Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Thinly veiled pretense or newfound compassion?
Post Info TOPIC: Thinly veiled pretense or newfound compassion?
Neumann

Date:
Thinly veiled pretense or newfound compassion?
Permalink Closed

The dialogue over potential conflict of interest presented by Neotic has raised some previously unheard, unspoken and seemingly unthought concerns for the faculty and students of Polymer Science.  Suddenly there is empathy for the plight of the "Sons-o-Satan" and those under their dominion.  Neotic has somehow made us the self-appointed protectorate of those that we previously reviled as the "them" in "them and us." 


Its a miraculous transformation that has taken place.  Days ago we literally turned our backs in the presence of Polymer faculty; post-Neotic, we are outraged that their academic liberity may be impinged upon.  Prior to Neotic, Polymer students were condemned to their ill-fate by their poor choice of majors;  now, we realize that we must champion them and their right to speedy publication.  This abrupt emergence of collegial compassion is inexplicable---unless all this benevolence is only intended for "us" and not "them."



__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

Neumann,


I haven't noticed anyone advocating the expulsion of Polymer Science from USM.  Have you?


A grad student in a unit that is given privileged treatment by the administration may nonetheless get ripped off.   Bioengineering at Clemson is a privileged unit (though not to the extent that Polymer Science is at USM; our president doesn't come from Bioengineering) but that doesn't mean that its grad students are necessarily treated well.


Robert Campbell



__________________
Jameela Lares

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Neumann
""
Neumann, I imagine that those posting on the list because they are feel oppressed and besieged feel equal-opportunity compassion for anyone else at USM similarly situated.  I hope you haven't felt personally targeted just because you are in a certain department, if indeed you are.  If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

__________________
Neumann

Date:
Permalink Closed

Robert, I never suggested that anyone was "advocating the expulsion of Polymer Science from USM."  I'm not sure how you made such an inference.  I only refered to the nearly unanimous castigation for anyone associated with Polymer Science that has been expressed here and demonstrative in our community, and how all that bile has now turned into the milk compassion in the face of Neotic. 


My point of confusion is over how the threat of Neotic has changed the hearts and minds of so many.  Those who previously wouldn't pi55 on a Bunsen burner to keep the SFT building from burning down are now claiming that their primary objection to Neotic is how it may trespass against freedom and liberty of polymer scientists. 


I'm calling for an honest questioning of motivation, here.  Has a real epiphany taken place, or is it a pretense of concern?  Are we now sincerely guardians of the rights of polymer scientists, or are we using their wellbeing only for the sake of taking a sanctimoniousness shot at Thames?


You can't have if both ways.  If you are going to d@mn them, then d@mn them.  If you are going to champion their rights, then be their champion.  You can not selectively be concerned about them when you feel it may further your own agenda.  To do so is unmitigated hypocrisy.


------------------------------


Jameela, your inference concerning my department is also wrong.  Its not about departments, its about humanity regardless of departments. 


 



__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

Neumann,


I don't know anyone who works in Polymer Science at USM.


I've assumed that Polymer Science functions like some of the higher-status Engineering departments at Clemson.  (Though I also have heard that it isn't considered an Engineering program.  Very weird, if true.)


That is, there are hard-working researchers doing good, solid, and sometimes highly creative work in such a program.  I have no complaints about Engineering professors unless (1) they try to arrange the curriculum so their undergraduate students go through in  5 years without taking a single non-Engineering course (periodically some of them will agitate for this at Clemson), or (2) they regard their program as entitled to be supported partly out of revenues brought in by other non-Engineering programs, which many Engineering professors look down on.  My view is that that in programs that bring in lots of grant bucks, those who are strictly researchers should normally be on "soft money," i.e. paid entirely out of grants.  The administration should not be making a commitment to pay them out of the university's other revenues.


At USM, Polymer Science has a particular history.  My understanding is that it became a separate unit when Shelby Thames was kicked out of the Chemistry Department.  My guess would be that Thames' prominent role in Polymer Science has meant that some nasty customers are in the program basically because they suck up to Thames, and some other basically decent folks have to watch their step so Thames and his allies don't stomp on them.


So I'm not inclined to totalize Polymer Science and damn everyone in it.  Life and universities are too complicated to warrant such a judgment.  I don't blame Engineering faculty for some of the perverse features of the university where I work; I certainly don't blame Engineering grad students for any of them.


I do believe, however, that the Noetic Technologies scheme is grossly corrupt.  It would be just as corrupt if Noetic were expecting to license high-tech packaging, or synthetic fibers, or robots, or gene therapies, or collision avoidance systems for cars. The corrupt enterprise is attached to Polymer Science at USM because of the local importance of Polymer Science, and Shelby Thames' particular role in it.  But any counterpart to Noetic, run by full-time administrators, would be just as corrupt at any state university.


Overall, I think you'll find me much more symapathetic to Engineering programs than some Engineering professors I know are to Psychology programs/


Polymer Science isn't the problem at USM.  Shelby Thames and his minions are the problem.


Robert Campbell



__________________
Invictus

Date:
RE: RE: Thinly veiled pretense or newfound compass
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I do believe, however, that the Noetic Technologies scheme is grossly corrupt."


It may be corrupt, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it's legal in the Great Sovereign State of Mississippi. It's legal & it will make a few potential political contributors wealthy.

<CYNICISM>
And if it's legal, it's okay. If it makes potential political contributors wealthy, it's excellent.
</CYNICISM>



__________________
present professor

Date:
RE: RE: Thinly veiled pretense or newfound compassion?
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Neumann
"My point of confusion is over how the threat of Neotic has changed the hearts and minds of so many.  Those who previously wouldn't pi55 on a Bunsen burner to keep the SFT building from burning down are now claiming that their primary objection to Neotic is how it may trespass against freedom and liberty of polymer scientists.  I'm calling for an honest questioning of motivation, here.  Has a real epiphany taken place, or is it a pretense of concern?  Are we now sincerely guardians of the rights of polymer scientists, or are we using their wellbeing only for the sake of taking a sanctimoniousness shot at Thames? You can't have if both ways.   ------------------------------    "

I don't think the concern was directed only at/to polymer scientists. We are all academics and although our work is different the university as a whole has an interest in making sure that adequate checks and balances are provided in all areas in order to maintain the integrity of the university and the knowledge that it produces. That transcends disciplines.


There are areas of study that are more likely to be revenue generating than others. I think there is nothing wrong with that. The concern from my end is that these activities need to be carefully watched to make sure that the profit motive does not either affect the integrity of the research or the appointment of of people into qualified faculty positions.


Big research institutions deal with these situations all the time and have created some fairly recognizable methods to handle them. What seems missing here is an interest from the administration to ensure that appropriate review structures are either in place or are created. That seems like a red flag to me.


And thus the reason why this subject has come up.


You seem to have some deeper agenda here: I think there are clearly some folks on this board who might evince hostility to our colleagues in science and technology (particularly polymer) and business as well. I'd suggest that this hostility isn't directed at individuals in the fields, but is probably coming about because at the moment our captain seems only to recognize a few limited areas of research and teaching as having legitimacy. Virtually all of the attention and fundraising seems directed to some narrow areas. Yet there has never been a public statement that the university is, for instance, going to abandon any of the areas which are increasingly being marginalized. I think what you are hearing is people watching their areas being gutted but not knowing if the situation is temporary or permanent, or is part of some larger and unannounced agenda (such as "cleaning house." )


It is a sign of poor management that we exist in the kind of ambiguity of mission that faculty members feel compelled to fight to keep their programs visible because this is an administration that has a very narrow view of education. That the rhetoric heats up and sometimes becomes both personal and misguidedly directed at other disciplines is incredibly unfortunate and to be lamented -- but it is also what happens when people receive no or little guidance or leadership.


We just had two faculty members in the humanities run off campus. One is an exemplary teacher. The other is an international scholar whose work has brought USM as much attention (if less revenue and practical application) in his field as polymer has in science and tech. It is a little difficult for folks in the humanities to feel that their work is very important in the eyes of the administration when whole programs are being wiped out and when good people are swept away with little regret.


What we now know is that these losses are not limited to the humanities: nursing, certain areas of the business school, and criminology are also suffering.


I think there is some truth in what you say -- but not much. Early on in this board two subjects came up:


liberal vs conservative 


liberalarts/humanities vs applied areas


We pretty much agreed that this issue was not a liberal/conservative issue nor a liberal arts/humanities vs applied studies kind of issue. It is far more complicated than that.


Most of the writers have observed this agreement. I think you are generally picking at what is not a dominant aspect of the conversation, and worrying at it this way is not constructive except as a reminder that we are all in the same leaky boat and we need to pull together.  



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Thinly veiled pretense or newfound compassion?
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard