Excellent observation.  I'm not sure what G & S were expected to do.  Hang in there and be fired?  And as someone has already pointed out, there may be a new prez one of these days, whose hands will not be tied by this agreement.

It's unrealistic to have ever expected that unseating Thames could be part of this particular hearing. That's not what it was for. It was about determining the employment status of G&S, and that's what it did. If they did what they had to do for themselves and their families, more power to them.

This is not the end of the story, however. This is where everyone takes a few deep breaths, regroups, and prepares for the next stage of the fight.

One thing this will do is to create more public interest in the goings on at the university.  The Whiting case, for example, is sure to get a lot more media attention due to following on the heals of so much turmoil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tiger
"Even if this had gone to the board after a full hearing there was no guarantee that Thames being fired would be any part of the final decision."

---

So, what can we, as students who have been VERY vocal against Thames's admin., do to see this to fruition?

I, for one, have been watching the Thames admin. since the beginning.  I have seen the admin. of Lucas, Fleming, and Lucas (again).  As a descendent of a retired USM employee, I have heard horror stories about Thames since he began working at USM.  I have not seen anything in his demeanor to imply that those horror stories were not true, and now I have to say that I am more than a little worried that Thames might be stupid enough to try retaliation tactics against those outspoken against him, as he has aptly done in the past-including when he first became President in 2002. 

So, again, I ask, what can we do?

Start collecting money for Noel Polk's & Anne Wallace's defense fund?

Students, you are the only ones with any real power.  Write, write, write.  Buttons, flyers, talk to each other.

PP & Others--

Frank and Gary took as much heat as they good, then they walked. Apparently Judge Reuben came down here with the idea of making a settlement, pressed that upon Shelby, who wanted his two hours before the TV cameras first, then pressed it on Frank and Gary and threatened them more or less that if they didn't make a deal his own recommendaton might go against them. There is no suggestion anywhere in the proceedings that Shelby might step down, or that the IHL even _wants_ Shelboo to step down, so that's all just smoke that we're pouring out to make ourselves feel better now that we're stuck with the Little Tyrant. Hanbury has some new title, in yet another PR move to give the public the impression that Shelby won the day. Whatever anyone says, this settlement, while good for Frank and Gary, is terrible for the rest of us still in the trenches, after they've been shipped home for a little R&R. I am not saying that they should not have settled. I wasn't in their shoes. And it may be the case that Shelby has taken a serious hit with the board, though Newton, our staunchest supported, is quoted on TV news as saying she "doesn't know how the College Board can help solve the problem, but hopes Dr. Thames will be involved in the healing process."  This from the same board member who has heretofore been (politely) asking for Shelby's scalp. If you think we haven't lost ground you need your scalp examined. 

Good suggestion, formerprof.

The Faculty Senate ought to state, in public, why it rejects Thames' alleged case, and renew the vote of no confidence.

The IHL Board doesn't seem able to look beyond the next few nanoseconds, but those affected by the Thames regime will have to endure it a good deal longer.

Robert Campbell

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: dunno
"   This may sound dumb, but I'll ask it anyway.  If the faculty can vote no confidence, can't the students vote or do something like it?  Can students only do rallies?  If we could vote, would somebody like SGA have to head it up or could anybody? I think it would be nice if we could say the faculty have ano confidence in Thames and neither do the students.  Who could he claim is behind him then?"

---

Dunno,

The best way that students can help resolve this disaster is to tell your acquaintances that USM is presently a dysfunctional institution.  The chances of obtaining a decent education here are diminishing every day that Thames remains as president.  Let anyone who is considering attending USM know about the situation--just tell them the Rachel Quinlivan story.  By the way I hope she and her family sue Thames and the University. 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Flawless
"PP & Others--   . .  .. If you think we haven't lost ground you need your scalp examined.  "

---

It is too early to tell if we have lost ground. In my experience these things tend to accrete. And Newton is doing her job of publically not to be stirring things up. It is just as easy to interpret what she said as putting Shelby on notice that he needs to behave himself -- a warning, in other words, to stop persecuting faculty, staff and students. I don't think for one minute she believes this has fixed things -- I think she needs time. And she needs this campus to continue to show in every way possible that Shelby is unacceptable -- that his administration has shredded its credibility and that none of us can work with managers who cannot be trusted.

It will be interesting to see which member represents the Board at graduation.

I think we should focus all of our attention that we want to direct to the Board on Newton. She's the one with the most doubts. It is amazing that she has been as far out as she as. She is playing a terrific game, if that is what it is, of sending subtle signals without tipping over into open partisanship (ala Klumb). I suspect that that is important in terms of the dynamics of the Board. If she is going to successfully convince the unaligned members of the Board to act then she has to be perceived as not having an axe to grind against Shelby -- she has to be seen to genuinely have the university's best interests at heart, and to have her judgement unclouded by the emotion and anger the rest of us feel. We want her to feel it and show it, because that would feel good to us, and it would send a signal we so desperately want. But she needs to show rationality -- to be the exact counter to Klumb.

Virginia, I don't know if you read this forum, but I can tell you that I have wide contact with faculty across this campus and there is no road to peace that includes Shelby Thames on the trip. It is not because we are stubborn -- it is because it is impossible for himto take away the fear that he created.

The University lost TWO of its best professors -- 56 years of experience. We lost colleagues and friends. Whatever Shhelby says there was no need for this -- and no forgiveness.

If Frank and Gary had to go for the good of the university -- then so does Shelby Thames.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present professor
 We lost colleagues and friends. Whatever Shhelby says there was no need for this -- and no forgiveness. If Frank and Gary had to go for the good of the university -- then so does Shelby Thames."

---

Brilliant! No need, no forgiveness. Make a bumper sticker out of that.

Cut Shelby Loose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present professor
" What many of you are angry about is that you didn't get the emotional catharsis of seeing Shelby fall. It was wrong to expect it. But very human to wish it -- we all did. We will see it yet. Frank and Gary were fighting for their survival -- is there anyone who believes that Shelby LIKES this settlement? THEY WERE REINSTATED. They get paid through the end of Shelby's reign. Gary gets to continue his research. It is true they don't get offices: hell, Anderson did them a favor because they are out of it -- away from the long reach of the gnome, whom we know can reach down through Deans and Chairs to make the life of individual faculty a nightmare.

I am interested in moving beyond the "who won" argument, but the settlement, despite its language of reinstatement, does not support your interpretation.  That is why Shelby could make the claims he did yesterday that they were NOT reinstated.  Shelby probably did already break the agreement about not disparaging the other party publicly, but he feels emboldened, not chastised.  That is the danger here: no one with common sense would have thought Shelby was going to lose his job over this, but, hell, he wasn't even wounded.  I fear greatly that the next few months will be even more of a living hell than it already is. 

As I interpret the agreement, Frank and Gary are still on the faculty, although they do not have office space or teaching responsibilities

Under the agreement, I see no stipulation that they would not be involved in other aspects of faculty life. For example, I would encourage Frank to request a library carrel; I would also encourage his colleagues to vote him to the Arts and Letters advisory committee or perhaps Graduate Council. Although he cannot publicly criticize SFT, the constitution of the United States protects his freedom of speech.

Frank and Gary have been and will remain the visible symbol of the faculty's resistance to the Thames reign of terror...

Angeline,

Shelby Thames has been wounded.  He was not allowed to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to do it.

A more rational person, in Thames' position, would say to himself, "OK, two of my critics are now neutralized, and the Board is obviously in my corner.  I'll just have to be a little more indirect when I go about intimidating and outmaneuvering the rest of my opponents.  No problem.  I have the power, I have most of the politicians behind me, and I have the time."

But for a personality like Thames', any reminder that he is not omnipotent is a wound.  Any reminder that he can't break down or eliminate people who irritate him, right now, this minute, is a wound.

That's why he insisted on misrepresenting the terms of the settlement, even though they were largely favorable to him to begin with.

Relentless pressure, and no quarter.

Robert Campbell

 

I, too, would like to commend Robert Campbell for all he has said throughout this struggle.

I also think the idea of a second no confidence vote is an excellent idea.  The revelation of the monitored e-mails is enough to justify it.  (By the way, the equivalent of a quite public no-confidence vote is taking place right now on the Hattiesburg American opinion page, and so far SFT is losing by a margin of 9 to 1.)

As for the settlement, I literally cheered when I read about it several days ago (I am not exaggerating; there are several witnesses).  It is not all I would have wished, but G&S ARE still on the faculty, and, as someone suggested, there seems no reason why a new president could not reinstate them fully (if they would even wish to return).

In my catch-up reading of the message board (after having been away for several days), I have not (thus far) read the following observation: SFT seems to speak for the kind of people who think university professors just do research and don't teach enough.  He has now made it possible for two professors to get paid to do nothing but research and do absolutely no teaching (which is not an outcome THEY desired).  This is just the latest in a long line of foolishly unintended consequences of his actions.

Finally, a question: I have read that SFT's term expires in two years.  When does the search for a new president officially begin?  Does it begin while SFT is still in office?  If so, how do others on the board imagine the search will go?

 

 

I plan to write to the IHL ASAP and make the following points (among others):

* the recent settlement helps the two profs (thank goodness) but does NOTHING to repair the damage done to USM by SFT.  If anything, the fact that he was forced to keep the two profs on the faculty despite his obvious desire to fire them, combined with the revelations about e-mail snooping, will make USM look even worse in the eyes of (a) prospective faculty; (b) current [and, in some case, soon-to-be-departing] faculty; (c) prospective grad students (who teach many of the universities newest students); (d) many prospective students; (e) the academic community throughout the nation.

* the ONLY way to begin repairing the damage already done to USM is to remove SFT.

* the only way to head off the PROSPECTIVE damage that is likely to be done to USM in the coming two years (especially the possible loss of its SACS accreditation) is by replacing SFT.

SFT is now a lame duck; two years will go by very quickly (although, unfortunately, it will not seem that way to folks at USM).

I have been reading the messages on the board over the past few weeks and I am tremendously impressed with the eloquence of this board. Although I haven't posted to the message board, I have found it to be of great value and of great support to USM and those who "fight the good fight." Drs. Glamser and Stringer should be admired for their courage and their dedication to their students, colleagues, the university community, and the constitution. We all should learn about leadership from the likes of these two brave men and those of you who support them.

My hope is that the others who will follow Drs. Glamser and Stringer (and there are others who will probably be targeted soon) will continue to have your support. Thames will continue on his rampage of attempting to stamp out dialogue and any semblance of shared governance until someone in the IHL or governor's office realizes just how loose this cannon actually is.

Rage, rage against this tyrant. I beseech the faculty senate to conduct another vote of no confidence on the e-mail spying. I challenge the student government association to represent the students and the young lady who was pulled into this mess by such an awful, destructive man.

Who's to say who may be next?