Angie and the Bar

Date: May 11, 2004

Angie and the Bar

Date: May 11, 2004

That would be consistent with getting a J.D. to "pump her resume

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

So Robert, does this mean that when I go to Ole Miss next year to start lawschool that when I graduate and move back to La. and take the job that does not require passing a bar exam that I merely pumped my resume.

Are we all supposed to be scared of this kind of threat if we do this.

This does not make sense and certainly bugs me. By far am I a Thames or its administration supporter but reason and logic are starting to lessen.

I for one have an interest in this issue due to my circumstances. Where is the proof this person or for that matter anyone has pumped a resume.

Your an educator a Professor of Psy at Clemson -- Where is the logic nad reason in your response??

I am a student and I am concerned. This Thames issue has torn all of us apart.

Thames is the problem. THAMES. He is the one who we can prove has rwrecked our school.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: JC
"Where is the proof this person or for that matter anyone has pumped a resume."

From: Angie.Dvorak (ADVORAK@MSU.BITNET)
Subject: Re: Thomas M. Cooley Law School

View: Complete Thread (7 articles)

Original FormatNewsgroups: bit.listserv.lawsch-l
Date: 1994-03-01 08:03:00 PST
You will learn an awful lot at Cooley. Unlike your future colleagues from
some schools, you will basically know how to do what the average lawyer
does on a daily basis when you graduate. Job prospects: Cooley will not
get you in the door, but still Cooley grads land good jobs. It depends
on the individual. It is tough. No real difference between the 1st
year and the 3rd. Yes, seniors flunk out at Cooley. You won't find many
law schools where that happens. I'm a professor at MSU. GO SPARTANS.
Cooley was a past time to pump my resume and to keep my brain alive in
the winter. Good luck.

GET A LOAN. Everyone does. Law Loans--well-organized, easy access,
will treat you right. Go see Laura at the Financial Aid office at
Cooley when you get here. She is great! agd

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: JC
"So Robert, does this mean that when I go to Ole Miss next year to start lawschool that when I graduate and move back to La. and take the job that does not require passing a bar exam that I merely pumped my resume. Are we all supposed to be scared of this kind of threat if we do this. This does not make sense and certainly bugs me. By far am I a Thames or its administration supporter but reason and logic are starting to lessen. I for one have an interest in this issue due to my circumstances. Where is the proof this person or for that matter anyone has pumped a resume. Your an educator a Professor of Psy at Clemson -- Where is the logic nad reason in your response?? I am a student and I am concerned. This Thames issue has torn all of us apart. Thames is the problem. THAMES. He is the one who we can prove has rwrecked our school. "

Some weeks ago a person on the message boards did Google-up an electronic posting, supposedly attributed to Dvorak, where she stated that the law degree was being pursued to pump up the resume. Don't know now where that thread was, and one would have to use their own judgement to determine if it was really Dvorak that wrote it. But that is where these comments come from.

Date: May 11, 2004

Geez, I should have waited a few more seconds.

There you go!

Date: May 11, 2004

JC,

There are legitimate reasons to get a law degree and not become a member of the bar.

I'm not sure that Angie Dvorak had any, however. Compare her background and accomplishments with those of the VP for Research who was recently hired by Mississippi State, or with those of the present VP for Research at Clemson, and maybe you will see what I mean.

As a couple of other posters have noted, her 1994 comment about resume-pumping has previously appeared on this board, and I was assuming that participants here would have heard of it. There have been lots more references to the resume-pumping remark on this message board (see also the extensive glossary maintained by "Webster") than to the fact that I teach psychology.

Yes, Shelby Thames is the underlying problem--hence the name of this site. But the underqualified yes-men and women he has installed in upper administrative positions, apparently without searches, need to be there in order for Thames to hear constant praise of his infallible decisions, and for him to reliably impose his will on USM.

And the entire henchcrew will have to go when Thames does, or each of them (including Angie Dvorak) will continue to inflict major damage on the university.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

What is the point of going through three years of law school if you're never going to get admitted to the bar? I do know, from my pitifullly meager experience with the law, that you cannot practice without bar admission, so a law degree is basically worthless.That's an awful waste of time, if nothing else.

BTW, I'm still checking into whether she actually graduated Cooley.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: cindy
"What is the point of going through three years of law school if you're never going to get admitted to the bar? I do know, from my pitifullly meager experience with the law, that you cannot practice without bar admission, so a law degree is basically worthless.That's an awful waste of time, if nothing else. BTW, I'm still checking into whether she actually graduated Cooley. "

Well, one could say the same thing about any course of study: why get a masters in Antropololgy if you are not going to get a Ph.D in anthropology or practice it?

There are other applications for a knowlege of law besides law practice.

There is also the incredily remote possiblity that someone with access to financial support might simply want to study the law out of the want for knowlege.

These motivations might be doubtful in this particular case -- but they should not be assumed to not exist and thereby be used as a mechanism to undermine any student's intent. I teach in a discipline in which only a few will likely end up practicing. But I can respond to their want to learn this discipline and I also see how they deploy what they learn once they leave.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otis
"Googler: This paste that you cite has already been researched prior to the hearings and has been found to be completely bogus. In doing a search of the background we found that the e-mail address has never been used at MSU and that AD's e-mail addresses at the time were different. Our source at MSU in the tech dept. found her e-mails and they also confirmed that Cooley did not assign e-mail accounts at the time. This is bad info and no go info for us."

How do you explain the following listserv postings?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author:ADVORAK%40MSU.BITNET+

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: cindy
"What is the point of going through three years of law school if you're never going to get admitted to the bar? . . . "

A Juris Doctorate degree is helpful in many fields. I have dropped my membership in the Angie Dvorak Fan Club, but she is right about one thing: a law degree pumps up a resume. See, for example, The Lawyer's Career Change Handbook: More Than 300 Things You Can Do With A Law Degree by Hinda Greenberg.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: cindy
"What is the point of going through three years of law school if you're never going to get admitted to the bar?"

It was a simple misunderstanding. Once she found out that most bars would admit her if she was over 21, the whole point of law school became moot.

<RIMSHOT INDICATING BAD JOKE />

I do know a couple people with law degrees who have never been admitted to the Bar. They couldn't pass the exam .

Date: May 11, 2004

I stand corrected about the bar issue. I realize that there are many uses for a law degree. I simply question the logic behind getting all those degrees to pump up a resume. She must have been independently wealthy, or massively in debt to go to schoool that long!

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otis
"Googler:
This paste that you cite has already been researched prior to the hearings and has been found to be completely bogus.
In doing a search of the background we found that the e-mail address has never been used at MSU and that AD's e-mail addresses at the time were different.
Our source at MSU in the tech dept. found her e-mails and they also confirmed that Cooley did not assign e-mail accounts at the time.
This is bad info and no go info for us."

Otis,

Part of what you say seems irrelevant: the email address is at MSU.BITNET, and Angie Dvorak worked for Michigan State at the time, so why does it matter whether Cooley Law School assigned email accounts to students?

You need to be explicit as to who "we" are.

Otherwise, readers of this board may be inclined to regard what you are saying, rather than the supposedly bogus item from 1994, as disinformation.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

Otis,

A further comment--and apologies in advance if you are legit...

I can see why details of what Gary Stringer knew about Angie Dvorak's background were not publicized prior to the April 28 hearing.

But the settlment was announced 12 days ago, and, unless I've been less than diligent in keeping up with the material on this board, this is the first time I've seen any doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the "pump my resume" remark.

Why wait until now?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

My understanding is that all the evidence entered by both sides is part of the public record, including the report of the investigation of Dvorak. It should be available for the cost of copying from somewhere.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otis
"Googler: Substantiate where you got the url from. The link that u post is clearly bogus. Better yet before you make a fool of us and the board go to www.msu.edu and do an inquiry."

Bogus? The url is the result of a Google group search of "Angie Dvorak."

As you suggested, I checked out the Michigan State University website. Thomas Cooley Law School is not affiliated with Michigan State University (I had made the assumption it was the law school at Michigan State).

Here is a link to an overview of the TCLS:

http://www.cooley.edu/overview/abouthistory.htm

Michigan State has its own College of Law:

http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/1965/content.htm

Therefore, a law degree from the TCLS is not a degree from Michigan State University.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otis
"Googler: Substantiate where you got the url from. The link that u post is clearly bogus. Better yet before you make a fool of us and the board go to www.msu.edu and do an inquiry. In fact have Gary's contact at MSU verify what I am talking about.

Otis--

Are we to understand that somebody has been able to concoct and backdate an entire thread, most of which is totally unrelated to the one, pretty much innocuous "pump" phrase? If I was going to go to that much trouble (and knew how to do it), I believe I'd plant evidence more damaging than that.

Date: May 11, 2004

Robert:

If this is the same Otis that I know he is legit. He has just started with us. Not a late bloomer but wanted to join the fray to bring as he says "closure to A$$9 rumors."

He is not a threat to us but just worries that some of the as he says "garbage makes us look bad."

He is just a little AR!

Date: May 11, 2004

I see that JC has vanished, and Otis hasn't been back for a while either.

One more for Otis here...

If Gary Stringer is in possession of evidence to indicate the the 1994 remark by Angie Dvorak is bogus, or that a different person named Angie Dvorak actually made it, then he can let the participants on this board know that she did not really make the now-infamous "pump my resume" remark.

The settlement forbids Stringer to make public statements in criticism of Angie Dvorak. It does not forbid him to providing evidence in her favor, to the effect that a charge against her is bogus.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

Maybe true Robert.

I pi$$ed Otis if it is the right one and not a TROLL so he probably will not be back.

I am moving to the Hudson thread this is mmore important than this.

Thanks see ya there.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: Otis
"Googler: This paste that you cite has already been researched prior to the hearings and has been found to be completely bogus. In doing a search of the background we found that the e-mail address has never been used at MSU and that AD's e-mail addresses at the time were different. Our source at MSU in the tech dept. found her e-mails and they also confirmed that Cooley did not assign e-mail accounts at the time. This is bad info and no go info for us."

Unless someone had god-like foresight YEARS ago to predict the crisis at USM and posted the listserv post to discredit Angie Dvorak in just such a way that would matter today, the message is real.

Not everyone who posts at Fire Shelby is a friend of Fire Shelby--shares our goals. Keep that in mind.

Date: May 11, 2004

Does anyone know the origin/source of the listserv found under this Google Group? It cannot be Google as Google did not exist prior to 1998. Just curious. Really do not understand what this issue is about one “pumping up” one’s resume. Is there something wrong in doing that: earning a degree or certification to show one has an expanded knowledge base? This does seem to be a none issue.

Date: May 11, 2004

To follow up on what Fire Shelby said:

I recall reading a while back that Angie Dvorak and Tim Hudson were fighting over who would be heir to the throne.

To know Tim Hudson is not to love him, or so I gather.

But anyone who thinks that Angie Dvorak has a serious prospect of succeeding Shelby Thames, once he has been made to pack his trunk, has been consuming a high-potency hallucinogen.

Documented instances of bad behavior by Hudson (and he certainly hasn't made good on his promise to speak out on behalf of the USM faculty) are of value to the participants here. Undocumented charges, brought to further the interests of any member of the Thames henchcrew, are of no value.

No Quarter applies to the entire henchcrew.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"Does anyone know the origin/source of the listserv found under this Google Group? It cannot be Google as Google did not exist prior to 1998. Just curious. Really do not understand what this issue is about one “pumping up” one’s resume. Is there something wrong in doing that: earning a degree or certification to show one has an expanded knowledge base? This does seem to be a none issue."

Curious,

The "pump my resume" quotation is crass, but taken by itself it doesn't imply exaggeration or misrepresentation. Student Government officials, if they are candid about their motives, might also say that they ran for the office to pump their resumes. It doesn't follow that they didn't hold the office they said they held.

When an individual is caught making a misrepresentation on a resume, then a remark about "pumping" begins to look worse--and maybe part of a pattern. But it doesn't work the other way around. Pointing to the remark about "pumping" won't constitute proof that there was a misrepresentation.

So I wouldn't call it a nonissue, but a pretty small issue.

Which makes it all the more interesting that the board is getting visited by persons like "Otis."

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"Does anyone know the origin/source of the listserv found under this Google Group? It cannot be Google as Google did not exist prior to 1998. Just curious."

I'm not sure what you mean by origin/source, but the posts are in a newsgroup titled bit.listserv.lawsch-l, which looks to be a general discussion of law school issues. This newsgroup probably was part of Usenet, and when Google acquired the Usenet discussion service from Deja.com in 2001, it acquired the entire Usenet archive of more than 500 million messages.

Date: May 11, 2004

Memo

To: Self

Do not alienate people that possess knowlege and advanced research skills.

Date: May 11, 2004

Curious is right. Googler is wrong. As someone said earlier this newsgroup is not a valid identifier for any message that was sent by the person it purports to be. bit.listserv.lawsch-I, has not been proven to be a valid identifier for that time period at either institution.

This is bizzare.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Memo To: Self Do not alienate people that possess knowlege and advanced research skills."

And know how to spell "knowledge."

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DAZED & CONFUSED
"Curious is right. Googler is wrong. As someone said earlier this newsgroup is not a valid identifier for any message that was sent by the person it purports to be. bit.listserv.lawsch-I, has not been proven to be a valid identifier for that time period at either institution.
This is bizzare."

Dazed,

And you know this... how?

By the way, that should be lawsch-l or lawsch-L, not lawsch-I. Listservs have their patterns.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Googler
"This newsgroup probably was part of Usenet, and when Google acquired the Usenet discussion service from Deja.com in 2001, it acquired the entire Usenet archive of more than 500 million messages. "

This is correct. Check this link. bit.listserv.lawsch-l is an email-to-Usenet gateway.

More info is here, if you want to subscribe to the listserv.

Date: May 11, 2004

Thank you Invictus. Googler's info appears valid for what ever it is worth. Again, this strikes me as pretty much a non-issue.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

This discussion has been interrupted to bring you the following message:

Sometimes trolls aren't aggressive or ugly or mean (though I have noticed that many are not very articulate). If they can just make you lose resolve by questioning your stance, their work is done.

I am not saying that you should be so firm in commitment that you never question yourself or others; what I am saying is consider the source that is asking you to question your stance.

Now back to the show...

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"When an individual is caught making a misrepresentation on a resume, then a remark about "pumping" begins to look worse--and maybe part of a pattern. But it doesn't work the other way around. Pointing to the remark about "pumping" won't constitute proof that there was a misrepresentation. So I wouldn't call it a nonissue, but a pretty small issue."

Exactly.

Date: May 11, 2004

I couldn't pass the Mississippi bar exam in three tries, so I became Lt. Guv.

Don't rain in Angie's parade. A woman's gotta work somehow.

Date: May 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Tuck
"I couldn't pass the Mississippi bar exam in three tries, so I became Lt. Guv.

Don't rain in Angie's parade. A woman's gotta work somehow.

"

Yeah, Amy, but you ran for office which is sorta like having to participate in a real competitive search. Angie participated in a "Thames search," which would be like if you had been appointed Lt. Governor.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Tuck
"A woman's gotta work somehow. "

Let's not turn this into some kind of sexist argument that women can't pass the bar. We all know plenty of women attorneys who have, and who are quite successful.

Granted Amy Tuck tried thrice and failed...so have many, many men. JFK Jr. failed a couple of times, for example.

I would interject--slightly off topic--that our very distinguished Amy Young, a talented archaeologist and brilliant AAUP spokesperson--has been elected USM's AAUP president. In the fight against Thames, many women are actively contributing to the gnome's removal--in ways we can see and in ways we cannot.

Date: May 11, 2004

It's time to ask Quiet-but-Perceptive, JC, Otis, ???, Curious, and DAZED & CONFUSED the really important questions:

Should either Angie Dvorak or Mark Dvorak remain in an upper administrative position at USM?

If so, why?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 12, 2004

In response to Robert Campbell re: It's time to ask Quiet-but-Perceptive, JC, Otis, ???, Curious, and DAZED & CONFUSED the really important questions: Should either Angie Dvorak or Mark Dvorak remain in an upper administrative position at USM? If so, why?

Let me first start by stating I find it curious that you should lump me with JC, Otis, etc. All I did is ask a simple question concerning statements already made in this thread with regard to the validity of background information about Dr. Dvorak. My last statement posted was that I thanked Invictus for his answer to my question and agreed that the information appeared valid. I also expressed my opinion that if Dr. Dvorak had attended and graduated from law school for no other reason than to expand her knowledge base and thus “pump up” her resume, that this is basically a non-issue, in my opinion. I take it that because I hold this opinion that I am now classified a “Troll!” So much for free speech and academic freedom in Fire Shelby and Robert Campbell’s world.

To answer Robert Campbell’s question, I am not aware of any reasons why either Dvorak should at this time not remain. To the best of my understanding, the University of Kentucky has officially responded that the information on Dr. Dvorak’s resume is correct. That the format of her resume may have left some question as to interpretation in some reader’s mind is the reason organizations interview the individual and verify the information with the organizations and individuals listed on the resume. A resume is usually just one or two pages of very limited information, particularly for someone at the upper management level, for which typically the purpose is to help narrow and decide which individuals should be called in for interview. Unless there is an out right falsification on the resume, I can not think of any reason why someone should be removed because of their resume. If you know of a falsification on the resume, please state what it is (alternative interpretations do not count as falsification).

My understanding of the position, VP for Research, is that this individual is responsible for finding funding, overseeing research policies and procedures, and insuring research compliance with regard to research regulations (mostly federal) among other various duties. It would seem to me that someone with a legal background might serve very well with regard to research policies and procedures, and compliance with research regulations. That Dr. Dvorak’s background may not be more like conventional V.P.s for Research at other universities, whose background is a CV of funded research grants, does not appear to me to be a real issue. That would be like saying that because President Clinton did not serve in the military that he could not be Commander and Chief of the arm forces when President (and yes I know some people believe that to have been the case). Dr. Dvorak’s background does include extensive experience in funding and science and technology related development projects. No, she does not hold a science or technology related degree but then neither did her predecessor Dr. Cotten and I do not recall anyone thinking he should not have held the position. Dr. Cotten did an excellent job in increasing funded research at USM and as the numbers show, Dr. Dvorak has continued that upward trend. Nor was there any national search when Dr. Fleming appointed Dr. Cotten to the position. If, Robert Campbell, you know of some deficit that Dr. Dvorak has shown as VP for Research and Economic Development, please state what that might be.

In reviewing comments on this sight and in the news, the apparent real issue that some have taken up against Dr. Dvorak is the issue of her having held tenure and that her position has her advising Dr. Thames on issues concerning the awarding of tenure to faculty at USM. The argument here again seems to be one of, “if you did not serve in the military you can not command or advise the military.” The only point it seems for making this argument is to disparage Dr. Thames at the cost of wrongly attacking Dr. Dvorak.

With regard to Mark Dvorak, there is nothing unusual in the spouse of a faculty member being employed at the same university. This is done from time to time to help recruit faculty. Mark Dvorak does not work under Dr. Dvorak and thus nepotism is not at issue.

I do not know if Mark Dvorak in his short time at USM has performed well in his HR position or not. If he is doing a poor job, then that may be grounds for removing him. That he got the job under Dr. Thames is not. Clearly Dr. Thames has done a poor job as is evident by the current upheaval. Should he be removed, perhaps. Does that mean that everyone who joined the university under him should be removed for no other reason than that Dr. Thames appointed them, I think not. I would prefer to judge each individual on their own merit and at this date I simply have not seen or read anything that would give me reason to conclude that either Dvorak should not remain in their position. Note: Hanbury did concern me, but he is now gone.

A final comment. If my questioning some of the apparent commonly held opinions of this sight makes me a “troll”, then call me a troll. I would prefer to be a troll than a member of a lynch mob.

Date: May 12, 2004

I think we've been over this a zillion times before. But some materials about Dvorak--the web site, if not the actual resume--actually said "in Lexington, Kentucky" on them. And that is a lie.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"In response to Robert Campbell re: It's time to ask Quiet-but-Perceptive, JC, Otis, ???, Curious, and DAZED & CONFUSED the really important questions: Should either Angie Dvorak or Mark Dvorak remain in an upper administrative position at USM? If so, why? Let me first start by stating I find it curious that you should lump me with JC, Otis, etc. All I did is ask a simple question concerning statements already made in this thread with regard to the validity of background information about Dr. Dvorak. My last statement posted was that I thanked Invictus for his answer to my question and agreed that the information appeared valid. I also expressed my opinion that if Dr. Dvorak had attended and graduated from law school for no other reason than to expand her knowledge base and thus “pump up” her resume, that this is basically a non-issue, in my opinion. I take it that because I hold this opinion that I am now classified a “Troll!” So much for free speech and academic freedom in Fire Shelby and Robert Campbell’s world. To answer Robert Campbell’s question, I am not aware of any reasons why either Dvorak should at this time not remain. To the best of my understanding, the University of Kentucky has officially responded that the information on Dr. Dvorak’s resume is correct. That the format of her resume may have left some question as to interpretation in some reader’s mind is the reason organizations interview the individual and verify the information with the organizations and individuals listed on the resume. A resume is usually just one or two pages of very limited information, particularly for someone at the upper management level, for which typically the purpose is to help narrow and decide which individuals should be called in for interview. Unless there is an out right falsification on the resume, I can not think of any reason why someone should be removed because of their resume. If you know of a falsification on the resume, please state what it is (alternative interpretations do not count as falsification). My understanding of the position, VP for Research, is that this individual is responsible for finding funding, overseeing research policies and procedures, and insuring research compliance with regard to research regulations (mostly federal) among other various duties. It would seem to me that someone with a legal background might serve very well with regard to research policies and procedures, and compliance with research regulations. That Dr. Dvorak’s background may not be more like conventional V.P.s for Research at other universities, whose background is a CV of funded research grants, does not appear to me to be a real issue. That would be like saying that because President Clinton did not serve in the military that he could not be Commander and Chief of the arm forces when President (and yes I know some people believe that to have been the case). Dr. Dvorak’s background does include extensive experience in funding and science and technology related development projects. No, she does not hold a science or technology related degree but then neither did her predecessor Dr. Cotten and I do not recall anyone thinking he should not have held the position. Dr. Cotten did an excellent job in increasing funded research at USM and as the numbers show, Dr. Dvorak has continued that upward trend. Nor was there any national search when Dr. Fleming appointed Dr. Cotten to the position. If, Robert Campbell, you know of some deficit that Dr. Dvorak has shown as VP for Research and Economic Development, please state what that might be. In reviewing comments on this sight and in the news, the apparent real issue that some have taken up against Dr. Dvorak is the issue of her having held tenure and that her position has her advising Dr. Thames on issues concerning the awarding of tenure to faculty at USM. The argument here again seems to be one of, “if you did not serve in the military you can not command or advise the military.” The only point it seems for making this argument is to disparage Dr. Thames at the cost of wrongly attacking Dr. Dvorak. With regard to Mark Dvorak, there is nothing unusual in the spouse of a faculty member being employed at the same university. This is done from time to time to help recruit faculty. Mark Dvorak does not work under Dr. Dvorak and thus nepotism is not at issue. I do not know if Mark Dvorak in his short time at USM has performed well in his HR position or not. If he is doing a poor job, then that may be grounds for removing him. That he got the job under Dr. Thames is not. Clearly Dr. Thames has done a poor job as is evident by the current upheaval. Should he be removed, perhaps. Does that mean that everyone who joined the university under him should be removed for no other reason than that Dr. Thames appointed them, I think not. I would prefer to judge each individual on their own merit and at this date I simply have not seen or read anything that would give me reason to conclude that either Dvorak should not remain in their position. Note: Hanbury did concern me, but he is now gone. A final comment. If my questioning some of the apparent commonly held opinions of this sight makes me a “troll”, then call me a troll. I would prefer to be a troll than a member of a lynch mob."

I believe the original issue concerning Divorak was her credentials vis a vis her seat on the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. This became a concern for Gary Stringer because of Divorak's role in William Kuskin's review. Stringer's essentially informal and private inquiries merged with the interests of the AAUP at the point when the "packet" became the subject of the AAUP inquiry which Stringer was asked to lead.

The Senate investigation is ongoing. There is little question that Divorak should not retain her role on the tenure and promotion committee as she is not tenured at the university and at least to this point, her credentials do not justify her sitting in judgement on other academics.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"."

I believe the original issue concerning Divorak was her credentials vis a vis her seat on the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. This became a concern for Gary Stringer because of Divorak's role in William Kuskin's review. Stringer's essentially informal and private inquiries merged with the interests of the AAUP at the point when the "packet" became the subject of the AAUP inquiry which Stringer was asked to lead.

The Senate investigation is ongoing. There is little question that Divorak should not retain her role on the tenure and promotion committee as she is not tenured at the university and at least to this point, her credentials do not justify her sitting in judgement on other academics.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: proesent professor
" . "

sorry I didn't edit all of that earlier quote out . . ."

Date: May 12, 2004

There are multiple problems with Angie Dvorak. The MOST disturbing is how much influence she has exerted over the president - personal influence and extended influence through her husband Mark and friend Jack Hanbury. EVEN if her influence was positive (and I am not arguing that it is), it is too much power for one person to exert in the governance of a university. Next, because she has never held a real tenure track position (as a result of coming through the academic peer review process), she is NOT qualified to pass judgement (or even influence decisions) on individuals up for promotion and tenure at a university. Further, because she does not have an academic background in the traditional sense, she holds no respect for university governance principles - examples include her influence in hiring people without national searches (Mark Dvorak, Jack Hanbury, Ken Malone, Greg Lasson, Richard Hadden, etc.) Further still, because her objectives and evaluation are based solely on external grant funding, she has no appreciation for academic rigor in disciplines outside the science model. That includes no respect for scholarly contributions, no respect for development efforts, and no respect for building quality programs. Her junior college experience is very prevalent in her initiatives here. In many good universities, technology transfer and sponsored programs play an important role but, in the better schools, they are clearly ancillary functions - not the driving force. Angie has had way too much power here. Finally, there are the character flaws that have been brought to light. Best case, she "pumped up" her resume - worst case, she committed academic dishonesty with it. In no case could it withstand the legitimate scrutiny it has received. Her initial angry response and threats to sue followed by her unwilllingness to take responsibility, or meet with Faculty Senate (without the caveats) show serious deficiencies in integrity. One more point - there's still something funny with Pileum and she's at the heart of it.

Have we forgotten about sweeping the dome clean?

Date: May 12, 2004

I will start my response by saying that I am truly insulted by the remarks of ROBERT CAMPBELL. Who in the h*ll is this person to accuse wrongfully who I might be. He has taken the opportunity to classify me as a TROLL which I am not. He has taken the opportunity to state that I have multiple personalities but I do not. Yes my typing is poor, my gramar is poor but that is not his problem.

I came to this board for the purpsoe for which it was created to support it. As of yesterday FS stated that the board was here to openly discuss issues. I have not in any way belittled any member of this board. I have only come to this board with informartion that I felt was beneficial. I am not a student nor a faculty member; therefore, my identity must remain as is. I respect Dr. Young, Dr. Wallace, Dr. Chambers and yes Dr. Judd for their courage to come openly. I do not enjoy the protections they do. My position here alllows me to be in a position to obtain accurate information and pass it on.

The question now becomes whether one would want to continue to help the cause with someone like ROBERT CAMPBELL making false and ludicrous allegations. Yes, I will continue becuase the cause is right.

I have to hide and cannot express my self freely. Is this not one of our purposes? Yes. The idea of free speech is that a person can speak out on an issue without criticism. In order to allude the label of TROLL by ROBERT CAMPBELL I can only express myself under his terms. This sounds no different than "****by" Thames. Free speech and the notion of tenure is about fairness. If I understand it correctly then when I discuss an issue I can discuss as I see fit and I can be fair. i do not have to subject people who have done no wrong to me to my ridicule because that is what someone other than me wants to hear.

Robert Campbell has asked alot of questions so here goes a repeat.

Who do I think should be President?

I am not on the academics side so here is my best shot-- Anybody but "****by" whether the person is Interim or Permanent it should be someone from the outside.

Who do I think should be Vice President of Research?

I do not know a whle lot about this stuff. I do know that someone else needs to be there in the Dome. Don Cotten was certainly good. I do not know if anybody else on campus would be good. Howeve, I have to admit and I admit this because it is true and I will not lie just to apease some on looker or "Robert" but sine AD has been here I have enjoyed some things that I have not enjoyed in my area in the last 8 years and my area is not research we just benefir from the residule of the research. Sorry for the poistive note Robert.

Who should be the Director of Human Resources?

I hate that Russ is not the Director. Russ Willis is one of the finest humans I have ever come to know. Russ is compasionate and bright. Russ has put his heart and soul in USM only to let Linda McFall hurt him for her lack of ability.

Mr. Dvorak I really do not know he has only been her a short time. Because of my position I have no choice but to interact with him. I guess Robert would have me quit my job? On any occassion that I have had to meet with him I have been impressed. He has been subject to many pitfalls of "****by." He has taken the punishment of the policies drafted by "****by." Mr. Dvorak has always been very complimentary of Russ and his entire staff.

But at the end of the day Russ Willis is the choice. I have had the opportunity to sit down and talk to Russ and Russ is happy. Russ is great. Russ did tell me that it was Dvorak who saved him from complete termination which is what was coming last summer.

So sorry Robert.

The next piece of advice that ROBERT CAMPBELL gives us is that to clarify the rumors about Mr. Dvorak some one here locally should call. Robert admits he is not local.

Robert Campbell why don't you yourself call Mr. Dvorak here is the Human Resources tel. # (601) 266-4050.

Robert if you are not here than how can you tell us how to act? You do not know me and you do not know any of these people. We have to work with these people.

Robert I am so sorry that I am not as intelligent as you. Somewhere in a thread you are identified as teacher or professor. If this is true where is your logic? Why are you accusing me of being something I am not just because I am fair. Again, free speech and due process are about fairness.

I will move on now and hope tha FS does not boot me or get made at me. I certaily praise FS for the hard work she and Truth have committed to.

But ROBERT CAMPBELL when this is all said and done I will identify myself to you and others and I REQUEST A FULL WRITTEN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

TO MY FRIENDS ON THE BOARD I AM SORRY BUT I CANNOT TAKE THIS FROM SOEMONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW ME.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

Date: May 12, 2004

Sorry folks but Shelboo's new nickname did not come out right it should read

Sh*tby

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Quiet-but-Perceptive
"I will start my response by saying that I am truly insulted by the remarks of ROBERT CAMPBELL. Who in the h*ll is this person to accuse wrongfully who I might be. He has taken the opportunity to classify me as a TROLL which I am not. "

Uh, I missed the post where Robert Campbell called you a troll. Perhaps you are jumping the gun here?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Quiet-but-Perceptive
" THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. "

Robert Campbell has provided this board with lots of valuable thought and has helped get word of what is going on into the academic world. Given the nature of this board and the numerous folks who have abused it mistakes are going to be made -- they have been made and generally speaking peacably dealt with.

I'm sure that Bob isn't above an apology. I'm also feeling that you are overreacting -- but that isn't meant as a slam. Since no one really knows who you are it isn't as though a mistaken cyber-identity is analogous to a false accusation of child molestation. Let's acknowlege an error and move on.

You've had two good tirades. We get it. Please bury the hatchet. Asking this board now to reject Bob Campbell because of a possible mistake which any of us might make under these circumstances isn't helping the cause either.

Hang in there -- I sense that you are living in a pretty crazy world and I do not envy you at all. That sense of division and turmoil in the university rests most heavily with those in key positions and no protection. Those very circumstances are primary among the things that must change.

I hope I don't sound to harsh. Best wishes.

Date: May 12, 2004

Sorry Present Prof. you are right. I was notasking to reject Robert.

Hatchet buried. Thanks for the words.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Quiet-but-Perceptive
" The question now becomes whether one would want to continue to help the cause with someone like ROBERT CAMPBELL making false and ludicrous allegations.

Again, when did he make false and ludicrous allegations against you? Was this on another thread, because I missed it.

i do not have to subject people who have done no wrong to me to my ridicule because that is what someone other than me wants to hear.

When were you ridiculed? I haven't seen evidence of this by RC or any other member. Again, forgive me if I've missed a post. Please direct me to the offending post.

but sine AD has been here I have enjoyed some things that I have not enjoyed in my area in the last 8 years and my area is not research we just benefir from the residule of the research.

What sort of things are you talking about? I understand that you must remain anonymous, but it would be helpful to know what AD has done positively for USM (esp. for staff, as I'm assuming that's your status--correct me if I'm wrong).

Russ did tell me that it was Dvorak who saved him from complete termination which is what was coming last summer.

That's interesting, because, if you remember, Russ used to have Mark Dvorak's job. I believe Russ left USM in fall 2003 to go to PRCC to run their Workforce Development program. That was the last I had heard from him, until someone on this board mentioned that he was back at USM in a part-time capacity helping out in HR under MD. Seems odd that Russ would give up his old job as director of HR, only to return in a diminished role and then have MD end up "saving him from termination??" Sounds like there is more to this story than any of us know.

Robert if you are not here than how can you tell us how to act?

You may not agree, QBP, but we need out of state voices in our cause. Robert has been a very productive member of this board (and eloquent fighter for our cause), so I will have to stick up for him here. I don't believe in any of his posts he is telling anyone how to act.

Robert I am so sorry that I am not as intelligent as you.

Now, QBP, you are selling yourself short here. Why the low self-esteem? I don't think Robert has questioned your intelligence or anyone else's on this board.

I REQUEST A FULL WRITTEN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

Again, QBP, I ask you: what are the false accusations?

Please let me know if I have missed something here.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Quiet-but-Perceptive
"Sorry Present Prof. you are right. I was notasking to reject Robert. Hatchet buried. Thanks for the words."

Thanks, QBP, for your response. Please don't let my post above start the flames back up. I was only trying to get at the bottom of your hurt feelings. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a staff member at USM right now...hang in there and keep up the good work!

Date: May 12, 2004

Truth:

I will be short only because Present Prof is right I need to bury the hatchet on this one and fight the cause.

Go back in the thread about "Curious" and "Otis"

A.Dvorak has done some thinigs for our department, why should I lie about it I am not here to lie about anyone that is why Robert mistakenly called me a troll because I was positive. If I give you a list of the positives she has done my cover is blown but people in the department who did not have jobs have them and their families are happy.

Since Russ is a friend of mine I can say this for a fact he never left here. Yes he was working part-time at Pearl River but it fell through. Linda McFall pulled a fast one on Russ and Shelboo wanted him fired. Russ himself said Mr. Dvorak worked out a deal.

Taht is all I know without totally rehashing things. I do not want to make anyone mad.

But what do you thinnk of the Hudson questions posed?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Please let me know if I have missed something here."

I think you missed the ceremonial burying of the hatchet. Unfortunately, it was not buried in Shelby Thames' contract

FWIW, I never saw QbP's posts as "trollish." There were some sincere-looking replies to known trolls, which may have created a "guilt by association" image in some folks' minds, but I don't think there are very many regulars on this board who haven't been suckered into replying to a troll.

Keep the faith, USM. Keep the faith.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"
To answer Robert Campbell’s question, I am not aware of any reasons why either Dvorak should at this time not remain. To the best of my understanding, the University of Kentucky has officially responded that the information on Dr. Dvorak’s resume is correct. That the format of her resume may have left some question as to interpretation in some reader’s mind is the reason organizations interview the individual and verify the information with the organizations and individuals listed on the resume. A resume is usually just one or two pages of very limited information, particularly for someone at the upper management level, for which typically the purpose is to help narrow and decide which individuals should be called in for interview. Unless there is an out right falsification on the resume, I can not think of any reason why someone should be removed because of their resume. If you know of a falsification on the resume, please state what it is (alternative interpretations do not count as falsification).
My understanding of the position, VP for Research, is that this individual is responsible for finding funding, overseeing research policies and procedures, and insuring research compliance with regard to research regulations (mostly federal) among other various duties. It would seem to me that someone with a legal background might serve very well with regard to research policies and procedures, and compliance with research regulations. That Dr. Dvorak’s background may not be more like conventional V.P.s for Research at other universities, whose background is a CV of funded research grants, does not appear to me to be a real issue. That would be like saying that because President Clinton did not serve in the military that he could not be Commander and Chief of the arm forces when President (and yes I know some people believe that to have been the case). Dr. Dvorak’s background does include extensive experience in funding and science and technology related development projects. No, she does not hold a science or technology related degree but then neither did her predecessor Dr. Cotten and I do not recall anyone thinking he should not have held the position. Dr. Cotten did an excellent job in increasing funded research at USM and as the numbers show, Dr. Dvorak has continued that upward trend. Nor was there any national search when Dr. Fleming appointed Dr. Cotten to the position. If, Robert Campbell, you know of some deficit that Dr. Dvorak has shown as VP for Research and Economic Development, please state what that might be.
In reviewing comments on this sight and in the news, the apparent real issue that some have taken up against Dr. Dvorak is the issue of her having held tenure and that her position has her advising Dr. Thames on issues concerning the awarding of tenure to faculty at USM. The argument here again seems to be one of, “if you did not serve in the military you can not command or advise the military.” The only point it seems for making this argument is to disparage Dr. Thames at the cost of wrongly attacking Dr. Dvorak.
With regard to Mark Dvorak, there is nothing unusual in the spouse of a faculty member being employed at the same university. This is done from time to time to help recruit faculty. Mark Dvorak does not work under Dr. Dvorak and thus nepotism is not at issue.
I do not know if Mark Dvorak in his short time at USM has performed well in his HR position or not. If he is doing a poor job, then that may be grounds for removing him. That he got the job under Dr. Thames is not. Clearly Dr. Thames has done a poor job as is evident by the current upheaval. Should he be removed, perhaps. Does that mean that everyone who joined the university under him should be removed for no other reason than that Dr. Thames appointed them, I think not. I would prefer to judge each individual on their own merit and at this date I simply have not seen or read anything that would give me reason to conclude that either Dvorak should not remain in their position. Note: Hanbury did concern me, but he is now gone.
"

Curious,

I take it that you are a staff person, and that you may not know much about the academic side of the university.

What I am about to say may seem too rough on some people, but Shelby Thames appears to prefer hiring upper administrators without conducting a search and without looking for the qualifications that are normally expected for the job (even qualifications that are required under university rules). All indications are that Thames prizes complete loyalty to himself, and sheer ruthlessness in carrying out his dictates, over all other criteria.

Consequently, any upper administrator who was hired by Shelby Thames should be considered untrustworthy, and unsuited to the job, unless there is distinct evidence to contrary. The same pretty much applies to the academic deans, who are not always counted as upper administrators on the academic side, since Thames purged their predecessors during the reorganization, and at the very least tampered with the selection process for those now holding the dean positions.

What's more, there is plenty of evidence that Angie Dvorak is unfit to be Vice President for Research at USM. Part of her job is to evaluate faculty members for promotion and tenure, yet, having never been granted tenure, or promoted to Associate Professor, at a 4-year institution, she is not allowed to evaluate anyone for tenure or promotion at USM, as per the university's own Faculty Handbook.

What's more, the alleged misrepresentation on her vita pertains to this precise issue, because she claimed to have been an Associate Professor of English at the University of Kentucky (a 4-year institution), instead of Associate Professor as a courtesy faculty appointment attached to her administrative appointment as President of Ashland Community College (a 2-year institution).

And... in the academia world, job candidates don't circulate two-page resumes. They circulate a vita, or curriculum vitae, which the business world would consider dreadfully verbose. Typically it lists every publication, every talk at a conference, and (quite often) every department, college, or university committee the person ever served on. A vita can easily run to 20 pages. Plenty of room there, for exactitude about past job titles and responsibilities.

Let me add, too, that I have yet to hear of anyone in the administration of USM saying that an administrator who lies on his or her vita is doing something wrong, and should be fired if caught doing so. One gets the impression that whether Angie Dvorak was telling the truth on her vita was of no concern to Shelby Thames, and it remains of no concern to anyone in his administration today. The only concern seems to be covering up the appearance of wrongdoing.

As for Mark Dvorak, the fact that Russ Willis, whom he replaced as Director of Human Resources, had to be brought back as an Assistant or Associate Director does not speak well of his ability to do the job.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Quiet-but-Perceptive
"But what do you thinnk of the Hudson questions posed?"

Thanks for your response. Refresh my memory on the questions asked, and I'll be glad to respond.

Date: May 12, 2004

Quiet-but-Perceptive,

I'll be brief in my response, since you don't want to perpetuate a flame war, and neither do I.

I don't have any authority over this board. It was created by Fire Shelby and FS maintains it. And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that Truth4USM currently wields the troll-zapper. So my calling you a troll, rightly or wrongly, won't get you booted off the board.

Judging from your detailed answers to my questions about who you think should be in positions of authority at USM, I can see that you are not a troll, and I apologize for lumping you in with such characters as DAZED & CONFUSED, Otis, and ???. I do think you may have posted occasionally under a different name (otherwise, it would be odd for you and JC to ask the same question using a similar phrase: "where's your logic?") but I have no way to check that, and it's not a concern of mine.

I can also see that, given where you work, you are on the hot seat.

As a general point, though, I recommend taking the stories you are hearing about Tim Hudson with a grain of salt. Not because he is a good guy (the best-documented stories about him indicate that he is not), or because USM would prosper under his leadership. But rather because there is a nasty rivalry for power between him and Angie Dvorak, and the Dvorak camp wants to offload the blame for as many bad actions as they can onto Hudson.

Keep in mind that from this academic's perspective, it's extremely unusual for a Provost to be kept out of the loop by a President, yet Thames regularly excludes Hudson from decisions that would normally rely on major input from the Provost, or would be delegated to the Provost outright. The fact that the PUC was put together in a direct transaction between the President and the deans is as clear an illustration as any. As, less than two weeks ago, was the way Jack Hanbury's fateful email presumed direct transmission of orders from the President (and his favored administrators like Hanbury) to the deans.

There appear to be good reasons to keep Hudson out of major decisions at USM, but an observer familiar with the way things are done elsewhere can only conclude that Thames has been chopping Hudson off at the knees, and therefore Hudson simply cannot have as much control over some decisions as his loudest detractors have been alleging.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that Truth4USM currently wields the troll-zapper. "

Ah, if only I had the magic troll-zapper! But, alas, I don't. It's still in the hands of the moderator of this board, Fire Shelby. No troll-zapping coming from middle TN!

Date: May 12, 2004

I stand corrected, regarding troll-zapping.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"No, she does not hold a science or technology related degree but then neither did her predecessor Dr. Cotten and I do not recall anyone thinking he should not have held the position."

F.U.D. ALERT!

This is FUD. Pure & simple disinformation, unless biology is no longer classified as a science.

Dr. Cotten taught biology at Copiah-Lincoln Junior College for a while, too. That in & of itself requires a degree in biology.

Dr. Cottens's doctorate does happen to be in Science Education (West Virginia), which some purists may not consider to be any more "science related" than a degree in English or law, but at the time he was in that department at USM, it was part of the College of Science & Technology not Ed-Psych. I've never heard the assertion that Don had no background in science & technology before this!

Date: May 12, 2004

Robert Campbell,

I am neither staff nor faculty at USM but am an interested Alumni who has a niece in her freshman year at USM and was very displeased to hear from her recently that her History professor has been spending the majority of class time pontificating on his dislike of Dr. Thames as opposed to teaching history for which my niece’s parents have paid to be done. I am familiar with the individuals involved and would dare say I am more familiar with them than you are being that you are out of state and not associated with USM.

My being an alumni and a relative of someone attending USM makes me a very interested party. For this reason I have visited this website to learn what I can about the issues involved in the current situation at USM. I have learned many things on this site and else where that give me great concern over Dr. Thames ability to run USM. I believe Dr. Thames’ goals and vision for USM to be very correct. I find his means for working to achieve these very lacking!

Now concerning some of your following statements:

What's more, there is plenty of evidence that Angie Dvorak is unfit to be Vice President for Research at USM.

Please cite this “plenty of evidence.”

Part of her job is to evaluate faculty members for promotion and tenure, yet, having never been granted tenure, or promoted to Associate Professor, at a 4-year institution, she is not allowed to evaluate anyone for tenure or promotion at USM, as per the university's own Faculty Handbook.

This may be a legitimate issue. However, Dr. Dvorak did not hire herself, Dr. Thames/IHL (approved)/USM hired her. If she lacks a required qualification that is the fault of those who hired her, not her. How this issue of tenure applies to an individual working at a two-year institution, which is under the umbrella of a four-year institution, is one that does not seem to be very clear which is the next point.

What's more, the alleged misrepresentation on her vita pertains to this precise issue, because she claimed to have been an Associate Professor of English at the University of Kentucky (a 4-year institution), instead of Associate Professor as a courtesy faculty appointment attached to her administrative appointment as President of Ashland Community College (a 2-year institution).

The center of the AAUP investigation to my understanding was whether Dvorak was a tenured English professor at the University of Kentucky while serving as president of Ashland Community College from 1997 to 2000. A “resume” distributed by the USM public relations department when Dvorak was named USM vice president lists Ashland Community College as a heading. This is the resume/CV, which the AAUP indicated was the cause of their investigation. And, yes I do know the difference between a CV and a resume so please reserve your pompous statements for someone else.

Underneath it are two sections. One, titled chief executive officer/president, which describes Dvorak's duties as community college president. The second reads: "Tenured Associate Professor of English, University of Kentucky. Duties included teaching courses at Ashland Community College throughout tenure as CEO/president." The official response from the University of Kentucky is that this statement is correct. It is my understanding that Stringer himself had received an email to this effect but elected to not include this information in his AAUP report. Stringer did not deny receiving said email at the April 28th hearing when it was disclosed.

Does the tenure Dr. Dvorak held while employed under the University of Kentucky system qualify her to carry out the advisory duties assigned to the VP for Research? I do not know. The USM Faculty Senate has said it does not. How should this issue be cleared up? I do not know. I respect the Faculty Senate’s opinion and would my self suggest that Dr. Dvorak abstain from advising on tenure recommendations until this issue can be resolved one way or another.

I do very much disagree in principle with the idea that the only individuals who may advise on a recommendation for tenure are those who themselves have been awarded tenure at a four year institution. To follow this logic, none of us should go vote for President in November, it should instead be left only for the Ex-Presidents who have served as President to decide who should be the next President. It is exactly this kind of “tenure” issue that causes many of us looking in from the outside to view the tenure system as both archaic and out of step with the rest of the world. On this point I believe we will respectfully have to disagree.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"
I am neither staff nor faculty at USM but am an interested Alumni who has a niece in her freshman year at USM and was very displeased to hear from her recently that her History professor has been spending the majority of class time pontificating on his dislike of Dr. Thames as opposed to teaching history for which my niece’s parents have paid to be done. . . . . It is exactly this kind of “tenure” issue that causes many of us looking in from the outside to view the tenure system as both archaic and out of step with the rest of the world. On this point I believe we will respectfully have to disagree. "

Dear Curious,

First, I apologize for the history professor in your niece's class. Of course he should be teaching. However, perhaps you should take his actions as evidence of how bad things are for the faculty at USM, and how incredibly desperate we have become. With upheaval after upheaval under the Thames administration, it is very hard to concentrate on our work. That is why so many fine faculty are leaving, so they don't have to deal with the mess here, and can teach and research in peace.

Second, as to the "archaic" nature of tenure. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about tenure, but you need to realize that tenure is how the academic world works. All the very best American universities still have the tenure system. If Mississippi universities were to abandon tenure, it would guarrantee that no professors would come and teach here, and academics trained in Mississippi would seek employment in other states. I've given this example on another thread: I think it is criminal that CEOs get cars and houses and other perks in addition to huge salaries. But if I were on the board of a corporation, I wouldn't get rid of those perks, because I know it would lessen our chances of attracting the best CEOs. If you want Mississippi to be completely abandoned by all of academia and to be considered an educational desert, all you have to do is wipe out tenure.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"
I do very much disagree in principle with the idea that the only individuals who may advise on a recommendation for tenure are those who themselves have been awarded tenure at a four year institution. To follow this logic <SNIP>"

More FUD!

To follow your logic, no matter the business or trade in which you are employed, I should be able to walk in & evaluate your job skills & performance. Whether or not I had any experience in the kind of job you do or whether or not I had any familiarity with the particular "career ladder" in your profession, I should be able to evaluate your performance. Not only that, I should be able to cast a single vote to deny your continued employment.

Would you think that was fair?

That's what we're talking about here.

Date: May 12, 2004

I am a member of the Mississippi Bar. Believe me, all lawyers know that anyone who went to Cooley would have taken the bar after graduation. Why? Cooley is enormously expensive. For the most part, people who go there do so because they couldn't get in anywhere else. One would only go to Cooley if he or she REALLY wanted to be a lawyer. It costs more than most private Ivy League schools. Her lack of membership in any bar only means one thing.

Date: May 12, 2004

Foot Solider,

I did not mean to imply that USM should do away with the tenure system. My point was only to illustrate that this argument of only a "tenure" individual may provide advice to the President of the university concerning recommendations for tenure come across as archaic and out of step. I sounds very much like an argument of, "Only we may judges ourselves and no one else." I would hope that a multitiude of imputs would be used when considering recommendations of tenure, including imput form staff, students, and others in the community. I myself have on more that one occasion provided a letter of support to a faculty member up for tenure. In the end it should be the President (a tenured individual) who makes the final recommendation with IHL's approval.

The idea that the VP for Research must be a tenured person in order for their opinion to mean anything should appear to anyone to be misplaced. That it may at this time be a requirement is no small point and one which needs to be cleared up.

On a final note, I do take the fact that my niece's prof wasting time in class as a negative sign of Dr. Thames' impact on USM. Both are at fault and the situation needs to be corrected. How would seem to be the main issue at this point. It would be refreshing to read some constructive comments on this point as opposed to "Fire Shelby and any one he hired!"

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"Foot Solider,
My point was only to illustrate that this argument of only a "tenure" individual may provide advice to the President of the university concerning recommendations for tenure come across as archaic and out of step. . . . In the end it should be the President (a tenured individual) who makes the final recommendation with IHL's approval.
The idea that the VP for Research must be a tenured person in order for their opinion to mean anything should appear to anyone to be misplaced. That it may at this time be a requirement is no small point and one which needs to be cleared up."

I just want to add that I think the real underlying issue about Dr. Dvorak is not specifically whether or not she is tenured at USM, but the larger issue of whether or not she is qualified for her job. In a variety of ways, she is not. I'd go into them all for you here, but other people can and have done it better than I can. And also I have a stack of papers to grade, and that's more important right now.

Date: May 12, 2004

Since this topic is circumnavigating tenure, I'll ask a general question...

If the tenure system were abolished at USM (and assuming that there were enough faculty left to offer doctoral programs), would a doctoral graduate from USM be competitive for a tenure-track position at another University?

We already know that doctoral graduates from USM are considered unqualified to work at USM, which would in this scenario be a non-tenure system.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" Dear Curious, First, I apologize for the history professor in your niece's class. Of course he should be teaching. However, perhaps you should take his actions as evidence of how bad things are for the faculty at USM, and how incredibly desperate we have become. With upheaval after upheaval under the Thames administration, it is very hard to concentrate on our work. That is why so many fine faculty are leaving, so they don't have to deal with the mess here, and can teach and research in peace.

Dear Curious,

I share the Foot Soldier's concern if the class discussion were off-topic, but as neither of us were there we can't know to what extent the discussion might not have been entirely on topic. I myself have sometimes been surprised when students misunderstand the direction of my own lectures. I was in fact astonished once to hear a student complain that I had "gone off on a tangent for the entire class period" where what in fact I was doing was demonstrating how the rest of a Shakespeare play could be seen reflected in a single passage. Pointing out such part-whole relationships is absolutely central to the study of literature. (The student later changed her major.)

My own response to the current crisis was a bit different. On Monday, March 8, I told them how bad the fallout from the attempted firing could be, and then said we would henchforth get back to work. I explicitly took as my pattern Winston Churchill's speech to the House of Commons in June 1940 in which he detailed the challenge that Britain faced from an enemy that wanted to annihilate its morals and its culture, and then said, "Let us now to our duties . . . "

But I'm not teaching in the history department, where I can see an greater relevance for recent events. In just the period I know from my work in "early modern" (i.e., Renaissance) English literature, there was a marked erosion of liberties as newly powerful men surrounded themselves with underqualified cronies who thereby owed them all their allegiance. In England, events came to a head in the middle of the 17th century with a Civil War that dwarfs our own and the eventual turning of that nation toward representative government. The parallels are striking. Dissent was crushed, institutions were dismantled, and the Parliament--the assembly of those pesky folk who dared to disagree with the king--was disbanded for eleven years. It is from this period that we get the term "star chamber." A few insiders made the rules and badmouthed, nay, jailed or even physically multilated anyone who disagreed. There was even an "Et Cetera Oath" promulgated in 1640 which demanded pre-agreement to any future demands, a requirement which bears an eerie resemblance to our administration's own failed drug and alcohol policy. The Et Cetera Oath caused literal riots, and the English are usually pretty reasonable people. The king continued to claim that no one but no one could ever disagree with him, and--it being a less genteel age--he was eventually beheaded for it in 1649. By the time the French had their own noisier revolution in 1789, the English were well on the their way to establishing the kind of government we claim to cherish today.

So, I don't know that we can automatically assume that the professor's comments were off topic. Teaching is the art of delivering unknown information by means of what is know. Again, I wasn't there, but I can imagine that recent events could be quite usefully woven into a lecture on governmental excess from another period.

Date: May 12, 2004

I really should be grading . . .but I wanted to add that I do talk to my classes about the crises, but I do it out of a sense of moral obligation. I think they as students here deserve to know that the decisions which are (or aren't) being made are going to affect them. For example, the situtation in the nursing school--I know several good students who didn't get in to nursing school and were devastated. Their career paths and lives were altered, because there weren't enough places for them. If departments loose their accreditation, then students will have to transfer or choose another major. If professors leave, they may not be able to get the classes they want. I know somebody who has an entirely different doctoral committee than when she started because all five professors on her committee have left. If the reputation of USM suffers (and it has) this will not help the graduates on the job market or if they are applying to graduate school. All of what has happened here ultimately has something to do with the education and the future of the students. They need to know, and some of this _is_ more important than the class material at hand on any given day.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lawyer
"I am a member of the Mississippi Bar. Believe me, all lawyers know that anyone who went to Cooley would have taken the bar after graduation. Why? Cooley is enormously expensive. For the most part, people who go there do so because they couldn't get in anywhere else. One would only go to Cooley if he or she REALLY wanted to be a lawyer. It costs more than most private Ivy League schools. Her lack of membership in any bar only means one thing. "

Well, maybe not ALL lawyers. Some of us might think she was (a) wealthy, (b) a recipient of financial aid, (c) or influenced to change her plans in some way that we know nothing about. Several of my classmates were the wives of physicians. Despite their obvious financial resources, they were getting a free ride, reportedly because they had very good LSAT scores, they were female, and their enrollment pumped up the school's statistics. Perhaps someone even considered the possibility that they would be greatful and generous alumnae at some point. (They were very good students, and would have been fine attorneys had they chosen to practice.)

It has been my experience that there is almost always more than one explanation for anything.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" Perhaps someone even considered the possibility that they would be greatful . . ."

Or "grateful" as the case may be. (Is there a spell checker in here somewhere? I need my crutch.)

Date: May 12, 2004

Jameela Lares and Foot Soldier,

I appreciate your comments and know that the vast majority of the faculty is not wasting class time on the situation. I had asked my niece if her prof had made any attempt to relate the situation to historical events. She stated the prof was not doing anything of the kind.

The subject of Magna Carta would seem to be an appropriate one as well as many other historical events but alas the time in class was truly wasted.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"
I believe Dr. Thames’ goals and vision for USM to be very correct. I find his means for working to achieve these very lacking!

Now concerning some of your following statements:

What's more, there is plenty of evidence that Angie Dvorak is unfit to be Vice President for Research at USM.

Please cite this “plenty of evidence.”
"

Curious,

Thank you for saying more about your background and concerns.

I agree with you that professors at USM should not be consuming class time talking about Shelby Thames. I come from a department where any sort of political advocacy in the classroom is frowned upon. I regard that as good policy.

What is Shelby Thames trying to do for (or to) USM that deserves anyone's support? As far as I can tell, what he wants USM to be is a Thames Tech or a Polymer State, wholly controlled by himself, and funded primarily by grants and contracts to Polymer Science. What kind of vision is that? Does it accommodate the needs of undergraduates like your nice? And how do you separate Thames' supposed vision from his ham-handed methods?

As for Angie Dvorak's being unfit for the Vice President for Research position:

She fails to qualify, under USM rules that remain in force, to evaluate professors for tenure or promotion. Frankly, I don't think that a Vice President for Research should be involved in evaluating faculty, because the main function of a VP for Research is promoting grant-funded research, and big-ticket grant-funding is much more common in some disciplines (e.g., Mechanical Engineering) than in others (e.g., Foreign Languages). At Clemson the VP for Research is not involved in tenure or promotion decisisons. But USM has defined the job that way, and she is not qualified to do a significant part of it. (Nor, I expect, will she agree to take a pay cut in return for being relieved of that portion of her responsibilities.)

What's more, Angie Dvorak simply does not have the background as a researcher that would make her credible in the role of VP for Research. Faculty members don't expect those who become Vice-Presidents to be cutting-edge researchers, at least not by that point in their careers, because a person seriously committed to research would much rather be in the lab than behind a desk doing administration. But if they haven't done enough grant-funded research of their own to be conversant with the activity, and credible to researchers at their institution, then they are like Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss: the technically incompetent person who is expected to manage the technically competent. That's why there's such a telling contrast between Angie Dvorak and the guy that Mississippi State just hired.

As for your defense of Angie Dvorak's vita, I'll run the risk of being called out for pomposity here: She has claimed, on at least one version of her vita, that she was an Associate Professor of English at the "University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY)." Senior faculty in the Department of English at UK have never heard of her. And what a retired trustee of the Kentucky Community College System chose to say in order to protect her is not the last word on this subject. She has refused to allow USM Faculty Senators to see copies of the vita that she submitted at the time of hiring, even though vitas are not confidential, and the only other person I know of who claimed that a vita submitted at the time of hiring was confidential had lied on it, and wanted to hide the lie.

I've yet to hear any defender of Angie Dvorak's address this simple question: Should administrators who lie on their vitas be punished for doing so?

You may have a point that Shelby Thames didn't care whether Angie Dvorak was qualified or not, when he decided to hire her. In that case, doesn't the IHL Board have an open-and-shut case for firing Thames, for falsely representing to the Board that Angie Dvorak was qualified?

Tenure, and its future, could easily take up several threads on this board. I actually think that tenure has some downsides, and I wonder whether it is sustainable, given the overproduction of Ph.D.'s in many academic fields today.

But two things to keep in mind:

Tenure, for those who already have it, is a contract, and a contract that courts usually enforce. Those who want to get rid of tenure usually try to change the rules so that younger professors are no longer eligible for it. (Those who want to phase it out could also offer buyouts to induce those who are already tenured to give it up--but that would be very expensive, and not everyone would agree to sign tenure away, unless the amount offered was astronomical.) Attempting what Thames and Roy Klumb want to do--firing professors who already have tenure, on trumped-up grounds or none at all, and intimidating the rest into silence--guarantees maximum lawsuits and maximum bad publicity.

And...

When it comes right down to it, tenure is a protection against arbitrary, politically motivated firings by bad administrators. Now Shelby Thames is the poster child for bad administration. Could you imagine a worse advertisement for getting rid of tenure than the behavior of Shelby Thames and his administration?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 12, 2004

What is Shelby Thames trying to do for (or to) USM that deserves anyone's support? As far as I can tell, what he wants USM to be is a Thames Tech or a Polymer State, wholly controlled by himself, and funded primarily by grants and contracts to Polymer Science. What kind of vision is that? Does it accommodate the needs of undergraduates like your nice? And how do you separate Thames' supposed vision from his ham-handed methods?

This statement above all others you have made shows how far removed you are from understanding what has been going on at USM, including before Dr. Thames was made President.

My nice is majoring in Marine Science. More than half of the funded research at USM comes from the Department of Marine Science. Dr. Thames vision as I understand it is to leverage the strengths of the USM which have grown to be Marine Science, Psychology, Polymer Science, and includes Nursing (he is actively pursuing a teaching hospital for nursing and psychology on the Mississippi Gulf Coast). At the time Dr. Thames took over the reigns of USM the board of trustees were requiring better efficiency and accountability from all institutions in the state. At the time there was a $3.4 million loss of state funding for fiscal 2003, the third consecutive year of less state money.

For two years prior to Dr. Thames taking office there had been no pay raises for faculty and staff. Faculty members had started to leave for better paying positions at other universities out side the state. Mississippi State University has particularly been hit hard by the lack of pay raises. And the state funding situation this year has been no better.

Dr. Thames’ predecessor, Dr. Fleming ran afoul of the faculty in large measure over this financial crisis and it played a significant part in his leaving USM. That Dr. Thames should at this point be focusing on alternative funding sources would seem to me a wise and prudent thing to do. All of these big-ticket funding grants you seem to disparage are at this time a critical element in USM improving its financial situation. Everyone please note that the indirects collected on the grants (anywhere from 25% to 45% of the total funds) go into the university to support overhead and facilities which leaves more of the state appropriated funds to support faculty and staff and help keep tuitions from increasing any greater that it has in the past several years.

Just look at local schools. When budgets get tight it’s the arts that are often the first to go. The same holds true for USM. If we all want to maintain the liberal arts and music at USM then we need to start supporting alternative funding streams like R&D grants. The major universities are doing this. Just compare USM’s R&D budget ratio to students with that of any major university.

No, Robert Campbell, I will defend Dr. Thames goals but not the tactics he has employed. I will say I can not see how at this time Dr. Thames can stay on and USM move forward, nor can I say how USM will move forward if the faculty does not itself begin to realize that USM must grow and change and this includes the faculty improving its efficiency and realizing that those parts of the USM which can generate more outside funding/R&D grants will and should become a more central focus. This will not be at the expense of the liberal arts but will assure their preservation.

I believe to have the best marine science department or best polymer science program that you have to have the best English department. These are not mutually exclusive but paired at the hips. And you may find this hard to believe Robert Campbell, but Dr. Thames believes the same thing. He has just done a sorry job of communicating this to the faculty. Perhaps the PUC meeting was not such a total waste today if you can see it in this light. With regard to the idea that this is all some part of some war between different parts of the state, that the dumbest statement I have read in quite some time. “Some times a cigar is just a cigar”, to quote Freud.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
This statement above all others you have made shows how far removed you are from understanding what has been going on at USM, including before Dr. Thames was made President. My niece is majoring in Marine Science. More than half of the funded research at USM comes from the Department of Marine Science. Dr. Thames vision as I understand it is to leverage the strengths of the USM which have grown to be Marine Science, Psychology, Polymer Science, and includes Nursing (he is actively pursuing a teaching hospital for nursing and psychology on the Mississippi Gulf Coast). At the time Dr. Thames took over the reigns of USM the board of trustees were requiring better efficiency and accountability from all institutions in the state. At the time there was a $3.4 million loss of state funding for fiscal 2003, the third consecutive year of less state money. For two years prior to Dr. Thames taking office there had been no pay raises for faculty and staff. Faculty members had started to leave for better paying positions at other universities out side the state. Mississippi State University has particularly been hit hard by the lack of pay raises. And the state funding situation this year has been no better. Dr. Thames’ predecessor, Dr. Fleming ran afoul of the faculty in large measure over this financial crisis and it played a significant part in his leaving USM. That Dr. Thames should at this point be focusing on alternative funding sources would seem to me a wise and prudent thing to do. All of these big-ticket funding grants you seem to disparage are at this time a critical element in USM improving its financial situation. Everyone please note that the indirects collected on the grants (anywhere from 25% to 45% of the total funds) go into the university to support overhead and facilities which leaves more of the state appropriated funds to support faculty and staff and help keep tuitions from increasing any greater that it has in the past several years. Just look at local schools. When budgets get tight it’s the arts that are often the first to go. The same holds true for USM. If we all want to maintain the liberal arts and music at USM then we need to start supporting alternative funding streams like R&D grants. The major universities are doing this. Just compare USM’s R&D budget ratio to students with that of any major university. No, Robert Campbell, I will defend Dr. Thames goals but not the tactics he has employed. I will say I can not see how at this time Dr. Thames can stay on and USM move forward, nor can I say how USM will move forward if the faculty does not itself begin to realize that USM must grow and change and this includes the faculty improving its efficiency and realizing that those parts of the USM which can generate more outside funding/R&D grants will and should become a more central focus. This will not be at the expense of the liberal arts but will assure their preservation. I believe to have the best marine science department or best polymer science program that you have to have the best English department. These are not mutually exclusive but paired at the hips. And you may find this hard to believe Robert Campbell, but Dr. Thames believes the same thing. He has just done a sorry job of communicating this to the faculty. Perhaps the PUC meeting was not such a total waste today if you can see it in this light. With regard to the idea that this is all some part of some war between different parts of the state, that the dumbest statement I have read in quite some time. “Some times a cigar is just a cigar”, to quote Freud. "

Curious,

If you want to see, in somewhat greater depth, what I think of Shelby Thames' "vision" for USM, I have written about it on Liberty and Power:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/5101.html

In the meantime, it is not a good idea to assume that a faculty member who criticizes administrators like Thames for putting all of their marbles on grant-funded research is therefore economically ignorant. Quite the contrary: those administrators who treat grants with indirect cost components as the only revenue stream worth increasing are the ones who are economically ignorant. They neither take adequate notice of the costs of staying competitive for grants and contracts, nor do they pay enough attention to other sources of revenue.

I'd heard that Horace Fleming got tossed in 2002 because he couldn't respond adequately to budget cuts. I've seen two Presidents of Clemson go for the same reason, during my time here. (And Fleming himself was a finalist for President of Clemson in 1995. My senior colleagues considered him the weakest of the four who were invited for interviews, and on that particular issue our Trustees agreed with them.)

But what should administrators do, at a state university, when the state legislature cuts direct appropriations?

One, they should raise tuition. (Keeping tuition low, in order to flatter legislators into increasing appropriations, is a lost cause, and has been so in most states since the late 1980s. Clemson's Trustees finally caught on to this fact in 1999.) Tuition is a source of revenue. And the closer tuition approaches the actual cost of instruction, the more attention students and their parents will pay to the value of what they are getting, and the more obvious it will be that undergraduate instruction is actually helping to prop up other parts of the university. Even now, I am willing to bet that the lowest-cost, highest-enrollment progams at USM are massively cross-subsidizing the high-cost, low-enrollment programs. Where are the low-cost per credit hour, high enrollment programs at USM? Where are the high-cost per credit hour, low-enrollment programs? Hint: the programs that bring in the most grant bucks are normally high-cost, low-enrollment.

Two, they need to step up their campaigns for private donations, so they can build an endowment. One thing that I was simply not prepared for, when I began learning about Thames' track record, is his total disregard for building up private giving to USM. Most governing boards would fire a president simply for leaving a Capital Campaign dead in the water, as Thames has.

Three, they need to cut administration. Administrators are expensive, most of them like to build administrative empires, many regard themselves as part of a class superior to faculty and staff, and past a certain point the added administrators gum up every decision making process within the institution. Thames has increased administrative expenditure at USM instead of slashing it, as would have been best for the institution. His assertions about returning $2 million to the classroom are outright lies.

Fourth, they need to cut academic programs that are no longer drawing enrollment, or that are training people for jobs most of them will never be able to get. For example: Any university whose Ph.D. programs in the Humanities are not top-rated should be scaling them back, because they are (relatively) expensive to run, and most of their degree holders will never be able to get tenure-track jobs in academia. But it isn't just Ph. D. programs in say, Foreign Languages, that need close scrutiny these days. At Clemson (historically a land-grant institution) failure to make a proper appraisal of the Agriculture programs, and to begin to roll some of them up in an orderly fashion, has led to their sudden collapse as the legislature deals with a budget crunch by slashing their special-purpose funding. There has been much unnecessary suffering as a consequence.

So, sure, there are tough challenges that Thames' successor will need to face. But it isn't simply that Thames is a failure as a communicator. Thames hasn't a clue how to get USM to grow and prosper. In fact, the liberal arts undergraduate programs that he despises are probably cross-subsidizing his beloved Polymer Science, and are assuredly helping to prop up his bloated administrative structure.

Your niece may be doing OK because she is in a privileged program. Most USM undergraduates are being shorted by the Thames regime, and the kind of university he appears to want would dispense with undergrads altogether, as soon as that could be arranged.

Meanwhile, sources on this board do not depict Thames as a benefactor of the Nursing program. On the contrary, it appears to be nearing collapse under his stewardship.

May I suggest less deference to "Dr. Thames"--and sharper analysis of the economics of a state university?

One more thing: I am not attributing to Thames himself a conscious project of tearing USM down, in order to benefit rival universities in the state system. I am sure that Thames thinks he is working to build USM (of course, he is so egomaniacal that he can't distinguish the welfare of USM from his own aggrandizement). Probably his most vociferious political backers, like Klumb and Nicholson, believe that he is building USM as well, although they have other agendas too, like putting USM resources to work for businesses that don't have to pay in full for what they're getting, and sticking it to professors as a class. But the remaining support for Thames on the IHL Board is coming from folks who don't give a damn whether USM does well, and may actively want it to falter. Thames is too busy admiring his own reflection to realize it, but I really do think that for some politically influential individuals in Mississippi, he is the Designated Demolisher of USM.

Robert Campbell

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

This thread is so convolutedly off topic that I have no way to clean it up. Therefore, I am closing it.

If you want to start a thread on "Angie and the Bar" feel free to do so. Don't let it be derailed by people who wish to discuss topics unrelated to the thread title.

Thanks for understanding,

FS (mod)