Those letters to the Hat Am made me feel better, too.

Don't you think, though, that the editorial page editors at the Hat Am (and now the Clarion-Ledger) are deliberately choosing to publish letters like the one by Kleinpeter that appeared in the Hat Am the other day?

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"Eech. Otherwise I'd be hopping in my car (what model do us liberals drive?) ."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: elliott
"Googler-- And that date (195_) makes them all Mississippi Sovereignty Commission-eligible."

---

Liberalism, as defined by our founding fathers, isn't a bad thing. 

I wish that the poster here known as Angeline would post again on Shelby's RADICALISM.  That is the true story here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: noel polk
"What's really odd to me about being called a "liberal" in all this mess is that what we, faculty and students, have been arguing is a highly CONSERVATIVE position: we want them to follow the damn rules, the old-fashioned ones like the u.s. constitution, the faculty handbook, traditional academic procedure, common sense, and even mama's manners, which shelby didn't learn. The reason we have rules is so people can follow them. SHELBY is the "liberal" one here. Aint that grand?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"Liberalism, as defined by our founding fathers, isn't a bad thing.  I wish that the poster here known as Angeline would post again on Shelby's RADICALISM.  That is the true story here."

---

Here's that repost from an earlier thread.  Thanks FS!

OK - I've hesitated to say this but it seems like folks are finally putting 2 and 2 together.

What we have here at USM under Thames is a "radical" (Dvorak's term) attempt to put public taxpayer money to private for-profit purposes.  The only thing terribly new about it is that it is occurring here in a public institution of higher education.  It is part of the trend that took off in the 1980s to eventually privatize all formerly public institutions, i.e. utility companies, prisons, aspects of the military, and so on to turn them into privately-owned for-profit companies that use their privileged position as recipients of taxpayer funds and as, in many cases, the sole supplier of a particular service in a given geographical area (otherwise called a monopoly).  Basically, areas of society that the government spent decades in building up from public funds are being converted to private use with little to no oversight and with questionable, indeed detrimental, impact on the population that is supposed to be served by that institution.  Some might blame the Republicans for this anti-New Deal trend in America, but the Democrats share in the blame and have yet to prove that they meaningfully oppose it.

What will that mean at USM?  At the least it will mean further development of the trends we are already seeing: money shifted to "economic development" (including athletics) and all emphasis for faculty production, student degrees, and community relations being shifted there as well - deemphasis of humanities and the arts (they don't generate profits for the institution), deemphasis of what was for centuries thought of as "education" (critical thinking, writing, communication, and analytical skills, except as they can be directly related to "economic development") - a PR machine that constantly says "economic development" is the great goal of all right-thinking, full-blooded Americans (with little to no proof to support the claim) - the belittling of students and faculty who don't "see the light" and go along with this obviously correct new direction - the conversion of all university services (such as food, printing, textbook sales, housing, health, and so on) to private companies who pay a fee in order to acquire a captive audience of consumers and then gradually over time offer less service for higher cost - the pursuit of and conversion of grant monies from the federal and state governments, foundations, and private sources that, though acquired through USM's status as a public university, go to support private companies via "economic development," and, finally, the centralization of administration and elimination of any meaningful input from students, faculty, staff, or parents: that's why USM is now run by people who know next to nothing about higher education but who know how to turn this great public resource into personal profit.

The main problem for this attempt to highjack higher education is that the public generally does not agree with it.  But, unless hell is raised (as it has been lately), the public will never get to vote on these radical changes or otherwise affect the direction that Thames & Co. is taking USM.  If the pressure is maintained then the burden of proof is on Thames & Co.: they must demonstrate that turning USM into a money-making venture genuinely benefits students (other than those in Polymer Science) and that it fulfills the educational (as opposed to the economic) goals of the state of Mississippi.  Should economic development really be the end all of a public university?  Is that all that we want our students to know and treasure?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: cockeyedoptimist
" The economic development for profit university model is the way to save universities in these tough financial times according to the advocates of this kind of change; however, based on the erudite postings on this thread one then no longer has a university-thus I have two questions: 1. Is the new model university the only kind that can exist in this squeeze for the taxpayer's buck and 2. If we don't want this kind of change in our comprehensive university-what is the alternative-financially speaking? "

---

Its all about priorities: witness the low priority of education among our state legislators.  Its also about whether government should continue to play a public role in society or only serve as source of funding for private ventures (obviously it can do both, but the pendulum has clearly shifted since the 1980s in the privatization direction).  Is this privatization shift out of need?  Not really, it is much more out of the chance to earn easy money at the public's expense.

I agree.  I went to a small, private, well-regarde liberal arts college for my undergraduate.  I became a conservative, not because of emotion or image building, but because of critical decision making.  "Well-education" almost by definition requires a well-rounded education...otherwise, you're not being educated...you're being trained.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"Is that clown (Griffing) trying to equate a liberal arts education with liberalism? That really ****es me off. I have a liberal arts education, predating my graduate studies in the sciences, but I'm not a "liberal". If anything, I'm a libertarian/conservative, a characterization which would undoubtedly confuse him even more. Critical thinking, which I'd humbly suggest is the most important end product of a university education, does not favor a particular academic discipline or social philosophy. Note to Mr. Griffing: A "conservative" can identify a corrupt petty tyrant as readily as can a "liberal". I say down with Thames, and his entire sorry, inbred entourage. I am a proud Mississippi native. We have enough difficulty upgrading our state's image and university system without this buffoon Thames making national headlines. Austin Eagle B.S. Biochemistry AND ENGLISH (DOUBLE MAJOR) M.S. Biotechnology Ph.D. Molecular Neurobiology/Neuropharmacology"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"Is that clown (Griffing) trying to equate a liberal arts education with liberalism? "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Eagle in Cairo, Egypt
"Angeline posted/reposted earlier about a trend to privatize various things.  I want to share my thoughts and experiences with that. I teach in a private, for-profit school in Cairo, Egypt.  Our parents pay handsomely for their children to get an "American" education.  THere are American, British, German, and French schools.  This morning, I even saw a bus going to a Korean school.  The main skill that sets the American curriculum apart from the others is CRITICAL THINKING.  I digress.  My school is run FOR PROFIT.  What does that mean exactly?  That means that my World History textbook was published in 1996.  My US History book was published in 1998.  I have NO English composition materials (except what I brought from the US myself), let along a textbook for that class.  The school supplies some of the basics like staples.  But I end up spending about 100LE (that's only about USD16) a month for other things.  Copier paper is widely sought after by the staff because it is kept locked in someone's office.  We can go and get it.  But they do not keep a steady supply near the copy machine. Our school is an "American" school.  Our parents are paying for their children to have American teachers.  Our of a staff of about 20, there are only 6 Americans, 1 Brit, and 1 Canadian.  The rest are Egyptian.  The Egypitan teachers are good.  That's not a problem.  But why would a school who bills itself as an American school with American staff have so many local-hires?  Because the Americans want more money than the local staff does.  It is cost effective to hire as few foreigners as possible.  Consequently, the integrity of the education the children are getting at my school is compromised.  All because of the bottom line.  Our parents pay for critical thinking skills and for exposure to the "American attitude".  Are their children receiving it?  I don't think so.  And it is all because of economics.  "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"  You may be "pro-life." That's a "conservative" position. "

---

Or, a conservative might hold dear the notion of minimal government intrusion into private life and object to any regulation of a woman's right to terminate pregnancy.  That is said to indicate my agreement with Newgirl: the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" have more to do with affiliation than ideas.  We might just as well be calling each other Crips & Bloods, Sharks & Jets, or Us & Them.

I'm still trying to figure out why one who advocates a strong, central authority in one organizational structure (i.e., government) is oft called "liberal" while one who advocates a strong, central authority elsewhere (e.g., USM) is considered to be "conservative."

My understanding is limited, I confess, but I have always thought that universities developed -- in part --as an administrative outgrowth of several associated colleges that recognized certain advantages in a voluntary sharing of common tasks and expenses.  Isn't this still pretty much the way the older, "World Class" universities at Cambridge and Oxford operate? If so, isn't that structure similar to the ultra-conservative model of a confederacy? 

It seems to me that all we are calling for is a return to confederacy. ;)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Angeline
"Update on this earlier post announced this past week in the Hattiesburg American: Barnes & Noble are to run the textbook center, some food services corporation ( I can't remember the name) is to run all food services on campus, and Starbucks will be in the library, which is odd since you can't have food or drinks in the library but oh well, there are dollars to be made!"

---

Sounds just like another certain public university about 4 hours north...

The food services corp. you are thinking of is Aramark.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Another darn liberal educator
"My response sending to HA: A number of opinion pieces have been published recently criticizing the notion of a liberal arts education. One error in these letters is assuming that a liberal arts education is everything but science. The authors also seem to have a fundamental misconception about the philosophy behind “liberal arts,” attempting to align it with a political or social affiliation, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. Faculty who ascribe to a liberal arts approach to higher education come from all walks of life, often having opposing philosophical and political leanings; in short, we are as diverse as the rest of the community in which we live. However, my goal is not to revisit the “conservative/liberal” debate again, but rather try to describe what a liberal arts education is designed to do. Quite simply, a liberal arts education means to study liberally. And lest I be accused of defining a word with a word, I mean “liberally” in the sense of “broadly” and “amply.” The objective is not to educate an individual solely in a specific field, vocation, or practice, but to provide a solid set of fundamental skills which allow that individual to seek many different career paths and to become a well-rounded, informed, and contributing member of society. It is teaching students to have critical thinking skills, reason, judgment, and tolerance for opposing views. It is imparting the communicative ability to have open, frank discussion in which opinions are presented and defended. Ideally, students will apply such skills not only to classes, but to life in general. A true liberal arts education includes the humanities, the arts, the social sciences, AND the physical and natural sciences. Although there is always a “content” focus associated with specific courses, there is also a broader emphasis on synthesizing information across classes with the ultimate goal of seeing the interrelationships that exist across disciplines and in the world. “Hard” sciences could not be what they have become without the influence of history, philosophy, and yes, religion. Likewise, music and other forms of the performing arts could not exist without physics and mathematics. To paraphrase a former professor of mine from my undergraduate liberal arts institution -- to force academic fields into artificial pigeon holes and study them in isolation ultimately makes them less than what they are. Heather E. Sterling-Turner Assistant Professor of Psychology The University of Southern Mississippi"

---