Feed Back From SACS - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 8, 2006

Feed Back From SACS

Date: Apr 8, 2006

i have gotten copies of the standards where recommendations were made (not from my dean however), but nothing pertaining to specific information requests.

cossack--i think you've figured it all out. re-affirmation of our accreditation should be a routine thing. i think what surprised some faculty leaders is that the QEP is what the site visit is really about. and over the last 15 years the way SACS approaches accreditation has evolved--from the "gear up 3 years before your visit" approach, typical of our reaccreditations in '85 and '95, to a continual process. sadly, USM knew this in '95 but did little from '95 until too late to come to grips with this.

the actual visit may not affect the "in the trenches" faculty much (didn't in '85 or '95 either), but a great deal of what SACS looks for does impact them. faculty credential reviews are critical; we are now beginning graduate program reviews (some people have said we should have done them for 20 years but nobody listens); we have periodic graduate faculty status reviews. these things do affect the in the trenches faculty.

as others have mentioned, SACS sets minimum standards. however, having been employed by SACS and hearing stories of places that aren't accredited by SACS and what they're like, i'd rather have SACS than not. and don't forget there are efforts to have all regional accrediting agencies replaced by some federal government entity to accredit. i'll take SACS any day.

one last note, i was given a copy of the '95 SACS report. for what it's worth--18 recommendations in '95.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

SCM,

I have been hearing that SACS has been focusing on a "continual process" for some time as a way to stop the uneven inter-visit activities. That is, the race over 2-3 years to get things in shape and then 6 or 7 years of ignoring SACS and doing whatever administrators choose to do until the next cycle. In the case of USM, it should be as obvious to SACS as it is to USM faculty that we have followed neither process. In our case, it was a case of, ignore SACS until about a year until the visit including the debacle of ignoring SACS correspondence, and then do a full court press for the last year that is all hat and no cattle. I am baffled by how SACS could be taking USM seriously. Unless I am missing something, USM has become the poster child for how not to approach SACS accreditation. Since the majority of the faculty are not involved and do not know what is going on, how can USM be considered a viable candidate for maintaining “continual process”? Is there anyone who believes that, if USM is accredited with no conditions, under the current leadership we will engage in a “continual process”? Going further,, does anyone believe that who ever the Board selects (in secret) to be USM President will engage in a “continual process” that was discontinued by SFT as soon as the letter arrived saying we are accredited?

Date: Apr 8, 2006

cossack--i both agree and disagree with your points. i think generally people get too focused on SFT and how it relates to accreditation and SACS. i think people expected SACS to "take out" SFT or be the "white knight." it did but did so a year ago. but our problems began with the previous administration as well. the issues with distance and continuing education that got us on probation were in the '95 report.

faculty are involved, i assume, because we have goals, etc. and assessment happening at the departmental level. i am one that believes shared governance begins at the department level. i know in my shop we had to begin being more systematic in some things were doing (like having minutes of department meetings--sad statement). the continuing process is supposed to begin at the department level. i think we get too used to thinking the senate and the councils are where it's at in terms of accreditation. if it doesn't happen at the department and college level, then the councils are meaningless.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

SCM,

My post was not focused on SACS taking out SFT. I also think that you may be right about SACS having an impact a year ago on the tenure of SFT. I also agree that much of what SACS wants to see at the university happens at the department level. The reality is that faculty do not respond spontaneously to what SACS to wants. Moreover, SACS deals predominately with administrators, not faculty. The link between faculty and SACS is through the administrative chain. That chain may have been weak under previous presidents, but the chain was broken when SFT became President. If SACS clearly conveyed to the Board what had to happen at USM in order to retain accreditation, then what you are suggesting is that the Board is complicit in knowing leaving a president in place that had a very low probability of getting USM accredited. Or, are you suggesting that SACS will let us through because the Board promised to find a competent president?

Date: Apr 8, 2006

cossack--what SACS wants is what i would call "best practices." the entire university has to buy into things like program reviews, faculty credentials, assessment, and the like. they may deal predominantly with administrators on the site visit simply because their time is limited--but it's been that way for 20 years.

as to your last questions, i believe that the board was told (i speculate from our consultant) that if they didn't give thames a terminal contract, then our accreditation status would be in jeopardy and in their hands.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

SCM,

I still am at a loss as to how you think SACS will regard the route that USM has taken on accreditation. Taking as a given that SACS sent a message to the Board about SFT, how will SACS view the process route taken by USM, i.e., a brush-off by the President of a formal letter from SACS followed by a very short time period of preparation without meaningful faculty involvement or participation? Outside of doing nothing at all, could a university present a worse case for accreditation? If SACS revealed to the Board the folly of retaining SFT, would they not have revealed the problems facing the university in being reaccredited. I know that you have more insight into the workings of SACS than me, but it appears to me that there is a disconnect between your version of what has transpired and the possibility of being reaccredited without some probationary conditions. Otherwise, it would appear that the Board is comfortable with USM failing SACS accreditation.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

i don't know how SACS views us. and remember who we're talking about--folks at other universities. their view is all relative to other universities they deal with and their own universities. are we a worse case scenario--i doubt it--but i don't know what other universities are like. we aren't the worst they deal with--believe it or not. i think folks at USM are egocentric about their views of of USM--it has to be the worst, we can't believe a worse situation. well, we aren't the worst, at least when it comes to SACS.

as to reaccreditation without probationary conditions--i don't think so at this point. the recommendations i've seen are less than in '95. we do have issues with our general ed curriculum and its assessment, for example, but we're working on it, and working on it is good enough for SACS, right now. we better be able to show progress.

i think you may be wanting to be the old SACS--punitive. it isn't that way as much now--it can be punitive--Auburn and USM are examples--but it doesn't want to be that way.

but given the few views of this thread and just you and me writing--i guess most folks don't care.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

but given the few views of this thread and just you and me writing--i guess most folks don't care.

Don't care is a condition that will be even more apparent if the outcome of SACS can be interpreted as a vindication of SFT and his regime. Once SACS gives USM a pass, which I interpret from your posts as highly probable, I think there will a discrete shift downward in faculty morale and faculty energy put into USM. Many faculty have held out hope that SACS might lead to some improvement. Once that hope is dashed, the exodus rate will increase and commitment by faculty will continue to decline at even a faster rate. To the extent that the anti faculty bias of the Board and Meredith is toward all faculty, the fallout will extend to State and Ole Miss. Many of the State and Ole Miss backers believe that the Board was singling out USM for destruction in order to benefit State and Ole Miss. Given the secret search at State, I think State and Ole Miss will get to share in the fun very soon.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

i think a positive SACS outcome is a vindication of the hard work of a lot of faculty, staff, and sub-administrators who put the university and its students first. and nothing more. there are any number of faculty who have a large amount of sweat equity in the university, and their concern was to keep USM together so it can be rebuilt. i don't think SACS will use us as a model of how to approach accreditation--there are incredible numbers of very tired people who worked incredible hours to get this done. SFT and pals may try and take credit for this, and it may play well in the press, but folks here know who did the work. by the time the final decision is made i hope we are in the midst of our presidential search. i know any number of faculty and staffers who are happy about the seemingly positive outcome of the visit, know there is work to be done, and know full well who did the work and who didn't. if SFT didn't have the year to go, i would agree with your prediction of morale.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

Cossack wrote:

USM appears to approach SACS accreditation with the idea that successful re-accreditation will be a monumental accomplishment . . . .

Not this little piggy. Accreditation means only that the instituion has achieved minimal standards. It means that the car has four tires. It says nothing about how good those tires are or how long they will last. But if USM does receive full accreditation I'll bet there'll be press releae galore saying how world class we are.

Date: Apr 8, 2006

I have a hard time considering this as a great success of the administration since I was at the press conference SFT held the day after USM was put on probation. I've never seen him look and sound so embarassed, but two quotes continue to haunt me from that.

First, he opened with the following, familiar statement:

"USM is a world class university with world class faculty and world class students."

Second, when WDAM's Nick Ortego asked Thames about the probation's impact on recruitment of students, Thames said he would tell parents they could feel safe sending their kids to USM and that.... "My children attended USM and they turned out alright, atleast I think they did."

Date: Apr 9, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

if SFT didn't have the year to go, i would agree with your prediction of morale.

SCM-I disagree. Morale at this organization will be in the pits for awhile. The stink SFT leaves us with will take a long time to fumigate. A good new Prez and a first class and competent Provost might help us to believe that the beatings may stop for awhile (and this may take two more years to get in place if Grimes isn't booted on Day 1). But that does not equate to good morale. That restoration will take years of positive interactions and results. Getting through SACS and NCATE will not boast morale--it will just keep us from going off the deep end (imagine how getting slammed for either would affect the rank and file now after all the hard work). I am pretty convinced, after speaking to one of the major players in one of these processes, that we are getting a bit of a sympathy lay--they are aware of nonsense going on here, and we are getting points for the fact that the IHL is cleaning domehouse in the forseeable future.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

As a member of the Hattiesburg greater "community", I read with great humor the faculty's flip flow on SACS. Clearly, SFT, like it or not, has steered USM through the accreditation waters, and will deservedly get the credit for doing so. It appears that any concerns and recommendations of SACS will be very minor and will not involve any of the faculty's false hopes for this antiquated notion of "shared governance." It appears to me, as I have indicated in past posts, that Commissioner Meredith agrees wholeheartedly with this concept. IHL will rule the universities through strong presidents, and faculty's role will be adjusted acccordingly. One may refer to my past posts on Meredith's and IHL's change of mission for USM, but this all fits in nicely and USM's next pres will begin to implement that change, now that all the accreditation woes are over. Faculty keep stirring the pot over NCATE and others, but in the end, USM will keep accreditation, just like with SACS, and the sky will not fall and life will go on. These accreditation agencies are not about to kill a fine institution like USM. But we out in the white collar and blue collar world, are certainly getting a good laugh out of all the professors who cried wolf to fast.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

In this pi____g contest between the "faculty" (whats left of it) and some in the community, everyone loses. The only winners will be the faculty leaving with 25 years and 50% in their pocket.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

"thamesbeliever" is a known troll. The town/gown conflict is vastly overstated. The town is only dimly aware of the issues at stake, and are certainly not amused at any of it. His "community" is no larger, no smarter, and no more aware than my "community." He's just blowing smoke.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

It is fortunate that thamesbeliever shared his wisdom with us. It has been quite informative. Had he not posted, we would still be operating under the mistaken belief that he had an IQ that contained 3 digits instead of two. I bet that SFT will be ringing him up tomorrow for advice on where to go from here.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

thamesbeliever wrote:

As a member of the Hattiesburg greater "community", I read with great humor the faculty's flip flow on SACS.

thamesbeliever, I seriously doubt that you know what the three letters S-A-C-S stands for.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

Here's a question: Why must there be an incessant conversation about SACS?

Everytime I visit this board and there is a mention of SACS the same two or three posters are involved. SACS is all bark and no bite. Based on documents I have seen they will reaffirm USM's accreditation and Thames will spend his last year unfettered by the major handcuffs that have restricted him heretofore. The false hopes that SACS will get Thames removed early are just that -- false hopes. Next academic year will be very interesting as he has one last chance to exact his revenge on those who worked against him.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

Everytime I visit this board and there is a mention of SACS the same two or three posters are involved. SACS is all bark and no bite. Based on documents I have seen they will reaffirm USM's accreditation and Thames will spend his last year unfettered by the major handcuffs that have restricted him heretofore. The false hopes that SACS will get Thames removed early are just that -- false hopes. Next academic year will be very interesting as he has one last chance to exact his revenge on those who worked against him.

I am confused, if SACS is all bark and no bite, why did Auburn jump through hoops and get rid of Louder? If SACS is all bark and no bite, how could it put handcuffs on SFT that restrict him? I do not know of anyone who thinks that SFT would be removed early because of SACS. What most are concerned about are changes that have been made that are not consistent with SACS accreditation. However, most posters realize that substantial changes will not be made until there is new leadership at USM and most of the SACS recommendations will be implemented post SFT. Many of the SACS recommendations will require effort at the faculty level and departmental level. Given the environment, that effort will be slow and half-hearted since it is discretionary effort by faculty. It is not effort that one gets from threats and revenge. As for exacting revenge, that may be more difficult than you think. Handing either the new President or an interim President several messes to clean up is not in Meredith's interest or the Board's interest. Whatever restraint SFT has shown the past year has been due to pressure from the Board, not from an accrediting agency. I will grant that the gross negligence demonstrated by SFT in ignoring SACS likely was what got him a terminal contract and put the martingale on his behavior.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I am confused, if SACS is all bark and no bite, why did Auburn jump through hoops and get rid of Louder? If SACS is all bark and no bite, how could it put handcuffs on SFT that restrict him? I do not know of anyone who thinks that SFT would be removed early because of SACS. What most are concerned about are changes that have been made that are not consistent with SACS accreditation. However, most posters realize that substantial changes will not be made until there is new leadership at USM and most of the SACS recommendations will be implemented post SFT. Many of the SACS recommendations will require effort at the faculty level and departmental level. Given the environment, that effort will be slow and half-hearted since it is discretionary effort by faculty. It is not effort that one gets from threats and revenge. As for exacting revenge, that may be more difficult than you think. Handing either the new President or an interim President several messes to clean up is not in Meredith's interest or the Board's interest. Whatever restraint SFT has shown the past year has been due to pressure from the Board, not from an accrediting agency. I will grant that the gross negligence demonstrated by SFT in ignoring SACS likely was what got him a terminal contract and put the martingale on his behavior.

You're not confused, Cossack, you're deluded. If you like, you can consult this link (Auburn Trustees) to see that Robert Lowder is still very much a part of the Auburn Board of Trustees which means he's still got his hand in the running of Auburn University. What has handcuffed Thames is neither SACS nor the IHL. Thames has made a conscious decision to remain in power for as long as possible. He's just playing nice right now and will continue to do so until the SACS report comes back clean late next Fall. Fall 2006 will be interesting in a clandestine manner but Spring 2007 will send Thames (and many of his enemies) out with a bang. Your suggestion that "discretionary effort" by current faculty is necessary is correct. Contrary to your apparent beliefs the required "discretionary effort" is currently being exerted by faculty as we speak. There are still enough faculty at USM who place USM above themselves to take care of the SACS issues. USM will be reaffirmed in Fall 2006. As for your assertion that the IHL has pressured Thames you are correct on one point but incorrect on others. The IHL has pressured Thames because he embarassed them publicly. There is still no evidence to suggest that the IHL wants a good president at USM so your assertion is grounded in a fallacy.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

You're not confused, Cossack, you're deluded.

That is a relief; since I am deluded I can never be confused again. Now that you have given us the low down on what will happen, even Stinky Cheese Man can relax and rest easy knowing the future. Moreover, now that SFT has shown the way to breeze through a SACS reaccredidation, he will be in great demand as a SACS consultant after next year.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

Cossack wrote:

You're not confused, Cossack, you're deluded.

That is a relief; since I am deluded I can never be confused again. Now that you have given us the low down on what will happen, even Stinky Cheese Man can relax and rest easy knowing the future. Moreover, now that SFT has shown the way to breeze through a SACS reaccredidation, he will be in great demand as a SACS consultant after next year.

I hope that you will be available in May 2007 when USM is fully accredited by SACS, Thames has acted to punish his enemies, and USM gets its next president via secret search. Will you have forgotten about Thames and SACS and have started belittling the new president because he was chosen in a closed process? I suspect so.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

One more thing for Cossack. You failed to address the fact that your post regarding Auburn was erroneous and that you made up "facts" so that your post would sound more authoritative. I hope you do a better job with your academic research than you do with this message board.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

what a bizarre thread this has become.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

what a bizarre thread this has become.

I think our next door neighbor is a troll, stinky.

Date: Apr 9, 2006

Next Door Neighbor

According to the feedback from SACS for my College, a final report will be submitted prior to October 1, 2006. There are nine specific requests for information, some dealing with assessment, some dealing with outcomes, and some dealing with controls. There were some specific questions regarding the operation on the Coast with specific questions about post Katrina. Assuming that you are in a College, it is likely that your college also has a list of issues that will require responses before October. Without knowing more about the specifics, it is difficult to tell how much work will be involved. However, the requests are not trivial and may be as much work as has already been done. Hence, I do not share your cavalier attitude that everything is under control and a done deal. If many of the issues raised by the visitation team are not, or cannot, be addressed sufficiently, USM may not get a clean reaccredidation.

As far as the issue with Robert Lowder, my only point was that Lowder was an issue in Auburn’s problems with SACS. When I posted that Auburn got rid of him, it was not accurate in that he has not severed his ties with Auburn. As I recall, some changes were made to satisfy SACS and involved Lowder in some way.

Regarding my research, you may have a point, but I am glad you asked. I received a rejection letter from a journal last month. I am hopeful that my article that is on a second round at a journal will be accepted. Meanwhile, I just put the finishing touches on a working paper that my coauthor and I will give at Texas A&M later in the month. I hope you have had some hits recently with your submissions. You appear to have a passion for writing.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Next Door Neighbor wrote:

Here's a question: Why must there be an incessant conversation about SACS? Everytime I visit this board and there is a mention of SACS the same two or three posters are involved. SACS is all bark and no bite. Based on documents I have seen they will reaffirm USM's accreditation and Thames will spend his last year unfettered by the major handcuffs that have restricted him heretofore. The false hopes that SACS will get Thames removed early are just that -- false hopes. Next academic year will be very interesting as he has one last chance to exact his revenge on those who worked against him.

There's more bite than you think. The NCAA is pretty adament that a member institution has to be accredited by one of six regional acrediting agencies (SACS is one of those six agencies). In the event that a school loses it's accreditation, the school has to imediately inform the NCAA of it. The NCAA, in turn, drops the school from full member to corresponding member status. Corresponding members of the NCAA are not allowed to compete for NCAA championships, per the NCAA's constitution.

And that's just the athletic windfall. Students cannot receive federal financial aid if they are attending an unacredited institution.

So I'd say, that from the standpoints of athletics and financial aid, SACS' bite is as bad as it's bark.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

Curt Yeomans wrote:

There's more bite than you think. The NCAA is pretty adament that a member institution has to be accredited by one of six regional acrediting agencies (SACS is one of those six agencies). In the event that a school loses it's accreditation, the school has to imediately inform the NCAA of it. The NCAA, in turn, drops the school from full member to corresponding member status. Corresponding members of the NCAA are not allowed to compete for NCAA championships, per the NCAA's constitution.
And that's just the athletic windfall. Students cannot receive federal financial aid if they are attending an unacredited institution.
So I'd say, that from the standpoints of athletics and financial aid, SACS' bite is as bad as it's bark.

Which is why SACS will never, EVER, drop a major school from accreditation. Probation maybe, but not revocation of accreditation. Can you imagine the domino effect IF USM were to lose SACS completely? NCAA sports cannot compete for championships (a big deal in name only...when is the last time a USM team actually competed for a true championship?), so the USM fan base gets wrought up. USM students cannot get financial aid without SACS, so many have to drop out of USM (Can you see the headlines yet? Does SACS want to put underprivileged students off their educational path?). The IHL would be required to increase enrollment at other schools so that the displaced students could get financial aid at UM, MSU, JSU, etc. (Again, imagine the backlash against SACS for "forcing" students to transfer.).

On paper, SACS looks like a real bulldog. In reality, SACS revoking a school's accreditation is like the Nuclear Option -- scary but not realistic because of the widespread disaster that would ensue. For the life of me, I do not know why this SACS discussion persists. SACS is concerned only with paperwork and talking to the USM SACS team. I have yet to hear of any random students, faculty, staff, or alumni being interviewed by SACS during this most recent visit. I do not know that anyone in my college (save maybe the dean) was interviewed by SACS. If SACS were really interested in the type of iron-fisted reform that some here clamor for, the SACS team would have split up and gone door to door looking for faculty and staff to talk with about USM's situation. The SACS team would have sought some feedback beyond the sound bites provided by Exline, Grimes, Thames, etc. The fact that the team did not do this leads me to believe that SACS cares only about filling out the proper forms and checking the correct boxes.

I think it's a 95% chance that USM will be fully reaccredited by SACS next fall. The 5% chance falls mostly on the odd chance that the funding base post-Katrina is insufficient, a fact that nobody at USM has control over. In short, this will be a "win" for Shelby, who will be remembered as a president who saw USM through some troubling times, faced disaster, and brought USM through that disaster just fine. I do not agree with this assessment, but it is how I believe he will be remembered by many USM supporters. SACS is no friend of USM faculty. If SACS wanted to help USM faculty, they would have had to simply interview some folks like me about the QEP (which I have no idea about) and see that the whole thing is a sham and then place USM on probation. Shelby would be disgraced and faculty governance would be reinstated. However, SACS has shown a striking lack of support for our cause. I know that letters have been written directly to SACS outlining our plight, and it appears that SACS cannot or will not assist us.

No one is willing to help us now. The IHL has not acted to truly help us, otherwise we would have a new president by now. The community doesn't want to help us, and, in fact, they want to help Shelby. SACS doesn't want to help us or they would have been more vigilant in this last visit. It is my prediction that USM will not have a single graduate program in 10 years. In 10 years every faculty member will be non-tenure-track and will teach a 4-4 load with no sabbaticals, no research grants, and no release time for any purpose. USM will be a glorified junior college and faculty will have their short-term contracts renewed only if they teach and do service and perform the bare minimum research necessary for a SACS undergrad-only institution. This is where we are going. There is no stopping it. Our next secret president will ensure that we get there. By 2008, USM will cease hiring tenure-track faculty and, as opportunities arise elsewhere, those on tenure-track at USM will leave for greener pastures.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

Mirado wrote:

Curt Yeomans wrote: There's more bite than you think. The NCAA is pretty adament that a member institution has to be accredited by one of six regional acrediting agencies (SACS is one of those six agencies). In the event that a school loses it's accreditation, the school has to imediately inform the NCAA of it. The NCAA, in turn, drops the school from full member to corresponding member status. Corresponding members of the NCAA are not allowed to compete for NCAA championships, per the NCAA's constitution. And that's just the athletic windfall. Students cannot receive federal financial aid if they are attending an unacredited institution. So I'd say, that from the standpoints of athletics and financial aid, SACS' bite is as bad as it's bark. Which is why SACS will never, EVER, drop a major school from accreditation. Probation maybe, but not revocation of accreditation. Can you imagine the domino effect IF USM were to lose SACS completely? NCAA sports cannot compete for championships (a big deal in name only...when is the last time a USM team actually competed for a true championship?), so the USM fan base gets wrought up. USM students cannot get financial aid without SACS, so many have to drop out of USM (Can you see the headlines yet? Does SACS want to put underprivileged students off their educational path?). The IHL would be required to increase enrollment at other schools so that the displaced students could get financial aid at UM, MSU, JSU, etc. (Again, imagine the backlash against SACS for "forcing" students to transfer.). On paper, SACS looks like a real bulldog. In reality, SACS revoking a school's accreditation is like the Nuclear Option -- scary but not realistic because of the widespread disaster that would ensue. For the life of me, I do not know why this SACS discussion persists. SACS is concerned only with paperwork and talking to the USM SACS team. I have yet to hear of any random students, faculty, staff, or alumni being interviewed by SACS during this most recent visit. I do not know that anyone in my college (save maybe the dean) was interviewed by SACS. If SACS were really interested in the type of iron-fisted reform that some here clamor for, the SACS team would have split up and gone door to door looking for faculty and staff to talk with about USM's situation. The SACS team would have sought some feedback beyond the sound bites provided by Exline, Grimes, Thames, etc. The fact that the team did not do this leads me to believe that SACS cares only about filling out the proper forms and checking the correct boxes. I think it's a 95% chance that USM will be fully reaccredited by SACS next fall. The 5% chance falls mostly on the odd chance that the funding base post-Katrina is insufficient, a fact that nobody at USM has control over. In short, this will be a "win" for Shelby, who will be remembered as a president who saw USM through some troubling times, faced disaster, and brought USM through that disaster just fine. I do not agree with this assessment, but it is how I believe he will be remembered by many USM supporters. SACS is no friend of USM faculty. If SACS wanted to help USM faculty, they would have had to simply interview some folks like me about the QEP (which I have no idea about) and see that the whole thing is a sham and then place USM on probation. Shelby would be disgraced and faculty governance would be reinstated. However, SACS has shown a striking lack of support for our cause. I know that letters have been written directly to SACS outlining our plight, and it appears that SACS cannot or will not assist us. No one is willing to help us now. The IHL has not acted to truly help us, otherwise we would have a new president by now. The community doesn't want to help us, and, in fact, they want to help Shelby. SACS doesn't want to help us or they would have been more vigilant in this last visit. It is my prediction that USM will not have a single graduate program in 10 years. In 10 years every faculty member will be non-tenure-track and will teach a 4-4 load with no sabbaticals, no research grants, and no release time for any purpose. USM will be a glorified junior college and faculty will have their short-term contracts renewed only if they teach and do service and perform the bare minimum research necessary for a SACS undergrad-only institution. This is where we are going. There is no stopping it. Our next secret president will ensure that we get there. By 2008, USM will cease hiring tenure-track faculty and, as opportunities arise elsewhere, those on tenure-track at USM will leave for greener pastures.

It wasn't exactly a major program, but Morris Brown College in Atlanta was a Div. I program and felt the bite of SACS a few years ago when it lost its accreditation while famous alumni, civil rights leaders and other historically black colleges protested the decision. More than 9/10 of its student population had left the school within a year.