Excellent Letter to the Editor in HA - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 16, 2004

Excellent Letter to the Editor in HA

Date: Jun 16, 2004

kick

Date: Jun 16, 2004

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 16, 2004

quote:
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. "

These comments were intended to be posted on the thread entitled "HA Editorial" -- not on this thread. Sorry about that posting error, but the titles of the threads are very similar. The above posting pertains to the editorial in the HA, not the letter-to-editor which appeared in the same edition.