Stringer and Glamser

Date: May 23, 2004

Stringer and Glamser

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: USM Veteran
"One can only hope that there is some way to find out why they settled.

It's easy to find out why they settled. Read any statement from Roy Klumb! That's who would've had the final say on the matter, had it reached the College Board, and I can't imagine that he would've treated G&S fairly at all.

Go back to Eagle Talk with your divisiveness, dude.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: USM Veteran
"There is no question that Frank and Gary caved in personally, and dumped on the faculty at USM by their settlement. . ."

Tell me, "USM Veteran," just how did Stringer and Glamser "dump" on you?" It appears to me that quite the opposite is true. You seem to be dumping on them. It was they, not you, who put careers, livelihood, and personal welfare on the line in this matter. Tell us, please, just how they dumped on you? Please be specific. I fail to understand.

Date: May 23, 2004

I agree entirely with First Ant. They were brave men who exposed Shelby Thames' actions to the world. What have you done for the cause? I'll be waiting for you to post your list here.

It's easy to lob these attack posts from behind your anonymous handle, now isn't it?

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Veteran
"There is no question that Frank and Gary caved in personally, and dumped on the faculty at USM by their settlement."

My dear USM Veteran, your "there is no question" is either ill-intentioned or ill-informed. The reasons for Frank and Gary's settling have been discussed ad infinitum on this board. (Quick refresher: the mediator was sent down with orders to settle. Had they not, they would have been broken and bankrupt by the inexorable legal machine while you retained your salary, your safety, and your anonymity.) You simply can't join the conversation here with "there is no question." There are, in fact, plenty of answers to demolish your statement.

If you are ill-informed, please go back and review the posts and then bring back any specific questions or points that you might possibly want to raise.

If you are ill-intentioned (read "trollish"), then please find another venue for your comments.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
" My dear USM Veteran, your "there is no question" is either ill-intentioned or ill-informed. The reasons for Frank and Gary's settling have been discussed ad infinitum on this board. (Quick refresher: the mediator was sent down with orders to settle. Had they not, they would have been broken and bankrupt by the inexorable legal machine while you retained your salary, your safety, and your anonymity.) You simply can't join the conversation here with "there is no question." There are, in fact, plenty of answers to demolish your statement. If you are ill-informed, please go back and review the posts and then bring back any specific questions or points that you might possibly want to raise. If you are ill-intentioned (read "trollish"), then please find another venue for your comments."

The good people of this board are so enmeshed in the fight that they are unwilling or unable to see clearly. Glamser and Stringer caved in. Had they stayed the course Thames would have repeatedly hung himself (as he did in his morning testimony, so much so that the "mediator," fearing for the revelations that might be made, forced the settlement on Glamser and Stringer), and the day would have been won. So there is truth in USM Vet's remarks, though there is no understanding or empathy. Most of us recognize that we, too, would likely have folded if put under the same pressure.

But history will only record the net effect, and the net effect is that Shelby was allowed to "fire" Glamser and Stringer, though in an obscure, roundabout fashion.

Neither are Stringer and Glamser heroes--they started an investigation of a VP (for admittedly personal reasons, in Stringer's case--some colleague of his had been denied tenure), and then they became the focus of Shelby's wrath. Then they did nothing much more but remain at the center of the controversy, while the faculty and the faculty senate, and many fine individuals spoke out in support.

Like USM Vet I regret that Glamser and Stringer did not "go all the way," for I believe firmly that they would have been fully reinstated and Shelby and his henchcrew would have been sent packing, but I fully understand and sympathize with the "caving" that they did. As someone else said earlier, they looked out for themselves and for the faculty as best they could.

I also regret the need by some cheerleader type posters to see things in black and white, to imagine that Stringer and Glamser are pure heroes, and that anyone who admits the damage done by the "settlement" is in opposition to the cause. That is childish nonsense. It behooves us to see clearly what is happening before us, for without such clear vision our actions cannot be tailored to the job.

Date: May 23, 2004

Those who think that G&S caved in during the hearings demonstrate a misunderstanding of the legal -- even quasi-legal -- process. The hearing was held to determine issues relating to the actions of G&S, and whether those actions justified their termination. Stated differently, there was never any question whether the mediator might conclude or recommend that SFT resign. SFT's position was not at stake in the formal proceeding. His credibility in the court of public opinion was at issue, but his position was not.

G&S could have "held out" till the cows came home and what would they have expected to get? Probably not much more than they did when they agreed to settle. I would be curious to know what realistic outcome the Monday morning quarterbacks think would have been acceptable. I'm not looking for pie in the sky, Pollyanna, gee-it-woulda-been-great stuff. I mean realistic. The best I can see, is that they would have kept on teaching over the next two years and kept their on-campus offices. Oh, yeah, and they would have been able to use their real names if they decided to criticize SFT on this board. In return, they would have been living in a fishbowl, in fear that their every move was being monitored. They would have been the poster boys for every brainless letter writer or IHL Board President that wants to castigate the liberal, lazy, whiner, do-nothing, power mad, "inmates running the asylum" professors. Tell you the truth, I think they might enjoy a little time off -- stay below the radar for a few months. If I had been in their position, I sure would.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: I can't imagine
""

If you want to see the good that has happened as the result of Frank and Gary's actions, then look at the "Good News" thread at the top of this board. As Jameela said, if you'd like to review the discussion on the reasons why Frank and Gary did what they did, then go back and re-read those earlier threads. If you want to offer up ideas as to what to do next to accomplish the stated goals of this board (to Fire Shelby Thames), then please join in.

If you want to sow the seeds of discord by continuing to talk about what Frank and Gary "did wrong," then please go elsewhere.

Thank you.

Date: May 23, 2004

I could not disagree more with Truth than now.

I do not understand why people have to leave this board because they speak their open mind and opinion. After all I thought that I spoke out and fought for G&S based on :

1. Tenure

2. Free Speech

Now to see how this board has been hand-cuffed?

WOW

Date: May 23, 2004

Let's see, from March 5 until April 28 was seven and a half weeks, just call it eight. Their legal fees were $40,000, which comes to $5,000 per week. Their salaries and health insurance were set to end, period. Sure, they should have held out!!

Sheesh.

Date: May 23, 2004

Has anyone asked to see a copy of the billing statement for the charges?

Seems to me that $40,000.00 is way too steep?

Besides, they did not pay the charges out of their pockets!

I am sick of folks short changing those of us who contributed to the cause!

Next time I will know better.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Wuz Up
"Has anyone asked to see a copy of the billing statement for the charges? Seems to me that $40,000.00 is way too steep? Besides, they did not pay the charges out of their pockets! I am sick of folks short changing those of us who contributed to the cause! Next time I will know better."

Have you employed an attorney lately? Were they guaranteed that enough donations would come in, had they held out?

Friend, after this comment I will not be able to respond further, as I will be away for a time.

Date: May 23, 2004

If you want to sow the seeds of discord by continuing to talk about what Frank and Gary "did wrong," then please go elsewhere. Thank you. "

Who do you think you are? You, who are hardly related to USM, are so closed-minded and don't have enough to sense to look deeper into things, listen, and actually take a look from the other side. Why don't you exercise tolerance of ideas or allow the free speech that you so loudly shout from the rooftops? You don't blast a man's character because he presents a different perspective on an issue. Go find something else to do with your time, because you obviously have too much of it.

Date: May 23, 2004

Well LVN, to answer your question my brother and sister are both attorneys. My brother practices in DC and my sister in Dallas.

I have posed this question to them both before. The response was interesting in the fact that both found the charges to be extremely high for this area and for the nature of the case.

Sorry you were offended, but I do not lie nor do I like being thought of as a trouble maker.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Wuz Up
"Has anyone asked to see a copy of the billing statement for the charges?
Seems to me that $40,000.00 is way too steep?
Besides, they did not pay the charges out of their pockets!
I am sick of folks short changing those of us who contributed to the cause!
Next time I will know better."

The president of AAUP, Amy Young, can show you the exact figures and the billing records. The last I heard Gary and Frank paid $6,000 of their own money.

Date: May 23, 2004

Two thoughts:

Regarding G & S: To anyone who has not lived through a "prosecution" as public as these men have, I suggest that you have no idea how you would hold up to be accused in the media of crimes by one who "can't comment," to be locked away from the fruits of your work and trashed by your employer--at the very least, recognize that none of us know what we would do until placed under that professional and financial burden. Their names, faces and characters were published all over the map--and we, most of us here in the peanut gallery, use pseudomyms for whatever reason. Worth considering?

quote:
Originally posted by: Wuz Up
"
Now to see how this board has been hand-cuffed?
WOW"

To this: Not a hand-cuff but a suggestion, perhaps: The resolution of G & S's proceedings is old news. Certainly those here are free to point that out, and to ask what possible good can come of re-trashing two professors who gave decades of their careers for the betterment of USM.

And Wuz, your name is all over this Board--how in the world do you think you're being handcuffed?

Please.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Wuz Up
"Well LVN, to answer your question my brother and sister are both attorneys. My brother practices in DC and my sister in Dallas.
I have posed this question to them both before. The response was interesting in the fact that both found the charges to be extremely high for this area and for the nature of the case.
Sorry you were offended, but I do not lie nor do I like being thought of as a trouble maker."

And they have a clue as to local fees and similar cases HOW?

Date: May 23, 2004

Yes Mrs.T

I am here. I am a faithful follower but I do have some questions to be answered. In your note of public ridicule, yes I have been there, thank you. HAVE YOU?

Next seems to me like alot of people in this scenario have been there. In my instance I was not allowed to walk away with cash in hand. I just want to know why and how?

Please do not bust my chops!!!!!!

Date: May 23, 2004

Please do not bust my chops!!!!!!"

Oh don't worry. If you disagree with them, they'll jump all over you.

Date: May 23, 2004

Thanks, Mrs. T--

A lot of folks think that "free speech" means freedom to say something without fear of being criticized. It doesn't mean that at all. Thanks for the reminder.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: TruthTeller
" Who do you think you are? You, who are hardly related to USM, are so closed-minded and don't have enough to sense to look deeper into things, listen, and actually take a look from the other side. Why don't you exercise tolerance of ideas or allow the free speech that you so loudly shout from the rooftops? You don't blast a man's character because he presents a different perspective on an issue. Go find something else to do with your time, because you obviously have too much of it. "

This personal attack on me isn't even worth a reply (those who know me know my ties to USM). Instead, I'll point you to the thread at the top of this board that gives the rules to posting on this board. Read them, please, before further posts.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tinctorus, Mrs.
"Two thoughts: Regarding G & S: To anyone who has not lived through a "prosecution" as public as these men have, I suggest that you have no idea how you would hold up to be accused in the media of crimes by one who "can't comment," to be locked away from the fruits of your work and trashed by your employer--at the very least, recognize that none of us know what we would do until placed under that professional and financial burden. Their names, faces and characters were published all over the map--and we, most of us here in the peanut gallery, use pseudomyms for whatever reason. Worth considering? quote: Originally posted by: Wuz Up" Now to see how this board has been hand-cuffed? WOW" To this: Not a hand-cuff but a suggestion, perhaps: The resolution of G & S's proceedings is old news. Certainly those here are free to point that out, and to ask what possible good can come of re-trashing two professors who gave decades of their careers for the betterment of USM. And Wuz, your name is all over this Board--how in the world do you think you're being handcuffed? Please."

Go, Tinctorus, Mrs! YOU ROCK!

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Sage
" Oh don't worry. If you disagree with them, they'll jump all over you."

TROLL ALERT!

Date: May 23, 2004

I assume that USM, during the 94 years which have passed since its founding in 1910, has developed a set of clearly prescribed guidelines (procedures) for terminating tenured faculty members. Further, I assume that those guidelines are published in a Faculty Handbook. Major institutions of high learning do not normally develop such crucial guidelines on an ad hoc, after-the-fact, or seat-of-the-britches basis. Perhaps I missed something, but I have not seen a copy of those guidelines posted on this site or in the media; and I do not have access to a copy of your Faculty Handbook. Would someone please tell me what that document says about the procedure to be followed? Thank you.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"This personal attack on me isn't even worth a reply (those who know me know my ties to USM). Instead, I'll point you to the thread at the top of this board that gives the rules to posting on this board. Read them, please, before further posts."

Criticism is not the problem. The issue is when people attack your character and draw conclusions that are far from true. And as far the rules, maybe they should be reviewed. How can you cry oppression when you only try to suppress views opposite of yours?

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"TROLL ALERT! "

Give me a break. Ridiculous.

Date: May 23, 2004

Has anyone stopped to think that the settlement was not only in the best interests of G&S but also in the best interests of our cause? I think it should be obvious now with the Klumb situation and the fact that the IHL pushed the judge so hard to settle that the IHL was NOT going to decide in the professors' favor. No matter how obvious the case was that they did nothing wrong, the IHL is there to support university presidents. They did not want to, and were not going to, set a precedent of siding with faculty over a president. So by reaching the settlement where Thames failed to fire them, these professors saved us from having to hear Thames go on and on saying "see I told you I was right..." If this would have gone to the Board, Thames would have claimed a victory and our cause would have taken a hit. Maybe the professors realized they were not going to get a fair shake with the Board and reached the settlement for their best interests AND ours.

Date: May 23, 2004

Frank and Gary opened this whole thing up, and they are great. They fought back and settling was the smartest thing they could do. Everyone needs to back off of that. Legal fees are out of control, and people need to remember that Shebby is represented by a law firm (Adams and Reese) that he doesn't have to pay. After you've walked it - then talk about it. I realize that Trolls want to be heard too, and also that there are some smart people out there who still disbelieve, but it's only a matter of time before SFT steps on those people's toes (that are still left) too. The man can't control himself.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tiger
"Has anyone stopped to think that the settlement was not only in the best interests of G&S but also in the best interests of our cause? I think it should be obvious now with the Klumb situation and the fact that the IHL pushed the judge so hard to settle that the IHL was NOT going to decide in the professors' favor. No matter how obvious the case was that they did nothing wrong, the IHL is there to support university presidents. They did not want to, and were not going to, set a precedent of siding with faculty over a president. So by reaching the settlement where Thames failed to fire them, these professors saved us from having to hear Thames go on and on saying "see I told you I was right..." If this would have gone to the Board, Thames would have claimed a victory and our cause would have taken a hit. Maybe the professors realized they were not going to get a fair shake with the Board and reached the settlement for their best interests AND ours."

Tiger, you are right on target when you say ". . . Maybe the professors realized they were not going to get a fair shake with the Board. . . " Considering the statements evidently made by one or more Board members before and after the settlement, it would certainly be difficult to believe that Stringer and Glamser would have been facing an unbiased jury of their peers in Jackson.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"Tiger, you are right on target when you say ". . . Maybe the professors realized they were not going to get a fair shake with the Board. . . " Considering the statements evidently made by one or more Board members before and after the settlement, it would certainly be difficult to believe that Stringer and Glamser would have been facing an unbiased jury of their peers in Jackson. "

To the posters masquerading as supporter:

I can't believe this keeps coming up. This has been discussed ad nauseum -- it is a waste of time to try to convince people who either have jumped on the board suddenly and haven't even tried to catch up with the discussion before firing away or who have been reading for the last eight weeks but are rehashng what is done.

If you truly care about the cause -- let it go. Most of us who are continuing the fight have been there done that. If you'd been to the hearing you'd know how hollow shelby's case was. if you are close enough to the inside you understand how strong Gary and Franks case was. If you had talked to anyone at all close to the case you'd have heard the story of Anderson's pressure to settle the case for the Board, which wanted a settlement at almost any cost. And you;d have been well aware of how politically stacked the board has been -- we aren't talking about an impartial jury or a judge here you toads. We are talking about Roy Klumb and a band of deadly brothers.

Constructive criticism is welcome -- idiotic rehashing of history already rehashed and rasing old questions that have been well discussed and settled is not.

The money issue has also been well discussed. You have contributed nothing new here -- so don't act so self righteous about being censored -- we are not afraid of your criticism, it isn't even orginal.

We're just bored.

Date: May 23, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"Tiger, you are right on target when you say ". . . Maybe the professors realized they were not going to get a fair shake with the Board. . . " Considering the statements evidently made by one or more Board members before and after the settlement, it would certainly be difficult to believe that Stringer and Glamser would have been facing an unbiased jury of their peers in Jackson. "

To the posters masquerading as supporter:

I can't believe this keeps coming up. This has been discussed ad nauseum -- it is a waste of time to try to convince people who either have jumped on the board suddenly and haven't even tried to catch up with the discussion before firing away or who have been reading for the last eight weeks but are rehashng what is done.

If you truly care about the cause -- let it go. Most of us who are continuing the fight have been there done that. If you'd been to the hearing you'd know how hollow shelby's case was. if you are close enough to the inside you understand how strong Gary and Franks case was. If you had talked to anyone at all close to the case you'd have heard the story of Anderson's pressure to settle the case for the Board, which wanted a settlement at almost any cost. And you;d have been well aware of how politically stacked the board has been -- we aren't talking about an impartial jury or a judge here you toads. We are talking about Roy Klumb and a band of deadly brothers.

Constructive criticism is welcome -- idiotic rehashing of history already rehashed and rasing old questions that have been well discussed and settled is not.

The money issue has also been well discussed. You have contributed nothing new here -- so don't act so self righteous about being censored -- we are not afraid of your criticism, it isn't even orginal.

Mr. Judd: This is First Ant at the Picnic speaking. Haven't you carelessly, or mistakenly, placed your most recent posting (see above) at the wrong location in this thread? You quote my positive remarks-of-support for Stringer and Glamser (see above), and then you immediately follow by your posting which makes it appear that I am a poster who is masquerading as a supporter, that I have idiotically rehashed history, that I am self richeous about being censored, and that you are not afraid of my criticism. If you will look at First Ant at the Picnic's most recent posting (above), and all of the other First Ant at the Picnic's postings, you will see that First Ant is among the very strongest supporter of Stringer and Glamser. There is absolutely nothing in any of First Ant's postings that could possibly be interpreted as anything but totally supportive of Professors Stringer and Glamser. Surely your posting does not refer to me. Please, please tell the readers of this Board that your most recent posting was misplaced and inadvertently yoked to my preceeding posting; and that your posting was not referring to First Ant. Right now I am embarrassed to no end. Thanks for any assistance you can lend in clearing this up.

Date: May 24, 2004

First Ant,

Those of us who read the board regularly know your postings and, like myself, probably realized immediately that he'd been referring to posts previous to yours and hit a wrong key. It was a mistake and I'm sure Dr. Judd will correct it when he comes back to the thread. Don't worry, though, we know you are a big supporter!

NO QUARTER

Let Freedom Ring

Date: May 24, 2004

Hi again Mr. Judd: This is First Ant at the Picnic again. When I awakened this morning, and reread your posting, I realized that you and I share the same position in this matter. It was very last last night when I made the above reply (about 2:30 AM), and I was very tired and sleepy at the time. I have admired your courageous postings for quite a while, and it was quite a shock for me when I read, and evidently misinterpreted, what you wrote. Please accept my appologies for my ill-conceived and hastily written response to your most recent posting. I will try to find your telephone number and call you and apologize personally. I suppose all of this shows how deep our support of Professors Stringer and Glamser really is. Your institution needs more faculty members, such as Stringer and Glamser, who genuinely care for their students and who have made such valuable contributions to their respective disciplines and to USM during their many years there. And from I have read from your postings, it needs more courageous souls like you also!

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"Hi again Mr. Judd: This is First Ant at the Picnic again. When I awakened this morning, and reread your posting, I realized that you and I share the same position in this matter. It was very last last night when I made the above reply (about 2:30 AM), and I was very tired and sleepy at the time. I have admired your courageous postings for quite a while, and it was quite a shock for me when I read, and evidently misinterpreted, what you wrote. Please accept my appologies for my ill-conceived and hastily written response to your most recent posting. I will try to find your telephone number and call you and apologize personally. I suppose all of this shows how deep our support of Professors Stringer and Glamser really is. Your institution needs more faculty members, such as Stringer and Glamser, who genuinely care for their students and who have made such valuable contributions to their respective disciplines and to USM during their many years there. And from I have read from your postings, it needs more courageous souls like you also!"

First Ant and all posters:

I'm just getting to the Board to discover the unfortunate alarm my buttyter fingered linking caused. So very sorry: I truly did not mean to implicate you in my small tirade. I'm like you - it was late and I was a little fried.

Thanks for your understanding note of this am.

So a sincere apology -- I'll be more careful next time!

Date: May 24, 2004

Friends (and foes):

Though I regularly read the board, this is my first posting and probably will be my last. Perhaps this thread is already dead, but I feel I must add something to the discussion.

I have known both Frank and Gary for years, and I know one of their families fairly well. Yes, many of you are disappointed; perhaps even they are. But these are men who have given their best to USM. They have served on countless committees--long before SFT became president. I can only imagine what Gary's scholarly output would have been had he not been such a good university citizen. These also are men of the highest personal moral character. One can see this in both their families and in their professional lives. These are not men who would have "caved in" or "sold out." These are men of principle. These men are humans, not gods, trying to do the right thing.

We who read and post on this board lived through the firings only vicariously. We cannot ever know what it was like for them personally--even those of you who have experienced something similar. I do know that what should have been a dignified academic hearing was turned into a legal circus. I do know that most of us are not used to dealing with the legal system--a sysem that considers a settlement a victory. ( I don't know how to get the italics off.....) I do know that Gary and Frank were not terminated--that tenure was upheld--and that the administration was much more clever than the faculty in spinning this story.

Many of you can and will continue to resent the settlement. But because these men and their families are my friends, I can tell you this: they tried their best. And if it wasn't good enough for you, they truly are sorry to have disappointed you. This may be a time to remember that we all are mortals....

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Minerva want-to-be
"Friends (and foes): I do know that Gary and Frank were not terminated--that tenure was upheld--and that the administration was much more clever than the faculty in spinning this story. Many of you can and will continue to resent the settlement. But because these men and their families are my friends, I can tell you this: they tried their best. And if it wasn't good enough for you, they truly are sorry to have disappointed you. This may be a time to remember that we all are mortals.... "

Thank you MWTB -- very important message

Date: May 24, 2004

Thank you, Minerva want-to-be.

Date: May 24, 2004

Drs. Stringer and Glamser and their attorney were/are smart enough to know that the very best outcome they could have expected from a completed hearing was 2 recommendations in their favor (The UAC and Anderson) and one against (Thames). They also knew that the IHL would support Thames and take his recommendation over the other ones. If people had any doubt that that would be the case, then surely last week's meeting has convinced them.

Gary and Frank and their families endured enough suffering throughout the process. We should all be grateful to them. They are heroes in this whole sordid mess. I hope they're feeling better now, although I believe that what they went through will affect them forever; they will never be the same. They have my thanks for all that they did for USM and they have my very best wishes for the future.

I really thought we were done with this topic.

Jo Hailey

Former (and never-to-be Emeritus) Professor of Psychology

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Retired prof
"I really thought we were done with this topic.

God knows we ought to be. This horse is really beginning to stink.