HA editorial - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 16, 2004

HA editorial

Date: Jun 16, 2004

This is an excellent and well balanced opinion piece. I'm surprised, and impressed. Who are the "several administrators" who resigned, referenced in the editorial? Have there been others, in addition to Jack Hanbury and Mark Dvorak? Surely Angie hasn't resigned, has she?

AE

Date: Jun 16, 2004

Here's the link:

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040616/opinion/657486.html

Date: Jun 16, 2004

Here is the link:

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040616/opinion/657486.html

Date: Jun 16, 2004

I see we think alike Truth! We must have been posting at the same time!

Date: Jun 16, 2004

bump

Date: Jun 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Here's the link: http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040616/opinion/657486.html"

Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"This HA editorial is fine and dandy . . . . until one gets to the final two sentences which ask "if the action was worth the pain it produced." Of course the action was not worth the pain it produced. That question was answered in the well-written and well-conceived body of the editorial which quite accurately specifies some of the negative consequences of the USM administration's action against Stringer and Glamser, including USM's reputation being tarnished nationally, prospective faculty candidates striking USM from their 'short list,' USM faculty and staff seeking employment elsewhere, the diminishment of bipartanship at USM, and the alienation USM faculty members feel toward the administration. It is almost as if the body of the editorial was written by one person, and the concluding two sentences were written by another. Kudos to the Hattiesburg American for publishing the body of the editorial. That editorial is the best I have seen the American publish on this topic. But given the horrible consequences cited in the body, why did they end the editorial by asking the question as to whether the USM administration's action was worth the pain? Of course it was not worth the pain! That pain will be with USM, and with the persons it has damaged, for a long, long time. "

Date: Jun 17, 2004

From the editorial: "Thames has tried to reach out through a newsletter and a council to better communications on campus, but it's too early to measure the impact of his actions."

Measure? How will the effect -- uh, "impact" -- ever be measured?

Impact upon whom? I believe the attempt to "reach out" is mostly symbolic and was undertaken to be seen by the IHL board and the public. If I am right, SFT's objective has already been accomplished: he has demonstrated to those who matter that he is a man of good will, truly concerned for the betterment of the university. You judge who it is that matters to SFT.

Too early? When will the time be right? In the long run, we all die.

Date: Jun 17, 2004

Measure? How will the effect -- uh, "impact" -- ever be measured?

Talk to Clint Taylor at the CC Grill - he has some objective, well-thought-out views on how to gauge things such as long-term impacts, faculty morale, etc.....