Here's something I posted a few weeks ago under a different thread. I don't know if it really addresses the issue you cite, since it centers around the privacy issue. Good idea USMSymp. to get some input!

This is REAL LIFE, not some tv movie, not some staged reality tv show like The Apprentice (could make a good comparison here, but I'll abstain!). If your boss called you into his/her office for something you allegedly did wrong, would you want it web-cast in real time? Would you want it on tv? Especially when you have no idea what your crazy boss is going to say. He could say anything... like you were selling crack cocaine out of your office, and there it is all over the world. Of course you know you didn't do it and will eventually prove that, but tongues are a-wagging all over the globe. These professors have been at USM for decades.  They have been FIRED. It is horrible. Given that the hearing is not a court of law, my guess is almost anything is possible. How scary for them. I say try to put yourself in their shoes. I wouldn't want everyone to be privy to my personal life.

Remember that what is currently being held "confidential" is the set of charges.  These charges are purported to include some outrageous and ludicrous allegations.  Once made public, the media machine will crank them out and spin them constantly in the press, regardless of their veracity.  The defense, even when proven true, will simply not be as exciting and the reputations of Drs. Glamser/Stringer will be further maligned.  If you think about the spin in the first 10 days or so following March 5, it will be nothing compared to this.  If the hearings are closed, then the most ridiculous of the charges can be thrown out quietly.

A bit off topic, but I heard that one of the charges is that the professors hurt the university's reputation in the press by publicly questioning the enrollment numbers!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wise1
"Missy says, "I say try to put yourself in their shoes. I wouldn't want everyone to be privy to my personal life."
But didn't Dr. Dvorak deserve the same consideration?"

---

Correct me if I'm wrong legal experts, but a resume is NOT a private document. It is not about one's personal life, but one's professional life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wise1
"Missy says, "I say try to put yourself in their shoes. I wouldn't want everyone to be privy to my personal life." But didn't Dr. Dvorak deserve the same consideration? If the professors have nothing to hide, they need not fear an open hearing.  If false accusations are made, they can be easilty refuted.  But the TRUTH is hard to hide."

---

In Dr. Dvorak's case - we are talking about her resume, a resume that should reflect the educational and professional background that makes her suitable to be the VP of Research and Economic Development.  Was her experience the type of experience to qualify her for such a pivotal administrative position?  If Shelby and Co. were sure of Dvorak's credentials being appropriate - answering the questions posed to them would have been simple and would never have escalated to this level. But, instead they did what they usually do when confronted with any issue dealing with sensible reason - they attacked. This tactic normally works because it invokes fear in people and those who questioned him back off.  And I can assure you, from experience, that this regime uses humiliation, isolation, and defamation as some of their most powerful weapons when honesty will get them into even more trouble. Shelby and Co. want the hearing to be open because it is a hearing over termination and the ball will be in Shelby's court if he can stay on the attack.  He knows nothing about following protocol obviously, and he does not know how to deal with integrity and dignity - he needs an audience of those followers he has seemed to amass - so, with the UAC, the IHL, and Anderson in the mix, he loses his ability to rabble rouse -in short, when he has no outside audience, it's amazing how silenced he becomes. I've seen it with my own eyes. 

The reason the hearings should be closed is that the faculty handbook says personnel matters are confidential. If the faculty are expected to abide by the faculty handbook (I believe by signing their contracts they are obligated to do so), then the administration must too. The "spin" from the administration is that this doesn't apply to procedings begun by the president, but they're playing fast and loose (obviously, if they're firing tenured profs.) One of the most significant things the attorney general said was basically, "we don't have procedures to deal with this." The reason they don't have procedures, is because what Thames did is absolutely outrageous--it's as if George Bush decided to bomb Chicago without telling anybody beforehand. Imagine then saying, "oh, we need to develop procedures for this now that George Bush has wiped out Chicago."

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"The reason the hearings should be closed is that the faculty handbook says personnel matters are confidential. "

---

Ok, so aside from the argument that these matters are confidential, why does everyone insist on having the trials closed?  I mean regardless of what people say, the option of the trials being closed has already been decided upon.  I would like to hear some OTHER good solid reasons from Glamser/Stringer supporters on why they should be.  Because, at the present time, this entire argument sounds like groups of supporters who sound ignorant because of the lack of information from both sides of the story.  And regardless of the unknown allegations and private information, these supporters insist on having a closed trial, for what?? Because they are supporting these Professors, even though no one really knows the whole story besides a select few administrators and 2 professors.  That make sense, I promise! 

Let me just go hide behind a brick wall for everyone elses own good too.  Since this is affecting us, our professors, and our university, I feel as if we have a right as concerned Southern Miss students to hear the entire story laid out on the table.  That way, everyone will have a clear understanding on why the termination proceedings took place, and should the professors be fired, we will know the valid reasons for why they were.  Should they be reinstated, we will know how ridiculously unprofessional and irrelevant this entire controversy has been, and who's to blame for its doings.  In addition, if the trials were open (which they won't be), people can then choose to decide who they support on a more sound and concrete reasoning than simply, "lets support integrity by supporting two professors, even though we really have no idea (only speculation) on why these guys were suspended from the university."

Just my two cents worth!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
" Ok, so aside from the argument that these matters are confidential, why does everyone insist on having the trials closed?  I mean regardless of what people say, the option of the trials being closed has already been decided upon.  I would like to hear some OTHER good solid reasons from Glamser/Stringer supporters on why they should be.  Because, at the present time, this entire argument sounds like groups of supporters who sound ignorant because of the lack of information from both sides of the story.  And regardless of the unknown allegations and private information, these supporters insist on having a closed trial, for what?? Because they are supporting these Professors, even though no one really knows the whole story besides a select few administrators and 2 professors.  That make sense, I promise!  Let me just go hide behind a brick wall for everyone elses own good too.  Since this is affecting us, our professors, and our university, I feel as if we have a right as concerned Southern Miss students to hear the entire story laid out on the table.  That way, everyone will have a clear understanding on why the termination proceedings took place, and should the professors be fired, we will know the valid reasons for why they were.  Should they be reinstated, we will know how ridiculously unprofessional and irrelevant this entire controversy has been, and who's to blame for its doings.  In addition, if the trials were open (which they won't be), people can then choose to decide who they support on a more sound and concrete reasoning than simply, "lets support integrity by supporting two professors, even though we really have no idea (only speculation) on why these guys were suspended from the university." Just my two cents worth!"

---

The "trials" (whatever that means) should be closed because the faculty handbook states they are to be closed.

OOPS!  That's right!  Shelby doesn't have to follow the rules, though!

Whatever your name is,

In addition to the faculty handbook, due process, and confidentiality discussions, there have been other arguments made on this thread and others.  You either are not reading them or are not influenced by them.  Continuing to ask for a good argument to keep the hearings closed when you have courteously been given many reasons is poor form.  No wonder you are being banned. 

From Mediahound:

Remember that what is currently being held "confidential" is the set of charges. These charges are purported to include some outrageous and ludicrous allegations. Once made public, the media machine will crank them out and spin them constantly in the press, regardless of their veracity. The defense, even when proven true, will simply not be as exciting and the reputations of Drs. Glamser/Stringer will be further maligned. If you think about the spin in the first 10 days or so following March 5, it will be nothing compared to this. If the hearings are closed, then the most ridiculous of the charges can be thrown out quietly.

A bit off topic, but I heard that one of the charges is that the professors hurt the university's reputation in the press by publicly questioning the enrollment numbers!!!

From Missy:

I disagree about "false accusations being easily refuted". There is a PR machine with salaried individuals behind it and working for it on one side, and two unemployeed professors on the other. I think in the media there have been many instances of people being falsely accused and having to endure mental anguish as a result of it. I do not trust the administration in this situation to play fair.

 

Moot point now!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Distant supporter of USM
" The opponents of an open hearing likely want to avoid distractions which can only interfere with the making of a meticulous record. They know that should the effort at the administrative/Board level fail the next step is the courts and there the quality of that record will be extremely important. One side may want distractions and an opportunity to play to the press and public."

---

Exactly.