It ain't over 'til it's over.

"In the Know" you are correct.  A bunch of us old Alums and concerned friends of USM have been hashing the day's events over - and It's our conclusion that whatever the outcome of the hearing, pressure should be continued on the IHL.  Letters from each and all spelling out the litany of Thames abuse of office should be sent.  Letters should be very specific in charges against the Administration. We do not want to lose momentum on trying to put this fine university back on track.  Continued letters ,in fact, a barrage of letters should descend upon the IHL in the coming weeks.  USM Friends - Get Ready - Sharpen your pens - Start!

That's right Stephen.  Continue to use your students to further professors' agendas.  That's real professional.

Elliott, if my judgment is so bad, let's see who shows up to work after the next board meeting--G&S or Thames.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Old Timer
"Elliott, if my judgment is so bad, let's see who shows up to work after the next board meeting--G&S or Thames."

---

 Old Timer, just out of curiosity: can you list some specific reasons why you think SFT is a great president of USM?  I sincerely am interested in hearing them.  From what I can see, he has destroyed the reputation of a university that previously had been well regarded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: elliott
"Not only will G&S show up for work, they'll be taking home fatter paychecks every month for the rest of their lives."

---

I certainly hope so.

But I also think that after the next board meeting, Thames will also show up for work. And he will likely not have been chastised in any shape, form, or fashion for his short-sighted, paranoiac attack on the reputation of the University of Southern Mississippi. Don't be surprised if he gets a fatter paycheck, too. Thames was the flunky who got slapped for attempting to advance the stated agenda of certain board members & those boardsters may choose to compensate him for his trouble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Old Timer
". . .  We must face some economic facts of life.  We do not have big piles of money sitting in foundations like MSU and UM.  . . ."

I think you are correct that we must look at the economic facts. 

What about looking at how much money was wasted on these procedings?  What about how much money the state paid for the attorney that represented Thames?  I think that Anderson saw this as a waste of time and money.  That's why he got them to settle.  If Thames was a good administrator and leader, he would have sat down and worked this out without involving the entire faculty, the student body, the press, and the rest of the state. 

A good leader doesn't throw his dirty laundry out in public for all to see, he cleans it up inside.

I can't figure out why Thames' attorney didn't try to act like Anderson and get him to resolve this internally instead of the way it was handled.  Thames' attorney ended up making a nice paycheck for what?  While the investigation into Dvorak isn't the highlight of these men's careers, it wasn't illegal either.  If Thames had really had a case, he would have been cross-examined and then the professors would have testified and been crossed.  I don't think the state got their money's worth when they paid for Thames' attorney.

Thames arrogance has led to nothing but wasted money when he is supposed to be so good at bringing in money.

Old Timer,

If G&S really did do something inappropriate, why weren't their department heads and deans involved.   A letter of reprimand, suspension, probation, etc., may have been appropriate.   But for shelby to lock them out of their offices and start termination procedures without a hearing is nothing short of a desperate actions of a megalomaniac.   Such actions may be appropriate in the Middle East in countries ruled by dictators, but are not needed on a university campus.   Maybe shelby was overly defensive because he hired dvorak for all the wrong reasons - a nice pair of legs, beautiful eyes, etc. Who knows.  In the end, shelby went way overboard on his actions.   USM will suffer as long as he is in control.

Old Timer,

I'm sorry, but if I saw someone in an English department denied tenure on "economic development" grounds, on the judgment of a Vice President who had questionable qualifications to be evaluating any professor for tenure, I'd investigate her, too.  (Why Gary Stringer didn't come out and explain the circumstances earlier, I don't know.  In my opinion, he should have.)

Not only is Angeline Dvorak unqualified to evaluate professors for tenure, the duties of her position need to be changed so that when her replacement arrives, that person will not be involved in tenure and promotion decisions.

Anyhow: If you really care whether USM is properly managed, you ought to be demanding Dvorak's removal.   There were no "semantic" issues--she lied on her vita.   Do you really think that anyone in the employ of a university should be allowed to do that?  Or is it your opinion that universities need dishonest and unethical administrators?

As for the wider issues that you mention, of course they are real--and very serious.

But it's also clear what's wrong with the approach used by Shelby Thames and his buddies on the Board.

First, they aren't thinking clearly about the mission of a university.  They aren't even thinking clearly about sources of revenue--as tuition goes up, departments that teach a lot of undergrads, at a relatively low cost per Student Credit Hour, become sources of revenue.  If you ran the numbers, I'll bet you would find that English presently generates net positive revenue for USM now, at the undergraduate level.  (The economics of the graduate program are trickier; I don't know nearly enough to be able to make a prediction there.  A lot of graduate programs in the humanities are going to need to be shut down in the near future, because there aren't nearly enough jobs in universities for their degree holders.)

But, you see, administrators like SFT who dream of gold-plated resumes and bragging rights are fixated on grant-funded research.  They ignore what it costs to be competitive for the grants and contracts, and they look down on revenues derived from instruction.  (SFT, in addition, is a classic engineering bigot who in effect considers all other disciplines to be worthless. I wonder whether he wants engineering students to take any liberal arts courses at all.)

Second, people like Roy Klumb think that the way to change universities is to grant unlimited power to administrators.  The only thing you can conclude about an administrator who asks for unlimited power is that the administrator wants unlimited power.  It's amazing how little of a positive program such people have.  In Thames' case, he's too busy feeding his ego and losing his temper to keep focused on a positive program anyway.

Third, whatever the future of the tenure system--and it's got problems, no question about that--tenure is a contract.  And tenure contracts have been upheld many times in court.  Instead of proposing alternatives to tenure that would apply to incoming faculty, or offering incentives to come off tenure (which no tenured professors would take, unless they had high confidence in the administration), people like Thames concentrate on firing professors who already have tenure.   That is a losing proposition, as the premature termination of yesterday's hearing makes clear.  Firing tenured professors works only if the administrator can be sure they will leave quietly.  If Thames had had any sense, he'd have known that G&S would stand their ground.

Thames has been an unmitigated disaster.  The challenges facing USM are genuine; all the more reason to seek a genuine leader, and get rid of this tinpot autocrat.

Robert Campbell