If so, then you fought for your cause and live with your gains. If not, then fight for your gains and live with your cause. Life is more significant than one insignificant man. Fight well.

I hear Dr. Polk is coming to Starkville, not Oxford. But will he be teaching?

<DYLANISM DU JOUR>

Preacher was a talkin' there's a sermon he gave,
He said every man's conscience is vile and depraved,
You cannot depend on it to be your guide
When it's you who must keep it satisfied.

- "Man in the Long Black Coat"

</DYLANISM DU JOUR>

(Don't forget, Bob is a tier 1 cynic.)

You know, perhaps this is a good strategy. Noel Polk can go to MSU. Perhaps Neil McMillen will take a retirement job at Ole Miss. Several other faculty members could take their sabbatical leaves at Delta State or Jackson State or Alcorn. While there, they could work hard to get the local AAUP chapter fired up (or started, if necessary) with the "it could happen to you" theme. The faculty of the entire state could then visit the IHLboard meeting in a year and express their opinion about how things are being run. If the physicians could rent buses and go to Jackson, so can the profs. I'd love to see Roy Klumb's face as the buses lined up to pull into the parking lot.

Okay, so I'm slightly delusional, but it's a great fantasy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"You know, perhaps this is a good strategy. Noel Polk can go to MSU. Perhaps Neil McMillen will take a retirement job at Ole Miss. Several other faculty members could take their sabbatical leaves at Delta State or Jackson State or Alcorn. While there, they could work hard to get the local AAUP chapter fired up (or started, if necessary) with the "it could happen to you" theme. The faculty of the entire state could then visit the IHLboard meeting in a year and express their opinion about how things are being run. If the physicians could rent buses and go to Jackson, so can the profs. I'd love to see Roy Klumb's face as the buses lined up to pull into the parking lot. Okay, so I'm slightly delusional, but it's a great fantasy."

---

FS, I think this is a great idea.  And it fits in perfectly great with Shelboo's notion of USM as a "training school" for faculty and administrators that other universities are welcome to steal from (as he points out everytime an upper administrative person leaves...see also Gregg Lassen's quote from yesterday's HA article for more on this faulty logic:  "Their new jobs prove the value of Southern Miss on a resume, Lassen said. "We're sorry to see them go, but it's evidence that we have a thriving culture when other universities are stealing my people," he said. "They got offers they couldn't refuse.")  Using this logic, of course, means that I should be happy if someone steals my car, because that proves my car is so valuable.  Perfectly great logic!

PS--I can't believe these idots actually make such 4 tier statements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: tomcat
"Truth4usm, another thing, nowhere did his quote say anything about counter-offers to keep these valuable people here (of course no big effort in that regard was ever made).  "

---

Methinks part of the problem is that "valuable" is interpreted as "expensive." New Adjunct made a sorta sarcastic comment yesterday that has a lot of truth in it. When an experienced, tenured full professor leaves USM & is replaced by an instructor or non-tenure track person, the University saves a lot of money. It's the "sell a Lexus & buy two Corollas" mentality.

Of course, human capital is more complicated than that. When a department loses its more experienced hands at an usually high rate, there isn't anyone to serve as role models & mentors for the newer, less experienced people. And while that might be exactly what the administration & certain trustees mean when they say "clean house" (i.e., "get rid of the 'malcontents' & 'troublemakers'), it's short-sighted as hell from the standpoint of developing the new hires into the sort of experienced professors one hopes they will become.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Collector of Fine Autographs
"I'll bet that if and when Professor Polk does resign his resignation letter will be a literary masterpiece."

---

I'll preface this up front with notice that it is pure speculation.  I don't know the individuals and only know the situation from reading the board.

This website has been receiving thinly veiled threats all summer about the potential problems the university is causing for itself with its reliance on annual contracts for tenured and tenure tract professors.  Without re-reading the old posts about when the contracts would come out, did finally come out, and what they said, I seem to remember that they were due back to the university on August 31 - eight days after the start of classes. 

I don't think Professor Polk is under any legal obligation to resign.  Arguably, there is no contractual relationship existing between Professor Polk and the university and, therefore, he may choose to go and work at another university without any notice to USM.  Now, my guess is that he has informed colleagues and they, together, have planned to reduce the effect of fallout for students and other faculty members.  The interesting aspect to all of this (other than the obvious loss of an influential scholar to the university, which will certainly be lamented on other threads at a later time) is what the university administration and other faculty response will be.  I predict that the university administration will ignore it at first and only when (if) forced to respond in the press will talk about the "unprofessional" way in which Dr. Polk severed his long relationship with the university.  It would also not surprise me if other faculty members followed suit, if not this year then next. 

The bigger issue, which will involve interpretation by good legal minds, is the inadvertent effect on tenure at USM.  If, without a signed annual contract, Dr. Polk owes no notice to the university of his intention to depart, then does the university owe notice to tenured faculty members of its intent to re-employ them annually prior to presentation of the annual contract.   I don't think the university will respond with any language or action that implies a "breach of contract" by Dr. Polk.  To do so would legitimize the implied contract between the university and tenured professors.  In fact, by not responding, the university may disclose its intent to further weaken the tenure system.  Are these situations adequately addressed in the faculty handbook? 

Again, this is one person's speculation that this rumored action is a test of a flawed system.  I can only hope all of the implications have been clearly thought out and advised by legal professionals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Bok's Seats
"The bigger issue, which will involve interpretation by good legal minds, is the inadvertent effect on tenure at USM.  If, without a signed annual contract, Dr. Polk owes no notice to the university of his intention to depart, then does the university owe notice to tenured faculty members of its intent to re-employ them annually prior to presentation of the annual contract.   I don't think the university will respond with any language or action that implies a "breach of contract" by Dr. Polk.  To do so would legitimize the implied contract between the university and tenured professors.  In fact, by not responding, the university may disclose its intent to further weaken the tenure system."

Bok's Seats -

USM faculty members are given 1-year contracts. Those contracts are renewed annually by signature of both parties. I view those contracts like this: the way the USM contracts are written up is much like the contracts used by industry. The term "tenure" per se does not mean "continuous employment" when the term is used in industry. An employee's "tenure" in a business position can be of only one, two, or three years duration. It is common speech in business and industry to say something like "Mr. X's  tenure as president of corporation Y was five years during which we came out with our new line of Z." The contract model that USM uses for allegedly "tenured" faculty members is like no other I have seen at any other university. I am not a lawyer, but neither am I illiterate. Bok's Seats, your description of what might be the problems inherent in USM's way of doing business with regard to tenure is about as close as I have ever seen to what I concluded years ago. Perhaps I am wrong, but I never really thought USM had a real "tenure system." If push came to shove and the university had its back to the wall in a significant way with lots to lose, I believe the truth might come out and it might turn out that faculty members here are employed on a year-to-year basis. Otherwise, why would "annual" contracts be issued?  To "talk" about tenure is, of course, essential when it comes to accreditation matters and to recruiting faculty. As I said, my perception of all of this may be wrong, but soon after I came here I realized that USM was "different" in this regard, and I have held such a postion for quite a while. I wonder if anyone in contract law (not employed by the university, the IHL, or the attorney's general office) has looked into this.

 

Boks Seats -

I also thought the procedure used by the USM  in its ill advised attempt to terminate the "tenured" appointments of Professors Stringer and Glamser was strange. Those procedures were unlike any I ever witnessed elsewere. Your posting, Boks Seats, leads me to wonder why the university handled that matter in such an unusual manner -  such as terminating those proceedings mid-way. Is is perhaps that USM knew that certain outcomes might force the issue of tenure - much in the way as you pointed out in your post about Noel Polk/tenure/contract - and then what tenure really means at USM would be revealed?   

I would think tenured means continuing employment, however the amount of compensation is what needs to be agreed upon by the contract. In other words, the university agrees to contract a tenured member, but the amount of payment must also be agreed to. (I know I should not end with "to", but it is efficient.)
If a tenured faculty does not sign the contract offered, the agreed employment offer of the university is satisfied, butt the faculty member declined employment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: "My tenure at Sears Roebuck"
"Boks Seats - I also thought the procedure used by the USM  in its ill advised attempt to terminate the "tenured" appointments of Professors Stringer and Glamser was strange. Those procedures were unlike any I ever witnessed elsewere. Your posting, Boks Seats, leads me to wonder why the university handled that matter in such an unusual manner -  such as terminating those proceedings mid-way. Is is perhaps that USM knew that certain outcomes might force the issue of tenure - much in the way as you pointed out in your post about Noel Polk/tenure/contract - and then what tenure really means at USM would be revealed?   "

---

I'm going to get further and further out on my speculative limb but my guess is that the Glamser/Stringer affair was too early, too controversial and too ill-advised a "test".  As I said in my earlier post, if this current rumor turns out to be true and is a "reverse test" by Dr. Polk I hope it has been well thought out so as not to have unintended consequences.

I don't work at USM, but am trying to understand their contract system.  Is it common for a university to wait this late to inform its employees what their salaries for the next year will be?  By waiting so long to put out this information, did it prevent some from turning in their resignations because most openings at other universities were already filled?  Does this skew the retention numbers posted by USM in their favor?  Could some be leaving after they received their contracts and those numbers not be reflected in the HA article?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Razorchick
"I signed my contract in May where it specifically spelled out the minimum raises I will receive for the next 2 years after this 2004 - 2005 year. I will then go up for tenure. I went in with a promotion to Assoc. Prof.  It was such a strangely odd way to do business since it seems so professional."

---

Razorchick,

Am I to understand that you received such a letter from USM? Are you faculty or staff? If faculty, from what administrative level was that letter sent?

 

You escaped. You keep us inspired.