't feel like following...it's like Thoreau turned on its ear. What can you expect from the nouveau riche, though?

I recall three years ago when a student wrote a letter to the Student Printz suggesting that faculty should park and walk to campus so that students could have the closer parking spaces. The writer's analogy was that workers at Wal-Mart are told to park out back or in the spaces farthest from the front door so that customers can park close. Just one example from the past.

Recently a colleague described an attempt at mutiny from a student who had not an academic leg to stand on. The student had missed a straightforward exam question and began to rally some other students against the "unfair" question. When the prof explained in detail (referencing class lectures) how the student's answer was incorrect, the student stated that the question was still "bulls#!t." The student eventually left class early, causing a scene as he left.

How can we continue to attempt to teach in an environment that has no rules other than "Do what you want"?

How can we continue to attempt to teach in an environment that has no rules other than "Do what you want"?

I have found that the grade of F changes the environment rather quickly. The bottom feeders do not last long if they get 3 or 4 Fs in a semester. While the suspension committees will let them back in if the student claims they had a hangnail during the semester, they can only hang around for a relatively short period. Administrators may whine a bit, but then you ask that administrator if he/she wants you to give away grades? If they are not clear, tell them to write you a memo stating clearly what they want you to do since you are confused. They usually mumble and go away. Lock the door so that students coming in late have to knock. Usually if you engage them in some conversation about why they are late, they either get there on time or quit coming. If lateness persists, give a true or false question at the beginning of class and only those there at the beginning get to take it. Then announce that it will count X points on their final grade. Make males take off their caps or leave the classroom. It is not hard to take mental control over your problem students. The good students appreciate what you do and the others either bend or break.

Boys/Girls play nice.  Personal attacks get us no where.

I can't talk about what is happening at USM as far as behavior goes, but I can tell you about an incident within the school district (K-12) that I work for.  Maybe in telling you this, you will get some answers for your problems.

I know a student, who is in the 4th grade--lets see that makes him 9 or 10.  This child just got suspended for assualting his assistant.  Now, fast forward this young man to the age of say 21, if he isn't in jail, he will be in college.

Behavior issues start young, and if no boundaries are set then the problems continue throughout life.  And good people, honest people are caught in the middle and have to figure out ways of handling the "trouble makers".  Where as if parents and elementary/middle/high school personnel came down harder on these kids, you might not have the problems you do.

I believe that the one thing that is lacking in our society today is this little thing called personal responsiblity.  Certain posters here aren't taking it, they attack others for little or no reason, and you wonder why your students behave the way they do.

Patti wrote:

---

Boys/Girls play nice.  Personal attacks get us no where. I can't talk about what is happening at USM as far as behavior goes, but I can tell you about an incident within the school district (K-12) that I work for.  Maybe in telling you this, you will get some answers for your problems. I know a student, who is in the 4th grade--lets see that makes him 9 or 10.  This child just got suspended for assualting his assistant.  Now, fast forward this young man to the age of say 21, if he isn't in jail, he will be in college. Behavior issues start young, and if no boundaries are set then the problems continue throughout life.  And good people, honest people are caught in the middle and have to figure out ways of handling the "trouble makers".  Where as if parents and elementary/middle/high school personnel came down harder on these kids, you might not have the problems you do. I believe that the one thing that is lacking in our society today is this little thing called personal responsiblity.  Certain posters here aren't taking it, they attack others for little or no reason, and you wonder why your students behave the way they do.

---

Patti: this is the problem with multiple identity posting -- you actually never know who you are talking to. The poster could be a professor, a student, a used care dealer, or a three year old. The intent could be to genuinely engage in discussion, or to simply "stir the pot" -- which is easy to do when you don't have to take personal responsibility for what you utter. Anonymous posting, in order to work, requires that I trust the poster to have an honest intent -- that what he/she says is what he/she means. Creating multiple identities that manufacture controversies, that engage in raising and debating points and engaging others from multile points of view is deliberately deceptive and undermines the trust that discussion in this kind of forum must have. In doing so . . . it acknowleges that there is no framework for conducting sivil discussion and that the only virtue is freedom -- even the freedom to claim "persecution" when the deception is contested.  Your addressing the members of the board as a collective ("your") is a perfect example of what results from this . . . . all posters become identified with a kind of ambiguous board identity because it is so difficult to discern genuine identities and to address them as individuals.

Here is a paradox: Does a society vote to eliminate democracy and substitute something else for it? The answer is no: because to do so represents a choice that cannot be undone once done. This is the equivilent to taking the ball home . . . . it doesn't allow the game to continue, it brings the game to a halt.

The delicate thing about a discusson board is that all discussion ought to be directed to keeping the conversation going. The kind of deception that some writers are engaging in is not contrived to continue to discussion, but to subvert it, and thus to undermine the function of the board. So in effect, the attack on moderators from these people is interesting in that it is they who have exacerbated the need for moderators to play the role of "moderating." It is they who have, in effect, broken the conventions necessary to continuing the conversation. Yet they (or he or she) use the ideal of "free discussion" to appeal to board members to indignation without in any taking responsibility for the chaos they are creating. I find these posters very "immoderate" and dishonest. And unfortunately, they are succeeding in shutting they board down.

Incidently, equating the way this board is run with Shelby's email monitoring is a pretty poor analogy. The board moderator has no real power over any poster (save the power to ban a post, perhaps). The power a Presdient of a university or an administrator has over a faculty or staff member is very real.  Information gained about a poster in the first case has very limited power to cause personal damage. Information gaine din the second case has the possibility of causing very real damage.

There is simply no moral equivilent here. To treat the cases as the same is a breathtakingly audacious tripe.

 

Jameela Lares wrote:

---

Patti wrote: I believe that the one thing that is lacking in our society today is this little thing called personal responsiblity.  Certain posters here aren't taking it, they attack others for little or no reason, and you wonder why your students behave the way they do. Er, Patti, I'm a bit confused by this last statement. Are you implying that the irresponsible posters on this board are teachers or professors?

---

 

Possibly.  I'm not saying they are, I'm not really saying they aren't.  But it is a possiblity. As I don't know who is who, I can't tell.  But I do recognize many names as professors Dr. Lares, ones that have been around since the FireShelby board. And ones that a friend of mine has stated from the CoB.

 

Dr. Judd, you are correct, when I say we, I mean anyone and everyone associated with the board.  And I do realize it is wrong to lump everyone together.  There are posters here with USM's best interest at heart and fingertips, there are others who wish to destroy the board.  When I make certain comments, it is to those who wish to destroy what has been built to discuss freedoms and problems within USM.  Please forgive me if you have taken my comments the wrong way.  I respect yours, Dr. Lares', LVN's, and  Cossacks, to name but a few, opinions.

AE, you know we love you!



Truth

truth4usm/AH wrote:

---

AE, you know we love you! Truth

---

and TRUTH! How could I forget . . . . .?

Thanks, Stephen! I you, too.

Truth

(nice to see a bit of a lovefest after the drunken brawl of last night!)

Austin Eagle wrote:

---

Patti wrote:  I respect yours, Dr. Lares', LVN's, and  Cossacks, to name but a few, opinions. But what about me?  Am I not consistently witty, pithy,  and profound? AE

---

AE,  there would be some that will disagree with my next statement, but the brain cells don't always fire right when it comes to memory and names.  Besides, I did say to name but a few, I don't think I would have enough space to name all of the ones whom I respect and admire.  I don't want anyone, you, Truth, Inviticus, First Ant, Fire Shelby, to think I don't remember them or respect them, I suffer from occassional brain farts.  My most humble apologies.