I have to admit, I am most proud of this piece in particular. Not necessarily because of the writing, but the tremendous respose we received from inside the dome. Without putting too fine a point on it, we got tremendous heat for the article, and admin. people started the rumor that a faculty member penned the piece. I took that as a huge compliment, considering Robbie and I cooked it up and I did the main drafting of the article. Anyway, the rumors backfired, and the column launched the Printz as a source of powerful, sustained criticism of the Shelby machine. We were tough, but I think you'll agree, we were fair...

Editorial Board

“Our View-Thames starting off on wrong track” 9-24-02

Considering the strained relationship that exists between the faculty and USM President Shelby Thames, one would think President Thames would have taken every opportunity to mend fences during first his address to the faculty Senate last Friday. Unfortunately, this was an opportunity missed, as Thames confirmed rumors of a confrontational leadership style and poor people skills, setting an abrasive tone for his tenure at USM.

Thames laid out the goals for his administration by unveiling a new program to increase efficiency and accountability for USM faculty. Central to his plan is a new efficiency report, whereby faculty will be judged by how efficiently they perform their respective duties. A point system will award top scores to those able to bring money to their departments and to the university through grants, as well as consider the number of classes taught and other research work completed.

The flaw in Thames plan, however, is the yardstick by which he plans to judge the faculty. Although he attempted to deflect criticism that his framework put too much emphasis on dollars, the implication was obvious. The more dollars one brings to the university, the better score he or she will receive, and the better their chances for pay raises and tenure, the plums of a career in academia.

What President Thames has failed to realize, however, is that a university is not a factory. Efficiency reports ignore faculty mentoring, advisement of honor societies and student organizations, and all other means by which faculty interact with students on a one-on-one capacity. The hallmark of quality education is most often measured in the available interaction between faculty and students. Virtually all universities stress small student-faculty ratios, which increase this commodity essential to the learning process. Pressuring faculty to teach more classes to ever-growing section sizes all but eliminates the possibility for this vital interaction to occur.

Even more troubling than the plan Thames proposes is the manner in which he delivers it. As one faculty senate member expressed, the need for efficiency reports implies that faculty are inefficient and ineffective. It also implies that without them, faculty will do a poor job, and therefore must be closely watched to ensure they stay on track.

Forcing professionally distinguished faculty members to fill out report cards for themselves on how efficient they are is simply insulting. Worse still, the implication that they are inefficient and basically lazy hampers already low university morale. Combine the above with the fact that faculty pay lingers around the lowest in the nation, and you have a recipe for disaster. Already, 207 faculty members have either retired or left USM for better, higher paying positions elsewhere. With Thames putting unprecedented burdens and obstacles in their already difficult paths, one wonders why any faculty member would choose to endure such miserable conditions.

Near the end of his address, Thames said, to paraphrase, his wish is to walk into every faculty meeting in fear that his staff will be ready to retire because they have become millionaires using his strategy. In case he hasn’t noticed, they’re leaving already, and if his current administrative tone continues, there might not be anyone left.