Can SFT start over? Will the faculty support him if he gets rid of all his previous unqualified appointments and begins national searches? Of course, a completely new start would mean shared governance. But isn't that already underway with the input of faculty senate on the procedure for determining raises?
What if the faculty bashing letters to the editors suddenly cease? What if Roy Klumb says nothing, or only complementary things about the faculty senate and AAUP?
In other words, if today's HA editorial is a review of the first steps in SFT's reformation, how will visitors to this board react?
quote: Originally posted by: Otherside "Can SFT start over? Will the faculty support him if he gets rid of all his previous unqualified appointments and begins national searches? Of course, a completely new start would mean shared governance. But isn't that already underway with the input of faculty senate on the procedure for determining raises? What if the faculty bashing letters to the editors suddenly cease? What if Roy Klumb says nothing, or only complementary things about the faculty senate and AAUP? In other words, if today's HA editorial is a review of the first steps in SFT's reformation, how will visitors to this board react? "
I might BEGIN to change my thinking if he took some concrete steps to undo some of the damage he has done. Offering Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser emeritus status would be a good start; contributing to the scholarship to be founded in their names would be another. SFT needs to make it clear in some way that he genuinely regrets the damage done to the lives of these men. This, of course, will never happen; I am merely responding to your question. I think his ego is too huge ever to allow him to admit a mistake.
Otherside - I like what USM Symp. had to say, but I also agree with him / her that SFT is hopeless. My opinion is that any changes he makes are purely for the IHL and PR, and not genuine. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for any good changes (Angie out as VP, Russ Willis back in, etc.) that come our way, but I don't think they were motivated by his suddenly seeing the light....no matter Who he claims to talk to.
there is a very pesky dark horse galloping out of control completely unrestrained...and a wise (and underestimated) dark bishop who is keeping the King out of trouble...
quote: Originally posted by: Chess "3 down is good and the 4th is going but... there is a very pesky dark horse galloping out of control completely unrestrained...and a wise (and underestimated) dark bishop who is keeping the King out of trouble... Reformed? No way...temporarily cornered is all..."
I love this cryptic stuff, even when it's unencrypted...
That said, wouldn't it be more correct to state that the horse & bishop are most likely WHITE & not "dark" at all, except in a metaphorical sense?
quote: Originally posted by: Chess "3 down is good and the 4th is going but... there is a very pesky dark horse galloping out of control completely unrestrained...and a wise (and underestimated) dark bishop who is keeping the King out of trouble... Reformed? No way...temporarily cornered is all..."
Chess - can you give us some more hints on these two?