As promised.....as I've been grading I have been thinking about this:

SFT's delusional claim that USM is already a "worl'-class" university has been a fixture of his short and unfortunate administration, and clearly of his self-appointed mission.  The end is clearly laudable, but the means toward it have been laughable.  Let us interrogate his assertion.

A world-class university has:

--An experienced, competent and professionally non-controversial administration as accomplished as its Faculty. Transparent searches are the norm for all levels of hires.

What do we see here under SFT?  A largely amateurish, parochial upper Administration, and one congenitally controversial, though with a few encouraging high-lights (I am thinking of V.P. Lassen, actually).

--A Library that qualifies for membership in the Association of Research Libraries.

Here?  Due to unwise funding and staffing decisions made by SFT since he became president, we have one that just barely qualifies only for the Association of South Eastern Research Libraries, though we still are not a member.  Why?  Is there any evidence that SFT's priorities include decisive investment in USM's Library system?  Instead he has continued to weaken our library resources.

--A competitive Sabbatical policy, i.e., affording select tenure-track faculty 1 semester (half-year) at the 4th year, and a possible full academic year for tenured faculty every 7th year, or something like that.

USM's world-class policy?  A single semester every 7th year, if you are lucky.  Yet have we seen any emphasis on investment in sabbatical support in SFT's 'vision' and 'strategic' policy initiatives?  Is is even on his radar?  Given his general trashing of the faculty, and apparent encouragement of such in the public discourse of his scandals, could he ever effectively advocate for this with the IHL Board and the state, including legislators, who already are largely anti-intellectual to begin with?  Instead, the word is that SFT constantly talks about 'dead-weight' and 'dead-wood'.  He constantly undermines the public trust in his own faculty, making increased sabbatical support even more unlikely.

--A Research based teaching load, generally 3/3 base and 2/2 (or 3/2) research level.

At least here, with no thanks to SFT but creditably to the far-sighted deans and chairs, USM does actually approach world-class status.  SFT, however, clearly is betting the bank on increasing USM's enrollment as the supposed panacea for our underlying financial weaknesses.  And yet faculty are leaving in droves (many driven away by SFT "hisself"), and by the way, anyone who actually teaches also knows just how close to the bottom of the proverbial barrel we are scratching already, and just how is SFT planning on squaring these circles?  Has he ever said?

--Comparatively competitive admission standards, though not necessarily selective ones.

Our reality?  Nearly open admissions, a tendency toward less-than-reliable reporting of numbers, and a kind of mercenary "sink or swim" attitude toward the students we do have.  Reports are that under SFT the average ACT scores have declined from 21 before to perhaps 19 now.  As far as I have seen the only real standard is for a 24 for GED applicants, a good idea actually, but note that there has been little administrative concern with drop-out (oops, 'retention') rates, especially for the 25 percent of our students who might be termed "challenged" (coming as they do from some of the lowest-funded school districts in one of the poorest states in the country).  What is glaring under SFT is the utter lack of a university-wide peer-tutoring program.  The demonstrated need is great, but the recognition of it has been minimal.  Where is the requisite commitment in SFT's vision for Student Affairs?  What is USM's reportable graduation rate anyway?  Is it indeed 'world class'?  The admissions revolving door is practically a scam, and earlier this year there were rumors of a federal investigation (as so many of these hastily admitted students qualify for Pell Grants and federally subsidized loans).

--At least 1 excellence (signature program) in at least 3 basic university units.

We do have Polymer Science (though apparently it is a hateful place to work), and History and English (though both are weakening), and of course the whole Study Abroad industry.  But the former College of The Arts was cut down into schools.  And then SFT killed off the internationally renowned Donne Variorum Project, beheaded the Nursing unit (whose graduates are no longer automatically certified by virtue of their degree, as had been the case before SFT), abuses the Music program, and drives off both promising and accomplished faculty throughout, especially in the liberal arts.  No world-class university purposefully weakens its Liberal Arts unit, even tech schools.

--Serves as a brain-magnet and a regional motor of economic development.

Granted we are in one of the poorest states in the country, but SFT has been obssessed with whipping the tail into wagging the dog.  USM was (and perhaps still is) the key to local economic development, and yet we are still dependent on politically unpopular local tax increases to fund planned needs.  But did anyone notice how SFT's development staff recently abused Hattiesburg's city council, who would bear the political cost of any increase in local taxes?  And whatever happened to Fleming's capital campaign anyway?  And what about that supposed $9 million for which the USM Foundation cannot account?  Let's guess.

--Last but not least, a world-class university evidences a real commitment to diversity.

One would think that in Mississippi an aspiring university would incorporate into its basic practice an authentic and structural understanding of how diversity serves the institution's mission; this clearly was a hallmark of Fleming's administration (and what perhaps undermined his support among the local poobahs?).  But just look at Ole Miss.  What do we have here?  I think we all know the answer to that.  Perhaps it is instructive that the portrait of Osceola McCarty, whose selfless charity made (positive) international news, and which used to hang in the President's formal reception room in the Dome, has disappeared.  No room for local black heroes in a redneck administration.

However there has been real success in disability access, due no doubt to federal mandates.

And yet, whereas fully one-quarter of our students are minority (mostly African Americans), there is not even an African-American studies minor for example, or some equivalent, nor a relevantly defined minority student affairs deanship, or whatever.  SFT has evinced absolutely no interest in confronting the hard truth of the nearly lily-white reality of the Faculty, nor in addressing the peculiar historical burden of schools like USM in states like Mississippi.  Instead we got a highly paid "risk management" bureaucrat whose incompetence got himself fired.  Of course, SFT's no....well, historian.  All evidence points instead to the historically familiar "ol'-boy" world of yesteryear.  This, however, is 2004, not 1984 or 1974 or 1964 or.....

In the end, of the 8 categories that I think of as markers of "world-class" status, under SFT Southern Miss has perhaps a score of 2 or at best 3.

But by constantly claiming that USM is "world-class" SFT can avoid investing in the real, nuts-and-bolts prerequisites and instead throw money down the rat-hole of "economic development."  By emphasizing the latter, he shows that he fails to understand the real mission of a great university.

As this is final-exam time, any grading system would give SFT's USM an "F" on the question of world-class status.  But like a student who gets an F on a mid-term, with the right combination of commitment and grit and guidance (and humility) one could still theoretically pull out an A for the course.  To carry the analogy to its conclusion, however, SFT should simply cut his losses and 'drop' this class.  Just as I am sure all faculty here have heard from students at one time or another, SFT is like the one who eventually says "I'm just not good at that subject."  Contrary to my usual practice, this time I would agree.

NO QUARTER.