Open note to Bill Scarborough

Date: May 1, 2004

Open note to Bill Scarborough

Date: May 1, 2004

I have a different take on this. I think Bill said what he did to enrage (and engage) people on the issues that have not been settled. Bill has the distinction of being one of the most outspoken people on this campus who has managed to outlast many administrations- I think he deserves cudos from all on this. When I first read what he said, I too was taken a bit aback, until I started to think about what Bill has represented and continues to be all about. And, then it struck me (with all the critical thinking skills that the Thames administration is trying to rid us of) . . . . . .

Maybe I'm being too generous, but many of us will stay united by serving in many diversified roles.

Reminds me of the Beatles' song Revolution.

Date: May 1, 2004

Scarborough is right

Glamser & Stringer WILLINGLY made this a fight against Shelby and quoted freedom of speech et al then bailed

Date: May 1, 2004

And another thing, this fight is much less win-able without Bill Scarborough. He is very smart, and I want smart people on my side. He's a fighter, and one we can't afford to lose.

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: alum
"Scarborough is right Glamser & Stringer WILLINGLY made this a fight against Shelby and quoted freedom of speech et al then bailed"

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "WILLINGLY" or "bailed." Oh hell, I can't tell what you mean at all. G & S were drug into this. The proceedings, the controvery, the hearing were all specific to the issue of their termination and whether SFT had legal cause for same. Another thread, What It Means, expresses very well the basic conclusion that G & S acheived a lot more than they gave up. Call it a "win" or call it "bailing" as you are inclined.

A whole lot of folks who have other legitimate concerns about SFT thought this one hearing was going to resolve all of those concerns. It didn't. Anybody familiar with legal procedure knew it never would. Only the controversy under consideration is ever ripe for resolution. Folks who thought somehow the G&S hearing was going to end with the resignation of SFT or any of his cronies don't give that crew their due. Those who thought Judge Anderson was going to call down the wrath of God (or the IHL Board) were just setting themselves up for disappointment. In my experience, the system (and the Universe, vis-a-vis God) just don't work that way.

The troubles are not going away in a hurry. This is probably not the best time for supporters of the University to get all fractured and fractious about whether Bill Scarborough is a saint or a ****heel, a genius or a jerk. That ain't the issue folks.

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "WILLINGLY" or "bailed." Oh hell, I can't tell what you mean at all. G & S were drug into this. The proceedings, the controvery, the hearing were all specific to the issue of their termination and whether SFT had legal cause for same. Another thread, What It Means, expresses very well the basic conclusion that G & S acheived a lot more than they gave up. Call it a "win" or call it "bailing" as you are inclined.
A whole lot of folks who have other legitimate concerns about SFT thought this one hearing was going to resolve all of those concerns. It didn't. Anybody familiar with legal procedure knew it never would. Only the controversy under consideration is ever ripe for resolution. Folks who thought somehow the G&S hearing was going to end with the resignation of SFT or any of his cronies don't give that crew their due. Those who thought Judge Anderson was going to call down the wrath of God (or the IHL Board) were just setting themselves up for disappointment. In my experience, the system (and the Universe, vis-a-vis God) just don't work that way.
The troubles are not going away in a hurry. This is probably not the best time for supporters of the University to get all fractured and fractious about whether Bill Scarborough is a saint or a ****heel, a genius or a jerk. That ain't the issue folks."

Next thing you know they will be calling Bill Scarborough a LIBERAL!

Otherside

Date: May 1, 2004

Scarborough is a tireless fighter against Thames and others hostile to the faculty. He has been in the line of fire himself for years. The rest of his politics are of no interest in this particular fight. His remarks are harsh and matter-of-fact, and express one of the many responses faculty have to the resolution. Many do not want to speak as candidly for fear of appearing unfriendly to G/S. There is no question that the resolution favors Shelby and the status quo over the faculty. G/S did what they had to do and we should understand and accept. We would likely do the same. But we should not fail to recognize that the resolution is a setback for us in our effort to send Shelby packing.

Date: May 1, 2004

Dr. Scarborough--Were you in the room when Justice Anderson and the lawyers were talking with Glamser and Stringer? How do you know so much about this? How many people are depending on your current research project? How many times have you been fired?

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Sad
"Dr. Scarborough--Were you in the room when Justice Anderson and the lawyers were talking with Glamser and Stringer? How do you know so much about this? How many people are depending on your current research project? How many times have you been fired? "

Sad, you REALLY need to read EXIT 13. Scarborough has been through the ringer himself with the McCain administration.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

Jeez stuff like this is so divisive. We need to focus on the future, not yesterday.

I hope that this kind of stuff runs its natural course today and we can move on to our overarching objective: Seeing Shelby removed from the presidency at USM.

Just my .02.

Date: May 1, 2004

i agree on the divisiveness point. but the atmosphere on my floor in LAB on Friday was hostile about the settlement and G&S. i was stunned. a colleague of mine was really angry and felt "sold out." i tried to explain the pressures G&S were under, but that didn't work.

Date: May 1, 2004

I don't know the personalities involved here, but I see nothing in Scarborough's comments to get bent out of shape about, one way or the other.

G and S did what they could. But there is no reason why anyone who did what they did should ever be dragged through the mud, or pushed to retire in two years.

A lot more is going to be needed to get rid of Thames and his henchcrew. There will be plenty of opportunities for anyone who can take the heat and wants to lead to do both of those things.

NQ,

Robert Campbell

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flawless
"Scarborough is a tireless fighter against Thames and others hostile to the faculty. He has been in the line of fire himself for years. The rest of his politics are of no interest in this particular fight. His remarks are harsh and matter-of-fact, and express one of the many responses faculty have to the resolution. Many do not want to speak as candidly for fear of appearing unfriendly to G/S. There is no question that the resolution favors Shelby and the status quo over the faculty. G/S did what they had to do and we should understand and accept. We would likely do the same. But we should not fail to recognize that the resolution is a setback for us in our effort to send Shelby packing.

With all respect, I disagree with the assertion that there is "no question" that the resolution favors SFT and the status quo. Please read the thread "What it Means." I forget who started it, but the analysis is consistent with my own. Journalists and non-lawyers are focused on the last half of the agreement, the terms and conditions. Please note that the entire document, especially the initial recitation, is couched in terms that expressly acknowledge that G&S are giving up their right to sue for the actions taken against them. When I read it I see that there were a lot of folks (i.e., the list of folks that G&S agreed not to sue) who thought they had some legal liability and wanted to get it behind them. I can only hope they remember who created that liability.

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"With all respect, I disagree with the assertion that there is "no question" that the resolution favors SFT and the status quo. Please read the thread "What it Means." I forget who started it, but the analysis is consistent with my own. Journalists and non-lawyers are focused on the last half of the agreement, the terms and conditions. Please note that the entire document, especially the initial recitation, is couched in terms that expressly acknowledge that G&S are giving up their right to sue for the actions taken against them. When I read it I see that there were a lot of folks (i.e., the list of folks that G&S agreed not to sue) who thought they had some legal liability and wanted to get it behind them. I can only hope they remember who created that liability."

ram--

i agree with this, however, it in no way changes the fact that two days ago "we" had Shelby Thames in deep water for having egregiously and stupidly overstepped the bounds of his authority, violating the rights and privileges of G/S, treating all university protocols with disdain and contempt, and horribly embarrassing the University, the IHL board, and the state of Mississippi.

As we sit here to day all that is rushing into the forgotten pile, and we are scheduled for weeks of platitudes about "healing" and "working together" and so on, with no publicly winning cause on which to base our new efforts to Fire Shelby.

What happened in the settlement seems to me much like what always happens: the people in power (the AG, the IHL board, Judge Anderson, and Shelby Thames) worked out a way to get Thames's head out of the noose. None of them (save Thames) are likely happy about him, but ALL of them are darned happy to have the thing settled and moving out of the headlines.

I hope that what some colleagues believe, that Shelby will resign due to poor health this summer, does indeed come to pass. If I were a betting person, I'd bet that it wasn't going to happen.

Date: May 1, 2004

i can't speak about ST's health. but those who thought he was beaten up by the hearing. should have gone by his house. don't think it was a wake.

Date: May 3, 2004

It wasn't a wake. Heard last week from the caterer that Shelbo was celebrating his 50th high school reunion with Hburg Hi, Class of 1954 at his house and Mack's Fish Camp this past weekend.

Date: May 3, 2004

I believe anon is right. I rode by there and there were people from "all walks of life" milling around, all about Shelby's age (in appearance). Also, several were departing with styrafoam containers, I bet containing catfish or something.

Wonder if anyone of them called him waffle nose? (remember this from an earlier thread).

Date: May 3, 2004

It isn't over, Shelby, Dana, Angie and the rest of the harum scarum.

Date: May 3, 2004

Flawless--

I almost wish you had been right when you said:

. . . two days ago "we" had Shelby Thames in deep water for having egregiously and stupidly overstepped the bounds of his authority, violating the rights and privileges of G/S, treating all university protocols with disdain and contempt, and horribly embarrassing the University, the IHL board, and the state of Mississippi.

As we sit here to day all that is rushing into the forgotten pile, and we are scheduled for weeks of platitudes about "healing" and "working together" and so on, with no publicly winning cause on which to base our new efforts to Fire Shelby.

As the recently disclosed e-mail from Mr. Hanbury indicates, there will be no end to the disdain, contempt, or embarrassment. Would that it might be otherwise.