The most amazing thing about this story is that it seems like everyone in town knows it, but no one will talk about it. Right after Shelby's presidency was announced, people I know started telling me about it--an alum, a grandmother, the person who cuts my hair, etc. I got several versions of it, which says to me that some of it must be true, or there was more than one "incident." Apparently it was brought up to the IHL board and their attitude was "oh, that was a long time ago."

The way I heard the 1981 incident was Shelby was "gettin' his groove on" with some "company ink" in a bathroom situated off of his administrative office when his wife showed up.  His secretary delayed the wife long enough for him to shuffle the ink off in the other direction, only his wife had to go to the bathroom.  When she walked in she found a little "Victoria's Secret number" on the floor, and she picked it up and came running out into the hall (where he was) screaming "whose are these? whose are these?"  Apparently, there were several by-standers that witnessed the fiasco.

After the first IHL vote, I heard they questioned him in general terms about these kinds of stories, and he denied everything.  This person told me yesterday that the "company ink" involved in the 1981 episode is a big supporter of his and now works at PRCC.  She even came to Hattiesburg to the celebration on campus when he took over the presidency.  The person told me that ST is savvy when it comes to this stuff --- he always takes care of his "partners" financially, and they never cross him later.

 

I've heard the particular of the story and what I've heard matches yours. The woman is now working at PRCC.  I heard she might be in Public Relations but am not totally positive.

Talk about misusing university equipment!  NOW I know why SFT brags about being a "red-blooded American male"!

If there's any hard evidence of this, it would NOT be accepted...at least not by the agency which funded the research, nor by the state's and/or federal attorney's office!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Shouldn'tbut gonna
"WELL...I just heard that one of the trysts (whether it was the 1981 timeframe or not, I don't know) involved a love nest that was being funded out of grant (or university?) funds.  Brings new meaning to that protest sign about misuse of university property, doesn't it? In all seriousness, why is this sort of behavior accepted?"

---

 

So...then the "media" have aided and abetted a felony!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Shouldn'tbut gonna
"I heard that the media outlets had the hard info in spring of 2002 during the presidential wars and were convinced to squelch it.  That's as far as I can go without revealing my source...anyone else?"

---

You're right...sorry...I lost my head there for a moment.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Shouldn'tbut gonna
"Given the pervasive corruption that seems to be unfolding, that surprises you?  At a time when other job candidates might have become the President of USM, you are surprised that a story got squelched...come now!"

---

That's why I brought up this spin on the rumor because, if it's true, there is a paradigm shift from the personal/ethical to the financial/legal.  My source was very good - said the media had the supporting evidence in 1992 - but chose to run damaging stories on the other presidential candidate(s) instead.  The purpose of this post is not to speculate but to put it out there to see if anyone else can support with specifics or documentation.  I agree many of the other posters (including the one who critiqued the glossary last night) that, although some of you speak quite eloquently, it's time to stop pontificating and look for the specifics that will "topple the top".  We have had some very good forest stories but now we need some more trees!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Shouldn'tbut gonna
"WELL...I just heard that one of the trysts (whether it was the 1981 timeframe or not, I don't know) involved a love nest that was being funded out of grant (or university?) funds.  Brings new meaning to that protest sign about misuse of university property, doesn't it? In all seriousness, why is this sort of behavior accepted?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Shouldn'tbut gonna
"That's why I brought up this spin on the rumor because, if it's true, there is a paradigm shift from the personal/ethical to the financial/legal."

---

If this is a "paradigm shift" (which is arguable in a strict sense), it happened over 20 years ago. During the "Reagan Era," it became generally accepted that if something is legal, then it is also morally acceptable. Money talks & all that.

Funny that the "conservatives" support situational ethics, isn't it?

Going back to the mid-80s when I first heard the "rumor," part of the story then was that a contribution had been made to the USM Foundation to ensure that the official reason for the demotion was "acceptable."

Would the present morass be different if Drs. Stringer & Glamsser had said, "Oh, well, if you can forget all these charges, we'll make a $100K contribution to the Foundation..." ????

Very well said...I'm quite sure there are reasonable and ethical liberals out there somewhere.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" For whatever my opinion may or may not be worth, I'd advise Invictus and other posters not to allow the board to become a forum for "liberal vs. conservative" comments.  Many conservatives oppose the actions of SFT; to imply that conservatives are unethical and hypocritical not only risks alienating allies in the struggle against SFT but also feeds right into SFT's PR spin.  The more he can paint all of his opponents as a bunch of "pointy-headed liberals," the less successful we will be in winning support from the broader public.  I am pretty much a libertarian myself, which means that I can see some sense in some liberal and some conservative ideas, and which is why I hate to see either side depicted as hypocritical and unethical, especially in a context where such judgments not only seem beside the point but also seem counterproductive.  That, at least, is my 2 cents.  "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Lobster
"Is it possible the details of Thames' removal have not come to light because they implicate others, including Lucas in his handling of the matter?  Another case of the coverup being as bad as the crime covered up? I did see a msg on here a few days ago mentioning some names (3 women), but then when i came back to find that message later, i could not find it and i assumed it had been removed.  Does FS remove msgs from the board that he/she finds objectionable or baseless or for any reason?  "

---

Usually, NO. 

Point well taken, Sympathizer.

Invictus does note, however, that the pro-Thames faction routinely paints it this way: liberal professors attacking the quintessential conservative trying to run a public nonprofit "like a business."

=============================================

Thanks for a very civil reply!  I understand your frustration with the rhetoric used by the other side; I guess my basic response is that if we buy into their definition of the conflict as one of "right vs. left," we give them a strategic victory.  This should really be perceived as a conflict between right (i.e., ethical and fair) vs. wrong (unethical and arbitrary).  The more we can keep the focus on the latter conflict, the more supporters we are likely to win.  Thanks for all your valuable contributions to the board!