Feeling better about things

Date: Mar 27, 2004

Feeling better about things

Date: Mar 27, 2004

And let's not forget who concocted the charges: Hanbury - law partner of Mark Dvorak, who got his job as head of HR because he is Angie's husband (not because he had the least bit of experience in HR).

Trumped-up charges, blatant cronyism, immature and inexperienced administrators - can we all agree now that this joke of a university administration must leave?

Date: Mar 27, 2004

Glad to hear you are feeling better, Greedy! Just to touch on something that came to mind while reading your post... There are 2 issues related to the termination of the professors. One is... did they do anything wrong/against policy? The second one is.... as TENURED professors, if the answer to number one is "yes", did it warrant termination? Does USM not have progressive disciplinary steps such as verbal warning, written reprimand, x days unpaid suspension? Just curious.

Date: Mar 27, 2004

missy

Date: Mar 27, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Greedy
"Missy, again, I really cannot say much more due to exactly "who" it was who said the charges do not warrant termination. OK? And, I think they would not warrrant much of any reprimand to be frank, given what I have seen and read about the issue that the 2 profs investigated. Apparently, they chose to investigate only after giving the anonymous "packet" of info to the President, who did not respond for months. Anyway......... I personally have not seen them nor at this time would I want to. LOL. I don't think we are really looking into any misdeeds whatsover, except whistle blowing. It is not up to me however."

There have been persistent rumors since Shelby was appointed that members of the Board wanted to go after some tenured faculty as a way of getting more control over hiring/firing. The red flags a number of us looked for arrived: a whole spate of staff firings and questionable termination of some non-tenure contracts; the shuffling of administrative and faculty leadership positions to achieve a new leadership completely beholden to the new President; the computer policy which could easily become a way to create a "fishing expedition"; the alcohol and drug policy which could be used to target specific trouble faculty, staff and students; the FAR report and the fact that the IHL can access every faculty member's FAR; and the faculty handbook, redrafted by Hanbury with a huge battle over the section on termination.

All of these and many other moves by the administration have been blatant attempts to strengthen the power of the Presdent at the expense of of almost everyone else, but particularly of the faculty.

If you watched what happened to James Yee, the Islamic chaplain who was first charged with espionage, you can see how all this works: accuse someone of something terrible which will ruin their reputation; then while you are "searching" for all the eivdence to build a case you find lots of other, lesser important violations; then you drop the big chnarges and prosecute the small ones. So that's how this works right? Right now we have two professors under a cloud of suspicion that they have done something terrible. Meanwhile these stupid trumped up minor charges are really the only things the administration can find: but that is OK, if you sling enough dirt the public will only remember that these two fine professors somehow had some kind of ethical "problem". And that is enough to ruin a reputation -- especially in the south.

If this isn't intimidation, I don't know what is. It is an old trick.

You guys are having some great conversations on this board -- keep it up . . . It is wonderful to see so many people thinking and reasoning impressively well . . .

Date: Mar 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Present Professor
" You guys are having some great conversations on this board -- keep it up . . . It is wonderful to see so many people thinking and reasoning impressively well . . . "

A little trick we learned from some lazy, malcontent professors.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

To present professor

Date: Mar 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Greedy
"Plueazzzzzzzzzze................... Do NOT bring in the firey debacle of James Yee. Are you NUTS? We are fighting for "credibility" here. If you READ the news, you will see that Yee was cleared on minor "technicalities" only, but that clearly he had let sensitive documents out into the WRONG hands. OK!!!!!!!!!!!????????? For heaven's sakes, let's not shoot ourselves in the foot with foolish allegiances. This Yee thing is a HORRIBLE analogy that deserves an apology to Glamser and Stringer. It could well be used by our opposition as how illogical and "liberal" we are. Do not give them any cannon fodder. This is a violation of "civil rights"; the Yee deal was not that at all. He has been cleared on "technical" grounds, OK. Leave it alone. Glamser and Stringer were "went after" and denied all due process. Yee was not. Thank you. "

Dear Greedy:

I know both Gary and Frank very well and hardly need you to tell me to apologize to them.

Having said that -- you reinforce rather than negate my main point. In fact Yee was deprived of due process -- a trial in public of the charges orginally brought against him. What remains is a man who has been convicted in the public mind because too many folks (who haven't seen the evidence) have bought the line that he would have been convicted if tried. What they will remember is that he used pornography, committed adultery, and probably should have been convicted except for "technicalities." There is a career ruined without trial -- and that is my point about how the Thames administration works.

Now, we may not agree on this -- and we may not agree that this is a good example. But in movements in which freedom and thought and speech are central issues it usually isn't a good idea to attack your allies because you don't agree with everything they say. If that were true the 40-0, 41-2 and 41-1 recent votes of my faculty senate colleagues would not have been possible.

Thanks for your understanding.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

RE: Feeling better about things

Date: Mar 28, 2004

It seems to me that Yee was being used as an example in this discussion, but was not being proposed to be used as a central example concerning the issues that the majority of us agree upon. Frankly, I think this recent debate over Yee would fly way over the heads of the current administration -- since they are not ones to encourage critical thinking skills. In any event, what we seem to be up against right now - is getting the message out there through the media and other means of communication. People have posted on other threads trying to use that divide and conquer mentality pitting business vs. liberal arts etc. We must stay resolute and focused. I think this message board is fabulous and have witnessed intellectual insights that I doubt Thames and Co. would ever recognize.

Have you all ever known people who have told so many lies that they begin to believe them themselves? I am positive that this is Dana and Shelby's problem since I personally know both of them and have had to endure dealing with both of them on several different levels.. I would imagine it's Angie's problem too although I don't personally know her.

USM is so much better than these people, and we need to find every avenue that we can to get our message out and kick these people to the curb.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: time for truth
"It seems to me that Yee was being used as an example in this discussion, but was not being proposed to be used as a central example concerning the issues that the majority of us agree upon. "

That's how I saw it too. I thought the prof and Mr. Greedy were both right; they were just defining the argument in different ways.

The Yee analogy is good in terms of a strictly intellectual analysis. But it would be bad PR to use it to reach the general public.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

Points well taken............

I was worried that "professor" would well-intendedly take such to the media, equating two tangentially opposite situations.

While Yee might "fly over the head" of the administration, it would not fly well in the minds of some of my relatives here in Mississippi, who do not know jack about things, no matter how hard I try. They DO know the Yee thing, or at least what they have read.

Let's agree to leave the Yees of the world out of our discussion, even as a point of departure. There are many better examples of minorities who have been deprived of due process, whom our community can better identify than a potential spy, whether he was or was not.

I think Hanbury/Mader/Thames, et al. are the types who WOULD splash such a comparison all over the media, inflaming fencesitters. We need to be smart.

As to the telling of so many lies that one eventually believes them, I wholeheartedly agree 100%. I think that has been a problem with "them" from the get go.

USM is much better than "them", regardess of the Roy Klumbs who unfortuantely sit on the IHL board for years to come. That is another string.

It is up to investigative reporters in our "media" to do the rest, and they are failing miserably.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

People tend not to trust what they don't understand. And most people do not understand the way a university operates or the kind of responsibilities a professor has.

The more "university life" appears to Joe Q. Public to be removed from "real life," the less support the faculty will have for their concerns.

It's all about audience awareness. Very good arguments could very well end up alienating the people they are meant to convince.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: aghast
"People tend not to trust what they don't understand. And most people do not understand the way a university operates or the kind of responsibilities a professor has. The more "university life" appears to Joe Q. Public to be removed from "real life," the less support the faculty will have for their concerns. It's all about audience awareness. Very good arguments could very well end up alienating the people they are meant to convince."

Good discussion. Thank you again.

My Yee example was not focused on Yee but on the people who brought charges against him and how it was done.

In approaching this board, I assumed that most of us here aren't the people who need convincing -- that this is mostly internal discussion among those who, for the most part are already convinced we need a change of administrations. My assumption was that this particular audience of conversants would see beyond the politics of the Yee event to what Foucault would call the "technique of repression." Obviously I didn't frame my example very well so I am sorry to have introduced an example that is outside our topic and which has already taken up too much time.

I appreciate Greedy's concern for using the rhetoric appropriate to the audience. It is an important point.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" Good discussion. Thank you again. My Yee example was not focused on Yee but on the people who brought charges against him and how it was done. In approaching this board, I assumed that most of us here aren't the people who need convincing -- that this is mostly internal discussion among those who, for the most part are already convinced we need a change of administrations. My assumption was that this particular audience of conversants would see beyond the politics of the Yee event to what Foucault would call the "technique of repression." Obviously I didn't frame my example very well so I am sorry to have introduced an example that is outside our topic and which has already taken up too much time. I appreciate Greedy's concern for using the rhetoric appropriate to the audience. It is an important point. "

I knew what you were getting at. I suppose what we have here is a little identity crisis. Are we using this discussion for our own benefit in thinking through the issues or as a springboard for how to approach the outside world? I'd say a little of both is in order. I don't think this has been a off topic at all.

Besides, it's been so long since I've talked to anyone who quoted Foucault that I'm just tickled to even be here.

Date: Mar 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: aghast
" I knew what you were getting at. I suppose what we have here is a little identity crisis. Are we using this discussion for our own benefit in thinking through the issues or as a springboard for how to approach the outside world? I'd say a little of both is in order. I don't think this has been a off topic at all. Besides, it's been so long since I've talked to anyone who quoted Foucault that I'm just tickled to even be here. "

yep -- you are right on that last point. I have been spending so much time lobbying my colleagues I am probably making some subconcious judgements about the audience on this site.

It is a great site though -- a new tool for organizing and a hell of a tool for research. Back in the year zero it would have taken weeks to unearth and disseminate the kind of information people are digging up! I am so amazed.

One thing to be careful however -- disinformation. This happened when I was at another university where the scandal (a long story) involved a President who had some unsavory ties with the intelligence community.We discovered some of the information we were getting was false -- intentionally put out to discredit the unaware. I think that is probably not the case here and it looks like folks are being careful to verify and crosscheck.

Foucault isn't in fashion these days but I still find his analysis of power relationships helpful. And I'm delighted someone else has passed through some French theory . . . or at least went to the "right" parties (smiling in return.)

Date: Mar 29, 2004

to truth4usm...........