Let me see if I understand. People who write letters about the current situation at USM generally fall into two categories: pro-Thames or anti-Thames. Alternatively, authors of these letters are described as pro-faculty or anti-faculty. Are we missing a more basic problem here?

People who write pro-Thames letters tend to bash the faculty, thus they are said to be anti-faculty. People who write this type of letter are graphic and often creative in depicting the faculty as “lazy,” “whiney,” “selfish,” etc. The common thread that seems to run through these letters is that members of the faculty at USM who complain about Thames’s administration are more interested protecting their privileged status than in teaching students. Would agree with my assessment?

If you do, then you can appreciate my concern over how comments in so-called pro-Thames letters might be affecting prospective students at USM and their parents. I know that many students who are planning to go on to college after they graduate from high school, or students at community college who are planning to continue their education at a senior institution, know from the start where they are going. Nevertheless, there appears to be significant proportion of students in high school and the community colleges who weigh several options, such as which of the state universities to attend or whether to go to a community college instead of attending a senior intuition as a freshman, etc. It is my impression that in the past USM has been relatively successful in attracting many of these undecided applicants. Consequently, letters that derogate the faculty at USM may be inimical to the best interests of the university in that they tend to discourage prospective students from attending a school where the faculty is described in such unfavorable terms. If you were a student graduating from high school, would you want to attend a school where the faculty are portrayed as selfish, lazy bums?

From this perspective, these letters are not pro-Thames, because surely he will not benefit from the drop in enrollment at USM, which these letters encourage, nor are they effective criticisms of the faculty, because they are both uninformed and predictable. Rather, I believe that letters of this ilk are, in reality, anti-USM.

I am not sure how to respond to people who take it upon themselves to write letters like this during a time of emotional and professional turmoil, especially people who have not attended USM, and particularly especially (an interesting word usage that I have never employed before) people who live in Hattiesburg and make a living off of a community that would, in fact, not be there if it were not for the faculty at USM. In my opinion, people who derogate members of the faculty at USM during this crisis are just as bad as someone who kicks a person who is down.

Jim Hollandsworth