A Point-By-Point Rebuttal of Thames’s letter

Yesterday afternoon Thames released a letter addressed to “students, faculty, staff, and friends of Southern Miss.” The letter consists of eight paragraphs and four sub-paragraphs. I will focus my response on the main paragraphs because the four sub-paragraphs deal with what purports to be factual information.

The first paragraph consists of a standard salutation designed to make the reader sympathetic to the writer’s point of view. There is nothing in this paragraph worthy of comment.

The second paragraph sets up a premise of financial exigency. “Our university was financially strapped,” Thames says in regard to the situation when he became president. What he fails to acknowledge is that USM had just gone through three years of budgetary cuts and that, contrary to tone of his letter, the crisis was over when he took office. Furthermore, and more importantly, he fails to acknowledge that the two provosts during this period, Myron Henry and Andy Griffin, worked diligently with their deans to weather the storm, making hard decisions and cutting positions from programs in accordance with programmatic goals and student needs. Consequently, Thames’s assertion in the second paragraph that he needed to act in order “to keep jobs from being lost” is misleading. The jobs lost to three years of budgetary shortfalls had already occurred when he became president in May 2002. In fact, Thames’s claim toward the end of his first month in office that he had personally resolved the budget crisis gave those of us in administration at the time the first indication of how disingenuous, if not actually dishonest, the new president could be.

The third paragraph deals with the collapsing of nine colleges into five. He states that the motivation for this decision was to ensure that USM “would not regress.” Those of us involved with the tight budgets of the previous three years were aware of how reductions had affected our programs, but we did not feel that we were regressing. In fact, some of us, including myself, thought that our three-year experience with budgetary shortfalls had allowed us to improve efficiency by eliminating less productive areas and protecting those of greater value. I have to admit, however, that much more needed to be done, and progress in making USM more efficient was slow, probably too slow. Nevertheless, you can imagine how demoralizing it was to have a new president come in and claim that USM was overstaffed and that many of the faculty and staff who worked there were unproductive and indolent. Apparently he was unaware of what we had just been through, perhaps because polymer science had not felt the brunt of these cuts. Whatever the case, Thames was at that time and still is today unfazed by real data, as can be seen later in the third paragraph when he refers to the “reallocation of more than $2 million from administrative costs to the classrooms.” I have been told that this number was a rough estimate that the director of budgets came up with in less than thirty-six hours so that Thames could say something about savings in his speech. As far as I know, no one has provided an honest accounting of what his decision saved or cost. From all appearances, this restructuring may be the most expensive cost-saving measure ever undertaken at this university. (By the way, the initial figure was $1.8 million. Perhaps the revised figure includes interest that has accrued.)

In paragraph four Thames takes credit for being able to “reserve sufficient monies” in order to “reward many of our faculty members.” What he means is that he has a lot of discretionary money in unfilled lines because so many of the faculty have left. He also claims in paragraph four that he brags “on our faculty and staff at every opportunity.” If such is the case, why do we read so many letters in the newspapers that denigrate the faculty? I do not need to go any further to illustrate my point than to pick up yesterday’s edition of the Hattiesburg American and read a letter from Patrick Fagan. Where do people like Fagan get these notions? If Thames brags on his faculty and staff every chance he gets, the message is not getting through. As far as rewarding faculty for their hard work is concerned, I will refrain from commenting on the process by which these rewards were administered. Other people have addressed this issue more effectively than I can do here.

The fifth paragraph is the most troubling by far. It contains two phrases that exemplify problems with this administration. After raising the issue of economic development, Thames states that the focus on economic development is necessary to remain “at the forefront of higher education.” Apparently, he has never read _Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education_ by Derek Bok, otherwise he would not assume that he is leading a charge. In reality, he may be bringing up the rear. Whatever the case, he accurately reports, “state funding is becoming more and more scare.” If that is true, one wonders why he abandoned a capital campaign that was three-quarters of the way to achieving its goal of $100 million. But it is his conclusion in regard to that observation about state funding that concerns me most. “We must find new ways of becoming self-sufficient.” The term “self-sufficient” is a deceptive term. It sounds good to business people and recent retirees, such as myself, but do we really want a state institution of higher education that is independent of state funding? State funding means that the university has to respond to the educational needs of the citizens who provide those funds. A self-sufficient public institution would be free to disregard the wishes of the society within it operates. I will use nursing as an example. Nursing is probably the most expensive undergraduate degree USM offers. It is not and never will be cost efficient. Yet, USM continues to offer a degree in nursing because it is in the best interests of our state. If you think that I am an alarmist on this point, just ask someone you know in the medical community in Hattiesburg what he or she thinks about Thames’s administration of the nursing program since he became president.

Later in the fifth paragraph Thames again refers to his leadership as “progressive” and states that “We simply have no choice but to continue to aggressively seek grants, etc., . . “ “No choice” are the key words in this sentence because they reflect Thames’s administrative philosophy exactly. Thames knows what is best for the university, the region, and the state. If you do not agree, you have no choice but to follow his dictates.

The sixth paragraph boasts of four new academic programs. Interestingly, the previous paragraph with its four sub-paragraphs provides specifics about Thames’s successes with economic development. Yet, the sixth paragraph, which consists of just two sentences, does not provide one word of information about the academic programs that have “grown” under his leadership. If he could take one-fifth of his letter to boast about successes in economic development, why could not he find space to describe these new academic programs?

The seventh paragraph begins with the stirring words, “As a member of the Southern Miss family.” As a former professor of psychology, I can agree with Thames’s observation that USM is a family. However, I would add that as a family, USM is dysfunctional, which is the reason I left. Apparently oblivious to how his metaphor comes across to others, Thames proceeds by assuring the reader that “our university is growing and developing in a healthy way.” Is he implying that its growth prior to his presidency was unhealthy? My intimation is probably a stretch, but it serves to emphasize Thames’s obsession with personal accomplishment. Why not give Dr. Lucas some credit? Why not recognize the good work that was done on this campus by many, many people before Thames became President?

Some insight in regard to both questions may be gained by the final sentence in the seventh paragraph. “We all learn from our challenges, and Southern Miss will be a better institution for weathering change in these difficult times.” Ironically, I both disagree and agree with this statement. I disagree with the statement because, as far as I can tell, Thames has learned very little from the controversies that have surrounded him since he assumed office. However, I do think that USM will be a better institution after he is gone. Thames’s decisions have not all been bad. I actually think that in many instances he has done things that needed to be done years ago. The problem is that he has done them in so many despicable ways. Even as much as I may applaud the end, I abhor the means.

Which brings me to the final paragraph. There is not much so say here. It is the routine, self-congratulatory pretense that, should I choose to end this posting with an equally self-absorbed rendition of my career, would send several readers dashing for paper towels to wipe vomit off of their monitor screens.

NO QUARTER!

Jim Hollandsworth

For what it’s worth, this rebuttal was written in response to a posting yesterday by IceCreamCone on another thread (Shelby's Letter to All of USM). Thank you, Mr./Ms. Cone, for suggesting that I write this rebuttal.