Tomorrow, when the College Board announces the G&S will be “allowed” to retire, I hope the misguided supporters of this sight and G&S will see the light. If, in fact it is announced that they are retiring take note that these are two tenured faculty members with all the protections that come from tenure, and if G&S truly believe this to have been a “free speech” issues which comes with it the protection of the U.S. Constitution, why then did they agree to retire. Lack of legal defense funds? No, they could easily go to their AAUP and the ACLU to resolve funding for legal support for a “freedom of speech” issue. If they have agreed to retire it will be because they have truly done wrong. I will then hope that all of you who insist in staying angry will at least direct that anger at G&S for misleading you. For those who can get beyond the anger, USM, the faculty, and Dr. Thames will need your help in rebuilding the moral and moving the University in a positive direction. I truly think even G&S would want that.

Think about the value of life. Think about what these men have already undergone in order to not succumb to a corrupt system of governance in this state. This isn't the end. Not by a long shot.  The last shots have yet to be heard.

First, please do not start duplicate threads here.  Ok, here's my reply to you.

Alright, Dome Clone, I have a question to you.

If Shelby's "bogus charade" results in a settlement for the professors, how will you interpret that?  Does that still imply that Shelby's right?

How do you respond to the fact that after Shelby testified, Anderson--ANDERSON, NOT THE TWO PROFESSORS--called Shelby into conference?  Do you think he told him "You've got one helluva case!  It's so good I am not even going to allow you to be cross-examined!" or do you think he told him, "You have just made a complete and utter fool of yourself.  So that you don't face criminal or civil penalties for the manner in which you conducted your OWN investigation, I suggest you settle with the professors. I can't believe you wasted MY TIME and the TAXPAYERS' MONEY with this farce!"

Really, please expound on these questions.

I have closed the other thread, so I am going to move a couple of posts to this one. Anyone who responded to the other thread, please feel free to copy/paste your responses into this thread.

POSTED BY GREEDY:

Shelby's Right reminds me of my father, only he has alzheimer's and I doubt that malady inflicts said misinformed.

My dad says and believes a lot things which are not true because it is precisely what he WANTS to be true.

I also think S'sR is not serious and just scamming because I know personally what it means in any kind of court "hearing" when the proceeding suddenly stop after the opening statements and only the plaintiff is questioned before cross.

ONLY ONE THING.

The plaintiff had no case.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to call me for my ocean front property in Arizona full of gas wells.

POSTED BY PRESENT PROFESSOR IN CLOSED DUPLICATE THREAD:

Shelby's Right:

All too much like your hero:

You SHOUT when you could simply discuss.

You enjoy being cruel.

You have a perverse sense of self-righteousness.

You'll invade my space whether your are wanted or not.

You live to wreak havoc on those who disagree with you.

 I'm sorry you have to resort to hysteria to make your point.

One more point I'd like to make:

Those funds from AAIUP and ACLU you say they could so "easily" get were given by people as a free will offering from people of good will. Some of those people have good resources: but most do not.

Your hero, on the other hand, had the full power of the state behind him to pay for his legal fees and his own publicity staff  (the "university" PR department -- a real joke) to put his case out into the public.  If your point is that somehow "little" Shelby was being persecuted by the big bad ACLU and AAUP, then let me remind you that it was Shelby who constantly insisted that it has always a "small" group of disaffected professors.

There eis no ACLU slush fund, no AAUP bankroll.

As a faculty member at this university, what I have learned is that I have a President I cannot trust; a President who doesn't believe in compromise; a President who treats his faculty and staff like he owns them; a Presdient who doesn't believe in shared governance.

YOU ask the 430 faculty members who voted "No Confidence" why they did so and you will find most of them will not say it was because of Glamser and Stringer. What happened to G&S is a symptom -- not the disease. In January of 2004 most of those faculty members, if not necessarily completely convinced that Shelby Thames was God's gift to USM, were at least willing to give him a chance. Their conversion over the course of the past year and a half you can blame directly on the President you quite clearly and unthinkingly worship. The evidence is right in front of your face: the mismanagement, the incompetence, the violation of standards and principles by which a normal university is run; the increasing subjugation of everyone working here to an ever more restrictive regime of rules, guidelines, and policies, and worst of all, the inability to effectively use human resources with compassion. The bahvior of this President and his continual disrespect to the people who under him merits not only contempt but opposition.

So the answer to you sir or madam, is no, I will NOT try to "heal" the university because what you are really asking is that I "cave" in to a petty tyrant's unreasonable rule.

Like most of the troglydytes trying to analyze the Glamser/Stringer case "What if Shelby Was Right" doesn't know squat about how a university is supposed to be run. Here's a little primer for the cretins.  

As senior professors G and S don't NEED "official permission" to undertake actions to protect the credibility and legitimacy of the institution to which they have staked their professional reputations. Senior professors traditionally exercise a sort of stewardship over the reputation of their univeristy. This stewardship is, ideally, exercised through and with the cooperation of the administration and board of the university. This exercise of stewardship is generally called "shared academic governance," and its existence depends upon the recognition of a very basic fact about administrators and professors: they are colleagues, not labor and management, not workers and employers, not massas and field hands, etc.

Administrators and senior professors are, to descend to the goddamned business metaphor that's polluting this whole matter, "partners." Hence, if the administration fails to fulfill its responsibility to protect the credibility and legitimacy of the university, it is the ethical responsibility of the professoriate, especially its most senior members, those most throroughly identified with the institution, to take up that responsibility. The professors' ethical responsibility towards the university, in other words, exceeds and precedes that of the administration. IT takes many forms that have nothing to do with the day to day adminsitration of the university, such things as research production, well informed teaching and professional service. But, because all of these are, to a pronounced degree, dependent upon the legitimacy of the institution, senior professors have a primary reponsibility to guide, and protect, their university against all threats. Stringer and Glamser, in other words, would have actually been ethically remiss had they not gone forward with the investigation of the Dvorak resume.  Not once has President Thames given any indication that he recognizes this most basic, most fundamental fact about how universities are governed. He's about as ignorant of the principle of shared governance as you are, "What if Shelby is Right." You guys were made for each other.

Another thing, if G and S are forced into retirement, this will NOT be a satisfactory resolution. The ONLY thing that will restore the integrity, and perhaps even the  viability of USM, is for Shelby to either resign or be terminated. Why? Because the G and S lynching was only the latest in a series of SJT's unethical, incompetent and power mad actions that have undercut the principle of shared academic governance and threatened the future of USM.

A compromise that saves Frank's and Gary's retirements is not going to do anything to repair that damage, and anybody who's been paying attention knows it. If anything, a compromise will confirm him in his tyranny; sort of like how Hitler's appetite for conquest was sharpened by the deal that Chamberlein struck to give him the Sudetenland, the infamous "peace in our time" deal that led to the Anschloss, the occupation of Austria, and the eventual debacle of WWII. Shelby's a tyrant, a petty, venal little tyrant, but the principle is the same. All he understands is power. He's got to go down, or USM could be looking at work stoppages, student strikes, civil disobedience, the loss of accreditation and withdrawl of private financial support. Thus always with tyrants . . .

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present professor
"Thanks FS for posting my epistle."

---

And an excellent epistle at that!  No problem. 

(By the way, notice that Shelby's supporters are not responding?  Shooting from the hip and then running back to Eagle Talk.)

IWW's response is very eloquent; as an outsider, it is heartening to me to see you folks standing strong in your commitment to the highest ideals of what a university should be.

Let's assume that IWW's fear -- that SFT is left in office by this time tomorrow, and with no clear prospect that he will leave anytime soon -- is true. Do supporters of SFT really think that this will be good for the university?  Faculty will continue to leave (indeed, they may leave now in droves); grad students will depart or not come; faculty and grad students who stay will feel even more demoralized than at present; and, most important, it looks as if the university will face very serious accreditation problems for all the reasons listed by the faculty senate in its long list of detailed complaints.  Actually, the threat of loss of accreditation may ironically be in the university's best long-term interests; if it does manage to retain accreditation in its present state it will dwindle into true mediocrity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"IWW's response is very eloquent; . . .  if it does manage to retain accreditation in its present state it will dwindle into true mediocrity."

---

Actually, the demoralization of which you speak will certainly happen. I don't like to admit this -- but we are close to that now. What has kept many of us hanging on has been the belief that eventually Shelby would, if given enough rope, hang himself.

Which is where we are now. He has hung himself. But, if he can actually terminate two tenured professors and after a mockery of a hearing in which he proves nothing of substance to substantiate his actions . . .  he still remains in place it will be terrible. It is hard to conceive of anything that could be so clear a revelation of his misrule. The prospect of facing yet another unknown period of time with he and the "cabal" continuing in place is simply unthinkable . . . . but all too thinkable and thus acutely demoralizing. Demoralizing because it is difficult to conceive what can some next.

There is no hope that this faculty can work with him. There is no trust. There is nothing upon which to build trust. We do not have any common ground: we do not agree with what defines a university, nor do we agree in what kind of techniques are appropriate to use in running a university.

There is no remedy to heal this break except a chnage of administrations. Either that, or at least 430 faculty have to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Thanks, Present Professor!  Let's assume that the IHL DOES allow SFT to stay.  Here are some questions to which I'd appreciate your (and others') response(s): * Will SFT make ANY overtures at all to the faculty? 

If he does, who can believe him? We did this last Spring when we requested a mediator and he refused. Instead, he promised meetings and to try to work things out. I could catalogue the adminstration's actions that caused this to fail, but they have been chronicled elsewhere. Promises, promises.

 If so, what are they likely to be? 

Hard to imagine he can make the overtures we need: recreate the computer policy to guarantee confidentiality; reexamine the tenure and promotion policy in the new handbook; consult the faculty ahead of implementing policy that affects our work; stop using his PR office to mount a campign aginst the faculty every time there is a disagreement. These things might be a start. But we disagree on such fundamental principles: like how you treat people -- that it is hard to see how this can be fixed.

If not, what WILL he do? * If SFT makes ANY overtures to the faculty, will the faculty be willing or able to deal with him? 

I can't imagine any overtures he could make that wouldn't seem insincere, self-serving, and calculated to win us in the short term while he plans to cut our throats in the long term. We simply don't trust him.  

If not, what will THEY do? *

Too many people have put their necks on the line. It is impossible to believe we won't be punished for it. There is too fundamental a disagreement about what a university is and how it should be run. I can't speak for everyone -- for me, he has to go. If I am in the minority as a faculty member, then I will have to go. There is no alternative. Water and oil.

How are SFT's associates likely to behave if he stays?  Are they likely to feel chastened or emboldened?  Will they try to make peace or make war?"

They have proven time and again that they take vengence on those they dislike and with whom they disagree. It is widely believed that SFT's associates are less interested in the content of a university than in manufacturing the "aura" of a university. They do not have the patience or the staying power -- their careers and their histories here show a great interest in the aquisition of titles and upward mobility at the sacrifice of subtantial and well-thought out change. Velocity and hype seem more important than laying the firm intellectual and philosophical foundation which should support action.

Yes . . .  they are likely to take punitive action every way they can. We already have seen enough of that to know what is coming.

I have just reread this and it makes me incredibly sad. I usually believe that everyone can be redeemed. I don't believe that at all in this case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Thanks, Present Professor, although I agree that what you have written is incredibly sad. What kind of retaliation or vengeance do you anticipate?  In practical terms, what can they do? In practical terms, how might the faculty resist and/or defend itself?  Do you expect that many will try to do so? Again, this is all very sad.  I am hoping the IHL will realize how destructive this will all be."

---

We live and work in an institutional hierarchy. Punishment can come in the usual forms common to institutions: no merit raises or small ones; getting the least enviable assignments; being moved to less desirable office space . . . I am sure you know the drill. One thing we havelearned is that the President's arm is long: he has learned well how to reach well down through the hierarchy to touch those far below. He knows how to create circles of influence, using incentives and fear. So while thse kinds of punishments might seem awfully far from the Dome, the institution has been reconstituted to make this possible.

Departments that are perceived as harboring dissenters can be isolated and underresourced. The voices of chairs in this controversey have been almost completely silenced by the need to protect their departments. Likewise Deans.

And of course we now have two excellent lessons of what can happen to even tenured professors: tenured professors with long careers, substantial public support, and impeccable careers as teachers and/or scholars. We have learned you can be fired and then have to spend a lot of money to pay a lawyer to pursue an appeal. We have learned that if your case isn't prominent enough for the AG's office to step in and for a hearing officer to be appointed that the entire appeal process can be run by the President; we have learned that even in facts fail to convict that you can be besmirched, the credibility of a lifetime ruined. Who will challenge an administration under such odds?

I'd rather not discuss in an open listserv how the faculty might resist.  I believe it will continue to do so. But if the Board signals that it still strongly supports Shelby it will be an incredibly painful blow. And I suspect there are some who will give up and move on or will move inside and learn how to do their work in silence.

If you wanted to create a classic picture of how to turn active, energetic, caring people into cynical, angry, disillusioned people (surely exactly the kind of people we want teaching our students) then you need look no further than USM under the current administration.

I am tired. It is nearly 2:00 and I have long overstayed my promise to myself to just look at the board and go home. But I have to admit I am fueled by a certain sense of desperation and (I hope passing) despair.

It is inconceivable to me that the Board can not see the truth of our disaster. To not act soon would be to contemplate that they are as a group 1) stupid to the point of imbecility 2) in agreement with the President 3) so fractionalized that the loudest and most aggressive personalities are running the show 4) desirous of seeing this University and its faculty humbled and made compliant to some perverted concept of the IHL's "authority."

The Board believes it made a mistake when it hired FLeming. We believe it made a mistake when it hired Dr. Thames (and I believe it is inevitable that they will discover this if they haven't already). It is time they acknowledge that the next Presidential search needs to be more transparent and that the faculty, staff and students need to have a meaningful role from the beginning of the process. The last search was a joke, and most of us knew it while it was happening, and know it with even greater certainty now.

I wonder if this is going directly into the Dome? Hi there, I Tech!

I have not previously posted to this list, and had not planned to do so, but the initial post on this thread touches a particular nerve. 

I've been concerned from the beginning of the Dvorak controversy that the Thames administration was not upholding valid standards of proof, despite leading a world-class university.  At the beginning of the controversy, we were told that we should believe Dr. Dvorak's credentials for a variety of non-arguments.  Dr. Thames said we needed to believe them because he was satisfied with them.  (Translation:  Believe them because I say so.)  Dr. Dvorak said we should believe them because if not she would sue.  (Translation: Believe them or I'll hurt you.)  Dr. Thames them demonstrated that we should believe them because if not he'd fire us.  (Translation:  see previous.)  None of these arguments are logically valid.

Then everyone was told that we should withhold judgment (though, er, the Thames administration hadn't) until all the "facts" were known.  Now, this word "facts" is curious coming from an administration headed by a scientist, as scientists surely all know that we don't know all the facts about anything in the universe, even polymers.  And anyone who knows persuasion knows that there is no more persuasive argument than "You don't have to do anything at all."  And anyone who knows the human heart knows that is perilously easy to feel morally superior to others, as for instance when those others are actually taking action before all the "facts" are known.   By the logic of the Thames administration, one would never act at all, which I think was the point.  The smoke of a very large moral fire was billowing from the university, but few people seemed to see the logic of calling the fire department because, of course, all the "facts" weren't known.  And some people may even have yielded to the temptation to feel virtuous about doing nothing. 

Then came Wednesday, April 28, and it became clear that there weren't going to be any facts.  Instead, we were treated to a very sorry spectacle:  an accuser with no case.  It was kind of the judge to halt the proceedings, and it was just of the judge to allow Frank and Gary to speak.

But the illogic continues.  Despite a clear demonstration that Dr. Thames had no facts but rather, indeed, had persecuted two senior tenured faculty member for stating conclusions based on logical analysis of evidence, we are told by "Shelby's Right" what the "facts" are. 

I think we must conclude that "Shelby's Right" is not using the word "facts" in its usual dictionary definition.  Indeed, it would appear for him to mean "opinion," or even "opinion doggedly held despite clear evidence to the contrary."   Perhaps this definition could be added to the USM glossary?

Thanks to all of you who have taken time to post logical and well written comments to this list.  At least some of the thousands of hits to this list have been from us beleaguered professors, and we've been encouraged to see your support.

J Lares 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"I have not previously posted to this list,  . .  .   At least some of the thousands of hits to this list have been from us beleaguered professors, and we've been encouraged to see your support. J Lares  "

---

Jameela:

Great post. Your words are true. Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Frank Glamser
"Present Professor, Your insights are searingly insightful. When the settlement becomes public, call me at home. Until then we are bound to silence. I believe the agreement allows for a little guarded optimism. I also believe the IHL was invested in the process to a great degree. That's just a personal opinion. No data. FG"

---

Thanks Frank: can do --

and very best wishes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"
The AAUP's national organization pays for no one's legal defense, unless they are its officers or employees.
Campus chapters of the AAUP don't have the money to pay for anyone's legal defense.

 "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"My statement indicated that the "AAUP and the ACLU" could be called upon for assistance with funding if this were truly a "freedom of speech issue." The AAUP, while it may not be able to contribute cash, it could provide legal assistance as noted on their website: "The legal office works with experts from around the country in submitting friend-of-the-court briefs in key appellate cases, seeking to shape the law in ways supportive of Association principles. AAUP's amicus briefs before the Supreme Court and appellate courts safeguard sound academic practices and due process." I am sure the AAUP could, if requested, could provide to attorneys for G&S extensive legal reserach materials and case histories which would save on what would be considerable legal research cost. The AAUP might also help raise funds indirectly by making its membership aware of this case, where upon individual members could contribute to funds. The AAUP has in fact posted this matter on its website which includes an AAUP person of contact, see: http://www.aaup.org/newsroom/press/2004/USM.htm I have no doubt that the AAUP could also obtain assistance on behalf of G&S from the ACLU which does have funds to cover the cost of legal representation. The bottom line is if this is just a "free speech" issue, G&S would have no problem at all in getting help to cover legal cost. If they have agreed to retire it will not be because of lack of money to defend themselvse."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Polymer Science one of top 3 in World
"He is right and 99% of those who hate him do so out of envy."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: faze2
"Trying not to be ugly here (like alot of people in polymer science) but aren't we dealing with an n of 11?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Polymer Science one of top 3 in World
"He is right and 99% of those who hate him do so out of envy."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" I just wanted to note that when there are only 3 in the world & you're one of them, it isn't hard to be one of the top 3. I'd say it might be like Moe Howard saying he was one of the top 3 stooges in the world, except that there were 5 stooges that I can remember..."

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!

BTW:  Eagle Talk needs to get some cute icons...I won't be going back 'cause there's no real debate over there and the website looks boring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm
"Envious of what?  His short temper?  His ham-fisted management techniques?  His questionable financial practices?  His nepotism?  His cronyism?  Clue us in to what we should be envious of...except for gallons of non-stinky paint."

---

hehe...Or, perhaps, the booty