One of the stories that central admin is passing off on the business community and general public is that Shelby is making "faculty work for a living," and he expects "a day's work for a day's pay," etc. etc.
Never mind that this slant is bogus on its face, here's another angle to it all. This controversy is causing faculty to spend more time in Senate meetings, looking for other jobs, writing letters to editors, attending no confidence votes/hearings, visiting IHL board proceedings in Jackson, talking with news reporters, etc. Actually, alot less work is being done now under the bossman than what was seen under Flemming, much less Lucas. Many more faculty are staying home on non-teaching days, which if this were more productive, they would've done so before, so we can only conclude that it's a less productive choice. Second, ST has cancelled more classes (for football games, Golden Eagle revelries, Founder's Day celebrations, etc.) himself than any president USM has ever had. Finally, we've got lots more silly admin posts (Univ. Spokesperson, Risk Manager, Technology Process Coordinators, etc.) than you could imagine. We're about 200 faculty positions down from the late 1990s.
Go read my post about "running the university like a business", which I agree to, but is NOT happening.
You will find it interesting.
Yes, the conflict has NOTHING whatsoever to do with faculty having problems with giving a days work for a day's pay.
I have crossed paths with several local businessmen (I am one too, at least "close by") who argue this issue. There is NO WAY to change their minds, so just move on to something else.
They hate the fact that any profession has any sort or semblence of "tenure" and they can nor never will understand why tenure is necessary for freedom of thought and research to pursue new ideas that no one else has thought of, even if one person might object since he or she would not be helped while viturally 100% of the rest of us would be better off.
From Salesperson in the Need the Info thread - seems to apply here!
I applaud Present Faculty Member's description of what is best referred to as a community of scholars. I would like to suggest, however, that when trying to convince someone outside of acedemia that arguments should be framed in terms and examples they value. In other words, in order to get results, we should sell the way that people want to buy, which is not necessarily the way that we would most like to sell (our cause). I have repeatedly heard the same arguments from the business community over the past several weeks, as if they have been scripted and distributed by the USM media machine. Trying to describe a community of scholars has not been an effective response. What has been more effective is offering alternative ways of looking at the situation, such as:
If you had 93% of your employees saying they had no confidence in their manager, what would you do?
If you could choose a successful company to model your own after, what would it be? (Are there really any entrepreneurs who would choose the manufacturers of the 40s and 50s as their examples?)
If your stock went down because of bad press, poor morale, and disillusioned investors, would you intervene?
Just some ideas because offering up more of the same to people who just don't get it won't change any minds.
No, I'd rather see that you get great USM grads to choose from - educated and mentored by great professors! Don't change the subject in the business community - convince them!