HA Editorial - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 27, 2004

HA Editorial

Date: Jun 27, 2004

Perhaps this one will be hot...

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040627/opinion/726728.html

Date: Jun 27, 2004

The HA--and most other newspapers and TV newscasts in my experience--take it as axiomatic that there must be something valid on both sides of every controversy. It is simply not in their nature to think that any problem is entirely the doing of only one side (although I think that is exactly the case in the Shelboo-faculty controversy generally and in the AAUP/Senate--Dvorak contention specifically). Thus, this kind of "he's trying; give him a chance and maybe things'll work out" rhetoric is to be expected. I have no doubt this will prove to be wrong, but it's just in the HA's genes to have to say this kind of thing.

The one part of this that none of the media ever gets quite right, though, is the actual deal with AD's tenure, and I can never figure whether this represents ignorance or cowardice on their part. This ain't rocket science, so it's probably the latter.

Anyway, the editorial today misstates the case once again. The senate (and the AAUP before them) object to Dvorak's claiming on her vita and in the various university documents that she had tenure "at" the University of Kentucky, which can only mean that she was a tenured faculty member at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. They object because that is a false claim. But nobody objects to her claiming that she was tenured in the UK system. That is a true claim. But you'll never see the HA or the CL (if they ever deigned to acknowledge that anything was going on down here) come right out and say, "The faculty senate was at odds with Dvorak because she claimed to have held a tenured position at the University of Kentucky when in fact she was tenured as an associate professor in the UK community college system."

Those few little words would do a lot to help the public understand what all this was about, but you'll never see them in the paper. Which suggests that the press is a lot more concerned with preserving its freedoms than it is with meeting its obligations.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ancient Clock
"The HA--and most other newspapers and TV newscasts in my experience--take it as axiomatic that there must be something valid on both sides of every controversy. It is simply not in their nature to think that any problem is entirely the doing of only one side (although I think that is exactly the case in the Shelboo-faculty controversy generally and in the AAUP/Senate--Dvorak contention specifically). Thus, this kind of "he's trying; give him a chance and maybe things'll work out" rhetoric is to be expected. I have no doubt this will prove to be wrong, but it's just in the HA's genes to have to say this kind of thing. The one part of this that none of the media ever gets quite right, though, is the actual deal with AD's tenure, and I can never figure whether this represents ignorance or cowardice on their part. This ain't rocket science, so it's probably the latter. Anyway, the editorial today misstates the case once again. The senate (and the AAUP before them) object to Dvorak's claiming on her vita and in the various university documents that she had tenure "at" the University of Kentucky, which can only mean that she was a tenured faculty member at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. They object because that is a false claim. But nobody objects to her claiming that she was tenured in the UK system. That is a true claim. But you'll never see the HA or the CL (if they ever deigned to acknowledge that anything was going on down here) come right out and say, "The faculty senate was at odds with Dvorak because she claimed to have held a tenured position at the University of Kentucky when in fact she was tenured as an associate professor in the UK community college system." Those few little words would do a lot to help the public understand what all this was about, but you'll never see them in the paper. Which suggests that the press is a lot more concerned with preserving its freedoms than it is with meeting its obligations. "

Ancient Clock,

Pretending that both sides in a controversy must be partly right is a key practice in Pulitzerian journalism, the pseudo-objective approach that most American newspapers have used for the past century. See Paul Weaver's book, News and the Culture of Lying.

As for the charges against Angie Dvorak--I'm a little surprised that the Hat Am, after such extensive coverage of the crisis at USM, hasn't figured them out yet. I wouldn't discount ignorance. Most media people know nothing about the inner workings of a university, and haven't the patience to learn. But there may be a failure of nerve. If the editorial had bluntly stated how Angie Dvorak misrepresented herself, and admitted that G & S and the AAUP chapter and the Faculty Senate had her dead to rights, it would have a hard time establishing how her continued presence on campus could be any good for USM.

Always keep in mind, when a Hat Am reporter is lazy or something gets bobbled in an editorial, that the Hat Am has done far better than most local newspapers would have done, in a situation like this. The editorial writer says bluntly that the USM faculty will never trust Shelby Thames. In most college town newspapers, such an unvarnished assessment on the editorial page is just inconceivable.

Robert Campbell

PS. Letters to the editor that correct factual misstatements (such as Shelby Thames' recent gross lies about the growth of USM Research Foundation assets since he took office, and the nature of Angie Dvorak's misrepresentation) are now more important than letters countering the "faculty are lazy, no-good whiners" crowd. If every lie that Thames tells in public gets a response, his ability to manipulate the media on his behalf will decline even further.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

The HA editorial indicates that the rehabiliation of SFT is picking up steam, and provides additional evidence that a one-term presidency is far from assured (bad news for the "let's just wait it out" crowd).

The tough choice (not one choice, really, but an indefinite series) for faculty now is -- when to cooperate with the president in hopes of making substantive gains (e.g. a sane Drug/Alcohol Policy; faculty/staff raises), and when to hold his feet to the fire on violations of shared governance, PR pronouncements of half-truths, etc. In theory, one can do both; in practice, the pressure is to support or to oppose, period.

I don't envy Dave Beckett and the new Faculty Senate, or the courageous Amy Young and the AAUP membership. The political terrain is now much more complex than it was when SFT was trying to fire Glamser and Stringer. As usual, advantage lies with the incumbent administration.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jean Moulin
"The HA editorial indicates that the rehabiliation of SFT is picking up steam, and provides additional evidence that a one-term presidency is far from assured (bad news for the "let's just wait it out" crowd). The tough choice (not one choice, really, but an indefinite series) for faculty now is -- when to cooperate with the president in hopes of making substantive gains (e.g. a sane Drug/Alcohol Policy; faculty/staff raises), and when to hold his feet to the fire on violations of shared governance, PR pronouncements of half-truths, etc. In theory, one can do both; in practice, the pressure is to support or to oppose, period. I don't envy Dave Beckett and the new Faculty Senate, or the courageous Amy Young and the AAUP membership. The political terrain is now much more complex than it was when SFT was trying to fire Glamser and Stringer. As usual, advantage lies with the incumbent administration."

This may be the most provocative post we've seen on the new website. Let's temper it with one thought, however. The Thames administration has been in place two years now and there has been crisis after crisis. Although not suggesting that "all eggs be put in the Shelby will screw up again basket", it is hard to believe that in the 18 to 24 months before a decision on contract extension there will not be another (series of) major rallying points.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

I am somewhat surprised that some folks are willing to believe that Shelby Thames has reformed. Please recall that the recent move of A. Dvorak began with a plea to ADP to take her on (and evidently they refused). I think it is obvious that the "reform" by Thames is absolutely forced by AAUP's actions and those of faculty senate, and the activies of people like you who read the message boards and let those in power know how you feel.

When Shelby Thames provides answers to questions about email surveillance, the real numbers with budgets and enrollments, and true accountability on the part of administrators, then I will believe that he has reformed.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jean Moulin
"The HA editorial indicates that the rehabiliation of SFT is picking up steam, and provides additional evidence that a one-term presidency is far from assured (bad news for the "let's just wait it out" crowd). The tough choice (not one choice, really, but an indefinite series) for faculty now is -- when to cooperate with the president in hopes of making substantive gains (e.g. a sane Drug/Alcohol Policy; faculty/staff raises), and when to hold his feet to the fire on violations of shared governance, PR pronouncements of half-truths, etc. In theory, one can do both; in practice, the pressure is to support or to oppose, period. I don't envy Dave Beckett and the new Faculty Senate, or the courageous Amy Young and the AAUP membership. The political terrain is now much more complex than it was when SFT was trying to fire Glamser and Stringer. As usual, advantage lies with the incumbent administration."

Jean Moulin,

Waiting it out has not been an option. Not, in any case, since the Board failed to fire Thames before Roy Klumb became Board President.

If there is any benefit to playing ball with Shelby Thames on any issue, I have yet to see evidence of it. A drug and alcohol policy that takes arbitrary power out of Thames' hands will be one that he will oppose. Merit raises that most of the faculty think fair will be unacceptable to Thames for precisely that reason.

Hasn't the sad history of the PUC/PC made it clear to everyone that there is nothing to be gained by cooperating with someone who won't cooperate back?

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 27, 2004

Promoting or bringing back nice guys may make us feel good, but one must be realistic. They still work for and report to the bad guys, and in order to survive, must do what the bad guys say, NOT what we say or think is right to do. So, all we have is a “nice guy” buffer between us and them, a duck controlled by the wolves rather than a wolf controlled by the wolves. A slick move because some of us might think we’ve been thrown a bone and it’s make-up time. Wolves rarely go back and say they’re sorry. Remember who and what we’re dealing with, and how they operate.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

Amy said:
"When Shelby Thames provides answers to questions about email surveillance, the real numbers with budgets and enrollments, and true accountability on the part of administrators, then I will believe that he has reformed."

Here is the key. And it is a hard one to espouse. But THE TRUTH is that Shelboo cannot now, could not before, and cannot in the future EVER be trusted. We have seen this pattern over and over and over again. A crisis arises (like the one in the spring of '03, for instance, when Don Cabana shamed the faculty into not voting no confidence), Shelboo claimes he'll make aejustments and be nicer, Shelboo kicks the faculty in the gonads again. That's him. He's never going to change. The only good Shelboo is a dead Shelboo (sorry for all the negative resonance that has).

This means, as Robert Campbell has said, that every lie, misrepresentation, feint-toward-the-good, shadow accomodation,and apparent well-meaning gesture MUST BE countered with the truth, accuracy, a realistic perspective, a justifiably cynical response, etc. NO QUARTER!!!

A good place to start, as I have seen suggested on this board before, is with a stringent analysis of the materials put into evidence at the hearing. It is absolutely crucial that the full depth of Shelboo's spying on the faculty be understood and made public. He can't be allowed to finesse this. It's part of what he's got to be charged with (I would've said "own up to" except that that concept doesn't apply in this case).

Date: Jun 27, 2004

Been out of the loop for awhile, but as was said. the HA was really off base today. Angie was tenured in the system but NOT at UK (Dept. of Eng.) as she claimed. Who will write a good letter? I'm just not enough in the know.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

If you have not figured out by now that Janet Braswell knows the truth and prints what Lisa and Shelby want, what have you been doing?

Janet prints this crap to stay on the inside. If she printed the correct version of anything, she would be banned. She relates well to these people and if you know her or have been ambushed by her, you have experienced the pleasure she gets from seeing others suffer, too.

I suggest we quit writing letters and ignore them. Rich Campbell just does what he is told and continues to contain the responses of pro faculty letters which maintains the position of the faculty as weak. More people need to hear how the HA is currently run. Ask Rich.

Faculty, I would like to remind you we did not go crazy until we had gasoline poured on us. We have all worked here for 20, 30 years and longer and have not felt the need to become so "difficult to deal with" until after May, 2002. I remember even McCain did not make us want to burn the administration building. He was tough, but we understood him. These people are crazy. Believe me, there is a difference.

Amy Young has the right perspective. If you think he cares about us, look at who all he has sacrificed in his own inner circle. H, D and D. I bet they never thought he would use them, then dispose of them.

The only one he can't function without now is LSM. He is scared of the press after the March Madness Whirlwind Tour and if he doesn't have her to clean up after him, he can't function.

The sad part: He saw her demonstrate her abiltiy as a psychopathic liar and knew she was his. It is the only trait he appreciates in her and uses it every day, but when he gets through with her, she will never again have credibility for a PR career.

Even sadder, it seems like in order to work for him, they must be willing to be destroyed professionally in the long term.

What makes them not be able to see this? Where do they go from here? Where can they work? Who would hire them? After this mess is over, who would believe anything they say?

His goons got taken worse than we did. And then Robin came to town! Trueeeeeee Loveeeeeeee!

Wheeeeeeee, here we go again!

Date: Jun 28, 2004

"These people are crazy."

When all of this hell is over, this will be the statement that sums up the whole SFT situation. SFT is egotistical, is power hungry, and is mean-spirited, but I think his core problem is borderline insanity. Perhaps it is associated with so many years working in one place with so many people kissing his behind that has made him this nuts - perhaps the psychology people could weigh in on this......

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: The Rock
""These people are crazy."... Perhaps it is associated with so many years working in one place with so many people kissing his behind that has made him this nuts - perhaps the psychology people could weigh in on this......"

I think it's paint fumes.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

I'll make my customary disclaimer--I'm not a clinician. But I've become involved in research on self-esteem and how it can go wrong, and I know the literature on this subject pretty well.

Shelby Thames shows many of the indicators of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He imagines himself to be "world class," when neither his accomplishments as a researcher nor as an administrator come near to measuring up. He wants everyone to admire him--or bow before him--and he doesn't hesitate to lie about his accomplishments if it will get the admiration or the compliance that he wants. After years of being praised by sycophants, he probably believes most of his own lies, which leads people not in his thrall to wonder whether he is delusional.

The way Thames keeps encouraging alumni to write anti-faculty letters, when the letters do is keep media attention on the troubles at USM, is one of the clearest signs. In 1994-1995, when Clemson was in turmoil over an earlier reorganization of 9 colleges into 5, President Phil Prince actually published an op-ed in the Greenville News praising the Clemson faculty. It was a message to the editorial page editor to stop running anti-faculty editorials, as the Greenville News had been doing for nearly a year. You'll never see Thames call off the letter writers, or encourage Klumb and Hewes and company to cool it, because all that matters to him is the damage inflicted on his ego when USM faculty refuse to join in the chorus of praise.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Crazy
"I think it's paint fumes."

Remember, the paint is odorless. It was also donated to the Pentagon, NOT PURCHASED!

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I'll make my customary disclaimer--I'm not a clinician. But I've become involved in research on self-esteem and how it can go wrong, and I know the literature on this subject pretty well. Shelby Thames shows many of the indicators of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He imagines himself to be "world class," when neither his accomplishments as a researcher nor as an administrator come near to measuring up. He wants everyone to admire him--or bow before him--and he doesn't hesitate to lie about his accomplishments if it will get the admiration or the compliance that he wants. After years of being praised by sycophants, he probably believes most of his own lies, which leads people not in his thrall to wonder whether he is delusional. The way Thames keeps encouraging alumni to write anti-faculty letters, when the letters do is keep media attention on the troubles at USM, is one of the clearest signs. ... You'll never see Thames call off the letter writers, or encourage Klumb and Hewes and company to cool it, because all that matters to him is the damage inflicted on his ego when USM faculty refuse to join in the chorus of praise. Robert Campbell"

Is there a relationship, according to the literature, between this type of personality and the bullying behavior?

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Going to PUK,

Genuine investigative reporting is quite rare. And it's standard practice for reporters to shade what they write in order to retain access to "important" people. I suppose Janet Braswell could be declared persona non grata in the Dome if her articles sufficiently displeased Thames and Mader.

But... if the Hat Am were run as you suggest, it would be running nothing but "happy talk" articles about USM. And if it became necessary to acknowledge that the faculty is, er, less than 100% thrilled with Shelby, Rich Campbell would publish an anti-faculty editorial. This has not been the pattern.

It's easy to see the deficiencies in the Hat Am's coverage, and the namby-pambiness of some of its editorials. But compare them with what most daily newspapers do when there is a controversy on campus. Look at the way the Greenville News covers Clemson. Better yet, check out the work of Gilbert Cruz, who covers the University of Alabama for the Tuscaloosa News. Cruz has become known as the "bobble-head journalist" because, in the midst of an administration move to punish the Alabama Scholars Association and the AAUP by charging second-class postage to circulate their newsletters through campus mail, Cruz saw fit to write about the availability of Bear Bryant bobble-head dolls. The Tuscaloosa News has yet to run a single sentence on a story that's been covered in the Mobile newspaper and the Birmingham newspaper.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Psych-Not
"Is there a relationship, according to the literature, between this type of personality and the bullying behavior?"

Oh yes.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: R A
" Remember, the paint is odorless. It was also donated to the Pentagon, NOT PURCHASED!"

Donated? I had assumed the paint was specifically chosen because it met some sort of rigorous specifications when the request for bids was issued. Does that mean that the RF got nothing?

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Going to PUK also makes an excellent point about Thames' dependence on Lisa Mader. For it has to occur to Thames, when he has a lucid moment or two, that he can't handle the press.

Precisely for this reason, every false statement that Lisa Mader makes "on behalf of USM" needs to be put under the microscope.

Several contributors to the Fire Shelby board made fun of me for suggesting this, but I really do believe that the Faculty Senate needs to prepare a resolution of no confidence in Lisa Mader. The resolution should be accompanied by a thoroughly documented report of false statements that she has made to the media since she began working at USM. And the gist of the resolution should be that Mader does not speak for the faculty of USM; indeed, she speaks for no one but herself and Shelby Thames.

If Lisa Mader's credibility is sufficiently undermined, Thames will cut her loose to save himself. But where will he find a replacement? And Thames' remaining time in office will be much shorter, if he has to deal with the media on his own.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Robert,

That is really an intriguing strategy! Far more cogent than most of the emotionally charged 'let's get 'em' rants which have appeared far too frequently. If Mader's own credibility were called in to question, there would be (appropriate) suscpicion raised to everything she said. And, one would expect a few questions to address her previous 'less than truthful' releases.

This really is a strategy worth pursuing.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Robert is right on the mark again. It's time to become specific and discredit LSM. As the situation becomes more dire, her spin takes on the likeness of Linda Blair's head.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

"That is really an intriguing strategy! ... If Mader's own credibility were called in to question, there would be (appropriate) suscpicion raised to everything she said. And, one would expect a few questions to address her previous 'less than truthful' releases.

This really is a strategy worth pursuing."

A good place to start would be to contact Robbie Ward about the reaming out he got from Mader when he was in the HA newsroom. If "crazy" is the diagnosis of the Thames administration's disease, Lisa Slay has definitely been infected. And is a virulent carrier.

The problem with promoting this strategy, though, is that there's really nobody much left to convince other than, perhaps, Janet.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"I am somewhat surprised that some folks are willing to believe that Shelby Thames has reformed. Please recall that the recent move of A. Dvorak began with a plea to ADP to take her on (and evidently they refused). I think it is obvious that the "reform" by Thames is absolutely forced by AAUP's actions and those of faculty senate, and the activies of people like you who read the message boards and let those in power know how you feel. When Shelby Thames provides answers to questions about email surveillance, the real numbers with budgets and enrollments, and true accountability on the part of administrators, then I will believe that he has reformed."

One need not believe that SFT has indeed "reformed" to recognize that successful efforts to display him so (or at least "moving in the right direction") will have a signficant effect on both faculty and public opinion. No doubt SFT severely injured himself in the Glamser/Stringer affair; he is now making an all-out effort to rehabilitate his image. To the extent that he succeeds, the pressure on faculty to cooperate to promote "healing" mounts, and the jobs of AAUP and Faculty Senate become that much more challenging and complex. By the way, did these two faculty voices decide to take the rest of the summer off? The president and Ms. Mader surely did not.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jean Moulin
"
...By the way, did these two faculty voices decide to take the rest of the summer off? The president and Ms. Mader surely did not. "

Most of the 9 month faculty are not on campus during summer. Faculty Senate met in June. At that meeting they elected new officers and two representatives to the president council. FS doesn't formally meet again until August, however those present are now working on the raise question.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"The resolution should be accompanied by a thoroughly documented report of false statements that she has made to the media since she began working at USM. "

Let's start with a much repeated falsehood that we're all guilty of perpetuating...that 9 deans were fired...

9+2=11

...the original 9 plus Denise V-H on the coast plus Joan Exline in Hattiesburg.

Please don't let this become a segue into a discussion of the individuals; let's just correct the misinformation about the numbers.

MMR

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Most of the 9 month faculty are not on campus during summer. Faculty Senate met in June. At that meeting they elected new officers and two representatives to the president council. FS doesn't formally meet again until August, however those present are now working on the raise question. "

These are not normal times. The FS needs to be hard at work on several issues over the summer--unless it wants two (and possibly six) more years of Shelby Thames.

Robert Campbell