PLEASE STOP WITH ALL THIS TALK THAT A UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE A BUSINESS. Has no one taken basic civics? First:

Like most every other country on earth, the United States has more than one institution. Let me remind you of three: private enterprise, the military, and the university. Private enterprise is an institution certainly and many on this board are quite familiar with its rules and requirements. But it is so disheartening to be among adults and have to explain that private enterprise is not the only institution recognized by American law. After all, have we forgotten another institution called the military? The military, as a distinct and unique institution, has its own rules, and they are not the same as private enterprise’s rules. Did you know, or just forget, that the military even has its own legal system and courts? Have people forgotten that our society recognizes the military as a distinct institution?

Another fine institution along with private enterprise/business and the military is the American university. How is it possible that so many intelligent people have forgotten this basic social fact? Just as the military has its own distinct code, and just as private enterprise does, so too do universities. These codes are recognized and codified in case law going back at least 100 years. In fact, the United States tax code DOES NOT ALLOW a state or public university to be a business. It requires private enterprise to operate according to a different standard than a tax exempt public university. Is that so hard to fathom? A public university must be a non-profit tax-exempt organization. It would be frankly illegal for a university to trade its social, institutional role and act as a business. More than the IRS would disapprove, so, too, would over a century of precedent in case law.

So if a university like private enterprise and the military is a distinct, even unique institution what one element makes it unique? One word: "professor." That word refers to a unique profession that has no synonym and no equivalent IN ANY OTHER AMERICAN INSTITUTION. The law recognizes and understands this unique status, and this unique profession. Say what you want about this profession the simple fact is that in the law it is a recognized distinct institutional category dependent entirely on a unique concept applicable only to this one profession and one institution. That concept is called "academic freedom." Because the concept, "professor," can only exist in the institution of a university and no where else it has for the past 100 years been legally protected as a profession in a distinct body of law that defines and protects "academic freedom." Much of that law, by the way, will be brought to bear in the Whiting suit next month I would suspect. In any event, the right to free inquiry and free speech for professors in the unique, special environment of a public university goes beyond the expectations of like professions in business, and the military. The law quite severly limits speech both in private enterprise and in the military. But just as stringently it protects that same speech in the institutional environment of the university. That is what America is about. This is not conservative, liberal, or what have you. This is just basic American civics. It is basic law. In short, professors and universities are special unique and recognized as such in law. Why is it so difficulty to understand that the university and private enterprise ARE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT UNDER THE LAW.

There are many on this board who care only for a business model. Fine, lets talk simple business. Why do business folks suppose that grants alone generate money and economic development? Pick the top ten state research universities in the United States. Do they have a strong commitment to academic freedom? Do they have shared governance? Do they bring in Nobel prizes, patents, students, etc and spend their salaries and wages in the local economy. Might academic freedom be tied to financial stability and success? It is almost tragic that I have to remind people on this board that every grant USM attains is TAX EXEMPT. The local economy of Hattiesburg realizes virtually no money from any grant attained by USM. Most of its money is spent out of state in goods and services, and none of the other money is taxable. Only wages and salary are taxable. In the actual business reality of Shelby Thames’ administration over 200 professors making at least $50,000 a year each have left the local economy. They WERE NOT REPLACED.

Business people talk real business. The median income around here is not above $26,000. Yet Thames in just two years has managed to lose for this local economy over 200 jobs paying double that. A conservative estimate of $50,000 average salary per person means Shelby lost Hattiesburg at a minimum 10 million dollars of taxable revenue (Clint do you read that number ok?) Now add in all the relatives, friends, and family of those 200 people that spent taxable money here and ask yourself? Where is the business sense in supporting that loss. Be realistic. How many of those 200 lost tenure track, often tenured jobs were replaced? Lets say as many as 40 if you want to be generous. Fine. But spin how you will, if I were a serious business man I would be mad as hell that this guy lost the local economy so many millions of dollars in taxable income. If I were a small business owner I would be even more angry to have lost so many customers with disposable income in an income bracket damn rare in these parts. I cannot help but wonder why small businesses continue to support a man that loses the only money generating engine this particular institution, USM, has to offer the economy? Salary and wages.