Over a month ago, I last reported on the situation at the University of Southern Mississippi. It didn't look too good then, for the state’s Institution of Higher Learning Board of Trustees, after chewing Shelby Thames out in a long, closed meeting, ended up publicly reaffirming that he would remain as President of USM. While so many professors were expected to be out of town or preoccupied with research during the summer, the opportunities for administrative misbehavior seemed abundant, and the opportunities for effective resistance sparse.

The prospects are still not very good. USM is going to be in a tailspin so long as Thames remains in charge. But despite the sponsorship he continues to enjoy from a majority on the state College Board, Thames has been badly wounded. Some of the weapons of arbitrary authority are now out of his reach. Others he may still try to use, but at his own peril. And reliable henchpersons are getting harder to find.

Since news has been breaking on many fronts since May 20, I will give an overview here. In subsequent posts, I will take a closer look at the implications for tenure, for protection of email privacy at universities, for the fate of Thames' henchcrew, and for the kind of strategy that will be needed to push him out. And because Thames has two years remaining on his current contract, and apparently believes that he can get a new 4-year contract after that, he will have to be pushed out.

Most importantly, Thames has now lost two members of his"Kentucky Mafia," and been compelled to limit the authority of a third. Jack Hanbury, Thames’"Director of Risk Management," was fired during the first week of May, just after the appeal hearing for Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer. Next to go was Mark Dvorak, whom Thames had installed as Director of Human Resources despite his obvious incompetence in the area. When Hanbury’s firing was announced, informed sources at USM said that Mark Dvorak, Hanbury's old law partner, was out as well. But confirmation of his removal was impossible to obtain, and soon sophisticated"trolls" allied with Mark and Angeline Dvorak were working the old Fire Shelby message board, announcing that Mark Dvorak was still running HR and doing a great job. On May 25, however, the Hattiesburg American ran an article about a new law firm in town, soon to be opened by Jack Hanbury... and Mark Dvorak. While Mark Dvorak claimed to have resigned just three days before the article ran, he had obviously been forced out earlier. In fact, the article retroactively downgraded his title to Interim Director of Human Resources!

Yesterday, the Thames regime announced that the more notorious of the Dvoraks, Angeline, was stepping down from her position as Vice President for Research and Economic Development. She is being replaced in that capacity by Cecil Burge, who by all accounts is actually qualified for the position and should have been hired to it two years ago. Angie Dvorak has been on the skids since shortly before the May 19-20 meeting of the Board that reaffirmed Thames' grip on power.

By June 1 Shelby Thames was seriously exercised to find her a job elsewhere. On June 10, a weekly alternative newspaper, The Independent, reported that he had tried to unload her on the Area Development Partnership:

The Area Development Partnership, the region's economic development arm, has apparently rejected an offer from The University of Southern Mississippi to transfer its controversial vice president for economic development to the ADP staff. And, along with that rejection, ADP has also reportedly turned down USM President Shelby Thames' offer to pay half the salary for Dr. Angie Dvorak at ADP. Thames proposed that Dvorak be moved from her position as USM's Vice President for Research and Economic Development to a position with ADP as director of the proposed new innovation and commercialization park being proposed to attract additional high tech business and industry to the area. . . Sources said Thames made an offer to ADP leaders to pay half Dvorak's salary from foundation funds at the University if she transferred to the ADP staff....

The offer to pay half her salary out of USM Foundation funds was a stunningly corrupt maneuver, even by Thames’ extremely loose standards of financial management. But the ADP couldn’t be prevailed on to take her.

Angie Dvorak also engineered a compromise with the USM Faculty Senate. A Senate committee had questioned her claim to have been tenured at the University of Kentucky. After refusing to let the committee see the vita she had submitted at the time of hiring (unless they got to see it only while she was present, and agreed not to make copies), Dvorak now stated that she had submitted a"business resume" and not an"academic resume" when she applied for the Vice-President position at USM. She had already been compelled to recuse herself from evaluating professors for tenure or promotion (this is part of the VP for Research job at USM, but a part of it she wasn’t qualified for, having never been tenured at 4-year institution).

Unfortunately, Angie Dvorak is still on the USM payroll. She will now be the President of the University Research Foundation. The position is brand-new: managing the foundation was part of her regular duties as Vice President for Research. She will still be getting paid $150,000 a year, for carrying out substantially reduced responsibilities. Her new boss, Cecil Burge, will be getting paid $145,000 a year. While Angie Dvorak will no longer be able to tyrannize over faculty members at USM, she does not deserve to remain at the university in any capacity. As President of the Research Foundation she will still be in a position to issue grossly misleading financial reports and to arrange for new administrators to be paid"off the books." In fact, the new administrative position that was just created for her is part of the trend toward upper administrative expansion that has marked the Thames administration. Apparently, she knows so much about Shelby Thames’ dirty deals that he dare not fire her, even to save his own hide.

Of course, Shelby Thames spied on Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer’s email, then tried to fire them, for questioning statements on Angie Dvorak’s vita that she has now admitted were misleading. And in the settlement imposed on April 28, Glamser and Stringer were pushed into retirement within two years. Frank Glamser has now officially retired from USM; under the settlement he will get two years’ salary as a" consultant." Gary Stringer was just hired by Texas A&M, where he is taking his Donne Variorum project, and its grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Thames and his chief sponsor, Roy Klumb, had insisted to the media and to the public that Stringer was a criminal, and Thames was apparently convinced that, under the settlement, Stringer’s career was over.

To create the semblance that he was communicating with the faculty, Thames ordained the creation of a body consisting of faculty, staff, and student representatives handpicked by administrators; more recently, he has proposed to expand it. Initially it was known as the President’s University Council, but after it became clear that the preferred pronounciation for PUC was"puke," the name was changed to President’s Council. Thames has made a few pretend concessions to the PUC/PC. Most importantly, he said he would consider a proposal to limit email surveillance by requiring that the President submit a formal request to intercept an employee's email to a committee that would include two faculty members. This was namby-pamby to begin with, and if adopted it would put no curbs on Thames at all. If he wanted to spy on anyone, he would simply order the surveillance done without bothering to mention it to the committee. The proposal included no penalties for noncompliance, and there is no way Thames would accept any that did. There is a lot more that the USM faculty could be doing on the email surveillance issue; I'll return to that in a future post.

Finally, the Hattiesburg American and the Gulfport Sun Herald are still publishing pro-Thames letters (nearly all written by older USM alumni) as well as anti-Thames letters. Informed sources report that Thames has personally encouraged alumni to write letters that denounce the faculty as lazy, good-for-nothing whiners and demand blind obedience to Thames’ every whim. Thames still hasn't realized that by soliciting these letters he is working to keep USM’s troubles in the newspapers, and guaranteeing that the faculty will continue to oppose him. Thames will not regain his customary level of control of USM until the regional media stop shadowing every bad decision and every foolish statement. So long as the letter-writing continues, he will not be able to concentrate on his de facto objective of tearing down USM.

I also think that Thames has permanently lost what he thought was his biggest weapon—the power to fire tenured professors on trumped-up charges. And not just because the lawyer who told him he could do it (Jack Hanbury) has been fired. But that is a topic for a future post.

For breaking news, follow the message board on the Web site of USM's AAUP chapter.

According to Michael Tinkler, the British marquee universities have caught on to teaching-for-profit very late in the game.

They are all busy recruiting American students for one year degrees - a Masters of Studies, at Oxford. Oxford, you see, has decided to move from its current position of approximately 75% undergraduates to parity between undergrads and grads by 2007 (no one thought they'd make it that soon, but think that by 2010 it's pretty likely). You see, graduate students pay higher fees, and if they're non-citizens they pay full tuition -- which my informants pointed out is STILL less than the Ivy League, even if you add in a single round-trip airfare.

All this is leading up to the factoid that surprised me the most. University College, Oxford, set up the first regular alumni fund-raising scheme at Oxford or Cambridge in the late 1980s.

It struck me that Oxbridge colleges are something like American state universities in this way -- very late comers to the money game. The retired Whatchamacallit Professor of Modern History told me that, indeed, they had been embarassed to ask until it was almost too late. Now they're shifting the entire balance of who and what they teach to try to regain some fiscal independence from their government funders. (Emphasis mine.)

1) The Beastie Boys install a virus that damages the computers of fans who try to rip MP3s from their new CD.

2) RIAA sues vehicle owners who share radio music with passengers.

3) Orin Hatch wants to criminalize P2P software under a theory of"inducement." And he wants to do it"for the children." Says Hatch:"In the film 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang,' the leering 'Child Catcher' lured children into danger with false promises of 'free lollipops. Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal; that they can legally lure children and others with false promises of 'free music.'"

4) Campaign finance reform supporter Michael Moore could be banned from promoting his movie after July 30 because of campaign finance reform.

5) Your"War on Drugs" White House wants to implement a federally-funded, nationwide screening program for mental illness that would identify cases in childhood, then recommend pharmaceutical remedies sold by campaign donors. The program's Orwellian name:"The New Freedom Initiative."

The American Film Institute's tribute to the top 100 movie songs of all time was an entertaining special, televised last night on the CBS network. One could quibble with the inclusion or exclusion of this or that song. Indeed, I was very sorry that my favorite Michel Legrand song (with lyrics by Alan and Marilyn Bergman),"What are you doing the rest of your life?, from the movie,"The Happy Ending" was totally overlooked ... even in the nominations list! Legrand's masterpiece, which was recently revisited by American Idol winner Fantasia Barrino, lost the 1969 Best Song Oscar to"Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" from"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," but it remains one of the classics of the Great American Songbook.

In any event, one certainly cannot quibble with a list that includes everything from Harold Arlen's"Wizard of Oz" perennial,"Over the Rainbow" to Johnny Mandel's"Sandpiper" theme,"The Shadow of Your Smile." Three Cheers to AFI for a poignant trip down memory lane.

OK, we're not leaving anytime soon. Bush isn't leaving because he can't, and Kerry wouldn't leave because as much as the left wants him to be a peace candidate, no one wants the"instability" that mainstream analysts and foreign policy armchair quarterbacks predict would occur if we left. Those of us who believe we are making things worse off have to take this for granted.

So where does this leave us? Fareed Zakaria's piece in the TNR on line gives us what I suspect is the best we can realistically hope for. He argues, with some validity, that if we compare Iraq to Afghanistan it might be possible to see a brighter future for the country once we take a more multilateral approach to rebuilding the country. Clearly recent actions and statements by the Bush team lead one to believe that we're now heading down the multilateral path in Iraq.

What Zakaria fails to mention is the significant ethnic division in Iraq that is less problematic in Afghanistan. Iraq was a creation of the British, and like much of Africa it would not have existed if its citizens had been given the freedom to organize their society. As defenders of liberty, one possible"real world" alternative would be to promote a much more truly federal state in Iraq that would allow the different ethnic groups greater autonomy and an exit option. But rather then let this happen the foreign policy folks continue to think, too strictly, in short-term IR terms rather then long term reality. Even if the Turks don't want an independent Kurdish state we have to weigh that with a messy situation in Iraq that is simply untenable.

I for one remain unconvinced that forcing a country that probably should be three separate states to remain together is neither wise nor possible. We've allowed the former Yugoslavia to break up, and we've relented significantly in Africa on our once sacred policy of respecting national boundaries regardless of how those lines were drawn. If we were to take a more aggressive federal approach in Iraq I think it might help to defuse the current tension, but that may simply be the political scientist in me talking.

While it had many articles in favor (at least in part) of the New Deal, these were repeatedly counterbalanced by anti-New Deal articles and cartoons. Much of what I found is not only at odds with standard accounts in the history survey texts but is consistent with the interpretation of David E. Bernstein's excellent Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts from Reconstruction to the New Deal, a book that should be on the shelf of every self-respecting historian of black history.

Blacks in the Chicago Defender and elsewhere typically attacked the New Deal's sacred cow, the National Recovery Administration, as the"Negro Run Around,""Negroes Ruined Again," and"Negro Removal Act." On June 8, 1935, the Chicago Defender editorially applauded the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the NRA as unconstitutional. The editorial, titled"GENTLEMEN, THE CONSTITUTION," declared:

"The NRA, a gigantic house of sand, would not stand; the foundation was built upon theories of government which had no part in the framework of our national Constitution. The whole scheme represented the ultimate cordiality of campus opinions by men and women whose ideas of economic and social security found life and stimulus in a dissembling mirage of old-world viewpoints.

The nation is fortunate that these could find no safe harbor in the opinions of the highest court: had this decision been otherwise, the whole order of the established system of our American life would have been changed. Not only changed, but placed in hands whose only conception of democracy was predicated upon the illusions and delusions that they were the State....the Court again says to the country: 'Gentlemen, the Constitution.'"

Of course the government’s schools will be in the frontlines in the search for mental disease. That would be bad enough if mental illness were real rather than metaphorical. But considering that the term masks a pseudoscientific exercise in the control of people who don’t live by accepted social rules, the program is especially ominous. Is This Perfect Day upon us? Forced diagnosis and treatment of counterfeit illnesses—I’m sure glad we have an advocate of limited government in the White House. See here. Nods to Jeff Schaler.