Finally, after a long stretch of silence, the Interim President has finally raised her head to speak. And its all for naught cause she really ain't saying nothing!
In an Op-Ed in this week's Capital Outlook our Interim President played the "sympathy card" by pointing out the obvious --she's a woman--, and asking aloud "it hard for me to understand why people seem to be trying to impugn my integrity and reputation?" Oh, really now?
We'll answer these in order. First, the woman thing is pretty obvious and needs no response. Second, hasn't she run folks down in the middle of the street and calliously impugned the reputation and integrity of others during her entire 18 month tenure at FAMU? No telling how many others she has treaded on over her entire professional career. Now she wants to cry that she is a woman of faith, but her actions don't show it.
The claim that she is an alum and loves the University she's been associated with for over 50 years is akin to the story I heard about the cow that defecated on a frozen bird. The "presence" from the cow warmed the bird up and allowed it be on its journey again. Only that, a few moments later, a cat came along and spotted the bird and ate it. The moral of the story is, not everyone who puts you in a mess is your friend, and neither is everyone who gets you out.
We'll fast forward past her comments about Capital Outlook publisher, Roosevelt Wilson he buys ink by the barrell and can defend himself.
As we have suspected, the Interim President has now shifted into hiding behind SACS and accreditation issues as a defense for her actions. The SACS argument is about as wrong as her hairdo. FAMU has had accreditation for years, and was in no danger of losing it until she got here. These are the same kinds of scare tactics that George W. Bush is using with the trumped up "terrorist threats".
We can devote an entire week of blog stories to ripping this article apart, but we won't. We are not falling into her deflection trap, and would rather focus on important issues like the Hollins Group story, FAM-GATE (the IG debacle & Audit lies), the enrollment problem, and the Presidential Search.
Read the full Capital Outlook article here: Fair and reasonable outcome coming soon
I know TCW did not got there. Please, she needs to man-up, no one wants to hear her whimpy cries after she has cursed out, fired, and demoralized countless people and their mammies on campus. What about the remarks Castell you made about Prof Bings and his wife just 2 short days after he passed. I lost respect for you then. God don't like ugly and you will reap what you sow.
ReplyDeleteTherapy teaches one to relax, release and let go. Let go of all the lies you have told and the world will become a better place. Just let go...take a deep breath just let go......
ReplyDeleteThat having been said, make no mistake, the University ran at a small surplus in 2004-2005.
ReplyDeleteI still can't believe that she thinks there was a surplus in 2004-2005. If that's the case why don't she confess to the even bigger surplus 2003-2004.
The public has heard enough of Castell's lies. The entire world knows the truth and maybe some day she will stand before the "Real Judge" and beg his forgiveness. I am sure that Mr. Wilson and Mr. Jackson realize now that Castell is not competent and still hiding behind those windows of dishonesty that came with her to "Our Beloved FAMU". She must be held responsible and accountable for her actions. She has caused much pain to many innocent people over the last eighteen months. Castell, Elizabeth, Challis, Altha, and Company, please prepare yourselves to face the Judge. Your time is at hand. Most importantly, the legacies of Drs. Humphries, and Gainous will go down in the history books as Great Ones. The memories of Castell V. Bryant and Co will be described as "horrible days on the hill". By the way, where is your friend: James Corbin?
ReplyDeleteWhat our IP published in Capital Outlook is one sad commentary. Is she really that ignorant or stupid that the poeple would not see through her deception? Did she really think that she would be able to recover from her never endling lies and more lies by publishing a commentary? Not even a carpet factor is big enough to cover her lies. I believe that this commentary has done more damage to her image and reputation than she can ever imagine.
ReplyDeleteSBI "failing accredidation three times".....SBI did not need, nor want accredidation during those years. That was a crock of crap to imply the school has been trying and failing.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Sybil Mobley Days SBI did not need the be accredited!!!
ReplyDeleteUnder Castell & CO, the the school need a triple accreditation especially after deleting the School's great faculty. She and Debra with their CC mentality. What a shame??
Her information about SBI would appear to be erroneous. And for her to show concern for declining enrollment after showing no interest in recruiting is just such non-sense.
ReplyDeleteThis was the first salvo in her attempt to salvage her job. Can we hold out until a new president is named?
Castell Bryant isn't making up stories about SACS and accreditation. For years FAMU has rewarded secretaries by reclassifying them as "non-teaching faculty." Check out the FAMU/UFF salary spreadsheets if you want to see how pervasive this practice was. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Not only is FAMU home to numerous "non-teaching faculty," but hiring faculty without the proper credentials (eighteen graduate level hours in the field in which they will teach)has weakened the University. (Hiring faculty w/o the proper credentials tends to happen a lot more often at Community Colleges.) At any rate, SACS is serious, and any faculty member without the proper cred, needs to get busy.
ReplyDeleteGive me a break. Gainous did not leave any legacy to write home about. He started all this mess
ReplyDeleteWho are these great SBI faculty that were deleted? Most of the eight layed off SBI faculty were completely obslete in their qualifications and have been on paid vacation. If you want to fault Dr. Bryant, please fault her for other things and not her actions in SBI.
ReplyDeleteI wish Dr. Mobley was as effective in succession planning as she was in other aspects of her accomplishments. She was a great woman, but SBI started its downward slide under her.
Re: 6:31 PM
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ with you. I have served on a SAC Review team and she is not telling the real truth. Her views are distorted to say the least. The SACS Review was on a great course until Castell replaced Dr. Mercer. He had led FAMU through three SACS reviews and all was well. Get a grip Honey, CVB is a complete failure for FAMU and herself.
Castell has pushed the SACS requirement that faculty must have 18 graduate hours in the discipline taught.
ReplyDeleteBut that requirement is preceeded by this more general, defining [aragraph, which explicitly gives universities the right to justify faculty by other standards:
"3.7.1 The institution employs competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the institution. When determining acceptable qualifications of its faculty, an institution gives primary consideration to the highest earned degree in the discipline in accordance with the guidelines listed below. The institution also considers competence, effectiveness, and capacity, including, as appropriate, undergraduate and graduate degrees, related work experiences in the field, professional licensure and certifications, honors and awards, continuous documented excellence in teaching, or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. For all cases, the institution is responsible for justifying and documenting the qualifications of its faculty."
Castell appears to be wielding the 18-hour rule as a club to threaten faculty or get rid of people who have been successfully teaching for years, even decades.
For example, many people at colleges everywhere teach courses in subjects that did not even exist when they went to graduate school. Indeed, some of these teachers helped invent these fields and may even teach graduate courses in fields they never studied.
Also, there are other ways to become competent in many subjects besides taking specific graduate courses in them.
In recognition of this fact, SACS includes begins the section of faculty qualifications with the paragraph quoted above.
Don't let Castell threaten faculty by taking one passage from the SACS requirements out of context.
Yesterday's 42nd comment about the new SBI dean pointed out that her Ph.D. does not appear to be from a business program. Does that mean we've begun to hire deans who would not qualify as permanent faculty?
ReplyDeleteDr. B said, "This is my final job." Hmmm, the more I've learned about what she's been up to, the more I've been picturing her and her sisters making license plates.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt SACS is serious because there is so much riding on it, the whole survivability of the university. It's also true that FAMU is infected with way too many faculty issues. Yes, the interim president may not be making up stories about SACS and accreditation, but there is no disclosure of the whole truth about the SACS process used by FAMU to evaluate faculty credentials to determine their SACS status. The point is that the university has made a total mess out of its SACS process; in fact, it is much too messy for it to climb out of it without a major surgery. The process used is so fraught that, if discovered by the SACS, it could potentially undercut FAMU's SACS reaffirmation, and nobody wants that.
ReplyDeleteI was going to remain mum on the state of FAMU's SACS process regarding faculty credentials because I did not want to take any chances on drawing attention from the SACS to the process. Given the slant of the president's column in the Capital Outlook, I now feel compelled to lay out the facts about the SACS process for all the rattlers, the university’s stakeholders, and the trustees to see and decide whether the president is doing the right thing for the future of our beloved FAMU. Its future is at stake.
I am sorry that this blog is turning out to be much longer than what I set out to do but it was unavoidable because of the gravity of what we are facing.
During the BOT meeting on the 29th of June, the trustees were not fully apprised of the whole picture surrounding SACS evaluations. A lot of confusion was created and information kept from the trustees, thus making it difficult for them to ask necessary questions about FAMU's SACS process or lack of it.
The provost spoke about the 3-TIERED PROCESS used to evaluate faculty members' SACS qualifications. But it covered only about 50 percent of what actually transpired. It is entirely possible that the provost was not fully aware of what has gone on or what has been done regarding SACS. The fact is the outcome did not do any good for FAMU.
Let me highlight some key decision points in the SACS review process. The following depiction of the steps in the SACS faculty evaluations process may contain some benign errors in terms of specific details or time sequence, but it does reflect the overall picture accurately. I trust that RN will do its part verify or rectify it. The issue under discussion is much too important to be left to one person’s observation or understanding. In fact, I think RN should submit this document to the concerned parties within the university and ask them to respond to it.
@@ Prior to Austin's appointment, as most of us know, the SACS reaffirmation process was headed by Friday-Stroud under Robinson. She was doing a great job, methodically guiding us down the right path to get the job done. There were various committees established to address different SACS standards. Among those committees was the SACS Committee on Faculty, responsible for the standard on faculty. Under the leadership of Marian Smith, this committee was moving systematically and methodically, preparing necessary documents and criteria to carry out its assigned tasks.
@@ Before his resignation, Robinson’s office had conducted evaluations of faculty credentials for SACS qualifications. The deans had already submitted their respective faculty evaluations reports. The only thing left to be done was for the SACS Committee on Faculty to carefully review the evaluations conducted by Robinson’s office and make or recommend changes if necessary. And the committee was working on that.
@@ Following Austin's appointment, Vivian Hobbs was appointed to be the director of the university's SACS reaffirmation committee and Friday-Stroud was later pushed out.
@@ Some time after that Janie Greenleaf, I believe she is now the assistant provost for human resources, took over the task of evaluating faculty credentials.
@@ Greenleaf formed her own committee which she co-chaired with Arthur Washington. The committee consisted of several prominent faculty members, including the Faculty Senate President (who is also a member of the FAMU Board of Trustees).
@@ Greenleaf jettisoned all the carefully-conducted faculty credentialing work completed under Robinson. She also basically disbanded the SACS Committee on Faculty without officially disbanding it. This is the same committee that was created under Robinson and Friday-Stroud and it was responsible for SACS related faculty issues. As noted later, this committee was briefly resurrected just before the June 29th BOT meeting to provide some procedural cover for what Greenleaf’s office and Hobb’s office had done.
@@ As it was fully disclosed at the June 29th BOT meeting, Greenleaf sidelined her own faculty committee, including her co-chair, as she unilaterally decided not to involve them in the evaluation of faculty credentials. Instead she hired two faculty members or other staff on a paid basis to evaluate some 900 FAMU faculty credentials strictly based on faculty transcripts and assignments of responsibility. The process used by Greenleaf’s office was totally flawed as it completely ignored the SACS procedural guidelines and criteria with respect to the evaluation of faculty qualifications. At any rate, this was the FIRST TIER in the 3-TIERED PROCESS that the provost claimed to have applied.
@@ Nonetheless, the list of faculty members considered to be NOT QUALIFIED was sent to Austin who then forwarded it to the deans toward the end of the spring term, asking them to respond to Greenleaf’s findings on their respective faculty members.
@@ The deans were supposed, actually required, to consult with the concerned department heads and contact their impacted faculty members regarding their SACS status, but it did not happen in every case as there were many faculty members across the campus who were not even notified at all of Greenleaf’s decision regarding their SACS status. As a result, it is entirely possible that there are many faculty members on the list who still are not clear about their SACS status or what fate awaits them. Regardless the deans sent their respective responses to the provost. This was the SECOND TIER in the 3-TIERED PROCESS.
@@ Following the deans’ responses, two faculty lists were created. One list consisted of all those faculty members who were designated as NOT QUALIFIED by both parties (i.e., Greenleaf’s office and their respective deans). Let me call it the 1st list (the non-disputed group). On the other hand, the 2nd list consisted of those faculty members that fell in the disputed category in that their respective deans or department heads claimed them to be qualified contrary to Greenleaf’s office.
@@ Now comes the involvement of the initial SACS Committee on Faculty, the one created under Robinson. As already noted, just a few days before the June 29th BOT meeting, this committee was resurrected by Hobbs and Greenleaf and was asked to review those faculty members who were placed on the above-mentioned 2nd list (the disputed group). This was the THIRD TIER in the 3-TIERED PROCESS highlighted by the provost. To repeat, only the disputed group of faculty was reviewed by this committee, not the rest. Therefore, the fact is that there was no THIRD TIER review for those faculty members who were justifiably or unjustifiably categorized as NOT QUALIFIED by both parties involved in the first two tiers. So to talk about a three-tiered process is somewhat misleading, for it did not cover everybody.
@@ Most likely, the 40 faculty members that were mentioned during the BOT meeting belong to the 1st list (the non-disputed group), not the 2nd list (the disputed group), although some from the 2nd list may have been transferred to the 1st list following the evaluation conducted by the SACS Committee on Faculty. (It appears that this committee qualified most faculty members on that list).
@@ In short, the full picture of the SACS process regarding faculty evaluations was missing or excluded from the provost’s presentation during the BOT meeting. Nor was it ever explained during the presentation how those 40 faculty got there. The omission may have been unintentional, but still there was confusion.
It is absolutely baffling or even cruel that those 40 faculty members have yet to be notified of their status and what they need to do remedy their respective situations or what is going to happen to them … and this despite the fact that the provost made a public announcement to the board about sending them a letter by Friday, June 30. It has been full three weeks since the announcement, yet there is no word that the promised letter is about to go out or when it will go out. Shrouded in entrenched uncertainty and fear, all kinds of rumors are flying all over the campus, faculty morale is almost as low as it could go, and many faculty members are jittery.
Let me conclude by saying that if the interim president is genuinely concerned about doing something good and doing the right thing for FAMU and engender “a higher level of professionalism” (as the interim president herself put it), I recommend the following for the sake of organizational sanity and professional integrity:
1. Do not perpetuate an environment of fear and uncertainty as we are currently witnessing;
2. Disclose all the facts and be forthright; come clean in every respect and area;
3. Treat the faculty with respect, for they are the first line of defense and offense with regard to curricular integrity and effective curricular delivery;
4. Keep your word and commitment; don’t say one thing and do something else;
5. Rectify the SACS faculty evaluation process; follow the procedural criteria as outlined in the SACS guidelines; do the right thing; and put together a competent team that knows how to get the job done and done right. The current process is so flawed that it has the potential to jeopardize FAMU’s SACS reaffirmation.
6. Immediately notify those 40 or so faculty members of their status or where things stand at this point; don’t keep them suspended. In case they need to remedy their respective situations, they must be given adequate time … and time is running short, very short, especially if the administration decides to stick to its December time line that the provost set at the meeting.
At the June 29 BOT meeting, did anyone besides me notice that expert provost Debra Austin and SACS chair Vivian Hobbs, including madame president Bryant kept referring to the SACS
ReplyDeleteac/cred/i/da/tion.
If these fools can't even pronounce the word correctly, why should be believe the actually understand the process.
Hey experts, it's
Ac/cred/i/ta/tion
It's Tay/shun not Day/shun?
To Anonymous @ 7/21/2006 12:35 AM:
ReplyDeleteYou have provided some truly valuable information. You can even more effective by doing the following things:
(1) Become a confidential source to Rattlernation. The bloggers need well-informed people like you to keep them abreast of what is going on at FAMU. And by all means, please encourage your friends and colleagues to do the same. You don't even have to reveal your identity -- just create a new email account on something like Google or Hotmail and send your information in to RN.
Like any journalism operation, RN is only as strong as the sources it has. This blog is the best hope we have for countering the lies and half-truths that are coming out of Lee Hall.
(2) Find someone to send an abbreviated version of this information in letter form to the Capital Outlook and Tallahassee Democrat. We absolutely must get what you have said in print form. About a week ago, Dr. Bernadette Powell wrote an excellent post on this blog that she later turned into a letter for the Democrat. It is critical to make to get your information into the print form because then, it has even more influence over the newspaper editorial boards and state officials who read the opinions sections.
Thank you for joining us in the struggle. We will get our university back!
Right on! We've got to continue to press Bryant on the SACS issue because now, that's one of her only remaining defenses. She's being publicly torn apart on her "financial accountability" claims. We have to take Bryant to task, PUBLICLY, for botching FAMU's re-accrediation process. That will place even more pressure on the powers-that-be to rein her in (or remove her).
ReplyDelete@@ Following Austin's appointment, Vivian Hobbs was appointed to be the director of the university's SACS reaffirmation committee and Friday-Stroud was later pushed out.
ReplyDeleteMore like cursed out......
Just like they showed no respect for Dr. Friday-Stroud, they were even less kinder to Dr. Mercer, a gem of gentleman who has served on or conducted our SACS process since 1966; served on numerous SACS reverse visits across the SE region and is admired and respected by people like Dr. Gerald Lord of SACS, who by the way is FAMU's point of contact for the reaffirmation process.
Dr. Lord is very much cognizant of the negative press and financial turmoil surrounding this controversial BOT and interim president. He has communicated his concerns and suggestions to Castell and Vivian. Although, these two individuals are full of pretty words, and presentations that lack substance and facts, they will soon realize Dr. Lord is not buying into their bullshit, however, by then it maybe too late for FAMU.
Just like Vivian Hobb's tenure package lacked substance and was passed from one committee to the next with many faculty abstaining from voting her up or out, because of fear of reprisal, we now have another idiot who surely is not recognized by the academy/peers as an equal conducting the reaffirmation process of FAMU. Yet another unqualified person appointed by Castell Bryant, yet another unqualified person appointed by James Corbin, yet another unqualified person appointed by Jeb Bush, yet another unqualified person .
When will this nightmare end?
To: Anonymous @ 7/21/2006 2:06 AM
ReplyDeleteDo you know if Dr. Gerald Lord communicated his concerns and suggestions to Bryant and Austin in writing? If so, then we might be able to retrieve that information through a public records request and post it here at the blogspot.
That's why we need to know as many details from you and other informed Rattlers as possible. When we know names and specific actions, then we know which documents to request.
Damn! It sounds like we could make another entire blog just about how much Bryant has screwed up our SACS process.
ReplyDeleteIn order to spread the truth about what is happening to FAMU's re-accrediation process, we need to publish the following on the internet:
1. Summaries on the roles of the major players involved (Robinson, Bryant, Hobbs, Friday-Stroud, Smith, Greenleaf, Lord, Mercer, etc.).
2. A timeline of what has happened up to this point.
3. The DOCUMENTS.
This would be a great project for the Faculty Union website (famuff.com), RN, or another new blog (maybe we could name it "famusacscrisis.blogspot.com").
Anonymous said... 7/21/2006 3:27 AM
ReplyDeleteDo you know if Dr. Gerald Lord communicated his concerns and suggestions to Bryant and Austin in writing? YES! If you can do a public document request and send the document(s) to the RN, it would begin to expose the lies. Make sure you copy the Attorney General Office and cite public opinion 75-79 as well as the public opinion the RN provided earlier this year so that the RN audience could have access to the draft audit.
If so, then we might be able to retrieve that information through a public records request and post it here at the blogspot.
That's why we need to know as many details from you and other informed Rattlers as possible. When we know names and specific actions, then we know which documents to request.
Secondly, Vivian Hobbs and Castell Bryant are the key-players as far as direct communication with SACS. You should call and request every document that have received or requested from SACS. FAMU is on the edge of imploding with this SACS review and there are some crucial SACS timelines coming up that we cannot afford to miss.
Many people have been talking about the IP president and General Counsel wanting to shut this site down, because of the damage it has done so far. Believe it or not, but the media, especially in Tallahassee uses it a source as well.
Anonymous said...7/21/2006 3:44 AM
ReplyDeleteIn order to spread the truth about what is happening to FAMU's re-accrediation process, we need to publish the following on the internet:
1. Summaries on the roles of the major players involved (Robinson, Bryant, Hobbs, Friday-Stroud, Smith, Greenleaf, Lord, Mercer, etc.).
2. A timeline of what has happened up to this point.
3. The DOCUMENTS.
This would be a great project for the Faculty Union website (famuff.com), RN, or another new blog (maybe we could name it "famusacscrisis.blogspot.com").
All great suggestions! The RN has become the main meeting place for Rattlers and supporters of all ages to get information on our beloved Alma Mater. I think we should asked the RN to start a SACS space. This is the hottest info spot for FAMU on the web. I check the counter when I come on and it is now up to 86,000 hits in just 7 months. You want to reach a mass number of Rattlers and supporters external to Tally, I believe this is the place.
SACS process at FAMU in total disarray!
ReplyDeleteThis is what's happening and we are in deep trouble.
RN,
Why don't you ask Vivian Hobbs, who is the "official" director and point person for FAMU's SACS reaffirmation process, to open the thick folder that she keeps in her office? Hobbs is FAMU's liaison to the SACS. That thick folder should contain almost everything you need to know about what is going on with SACS. It is possible that she may hide certain documents in the folder. In order to minimize this possibility, surprise her with a personal visit to her office and ask her to show it right there and then, not later. However, remeber that although she keeps all the documents, she is director only in name. So who is controlling the process?
To find the answer to this question, go see Janie Greenleaf who in turn is controlled by the president. She runs the show behind the scene and controls everything, including what and how the provost presents SACS information to the public. Ask her to discuss how she is conducting the SACS affairs or abusing the power invested in her office and her direct link to IP Bryant to hijack the entire SACS process to FAMU's detriment. The personnel office director should have no role in the SACS process except to facilitate by making available necessary documents. But that's not what Greenleaf is doing.
The total and wrong-headed control she is exercising over the SACS process is bizarre. That's just plain wrong and inappropriate. It stinks the whole process as it is now coming to light for public viewing.
This administration is going about the wrong way regarding SACS and intentionally or unintentionally engaed in a massive cover up. It is too bad that, with the exception of a couple of lone voices, the BOT is showing no interest in such a critical life and death matter as far as FAMU's future is concerned as an educational institution. This is reprehensible.
Or go to Debra Austin who has all the information. The provost, who should be directly in charge of the process, as was the case under Robinson, to assure its quality and accuracy, is misinformed about her fundamental duty and responsibility as the provost. It is unfortunate that Austin has abrogated her crucial duty or has been forced relinquish it to Greenleaf.
These three folks systematically exclude appropriate committees and vilify committee members who refuse to participate in their cover up. They use them only when it suits their harmful needs and plans to use them as they did with the SACS Committee on Faculty at the very end, just before the BOT meeting so they could misleadingly claim that there was a third tier in the evaluation process. What is more, Austin proclaimed that the committee worked 'very hard' until the last minute. Yeh, they worked until the 'last minute' because the committee was revivied at the 'last minute' to provide some cover for their follies. So by definition they had no choice but work until the 'last minute.' Work hard! Well, that's not what I understand. I was told that they worked from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon.
These individuals have no regard for the proper process nor do they pay any attention to any warning given in good faith and in a constructive way by those concerned about the university's well-being and integrity. It appears that they have no concerns for FAMU's future and how it fares in the public eyes. if they did, why would they do time and again what they do. No matter their claims,all of their actions, decisions and deeds reveal just the opposite.
Why not also contact Mary Diallo, Arthur Washington, and Bill Tucker? Remember, it was Diallo who exposed the nakedness of the story that Austin, Greenleaf, and Hobbs told at the BOT meeting about the faculty committee involvement during the first tier SACS evaluation of faculty credentials. That's completely false, an outright lie.
Why not also contact Shawnta Friday-Stroud to find how the SACS was run before Hobbs and Greenleaf were put in charge?
There has to be a way to stop this institutional erosion and self-destruction that has been going on at FAMU. It is clear that much of what is going on is ego-driven, not guided by sane thinking.
To wit, few would disagree that we must raise FAMU's academic standards and standing to secure its progress and prosperity. That means faculty development and their professional productivity and enhancement are fundamental, but this must be carried out in a careful and systematic way, not based on some random hit or miss or personal agenda and without any regards to rules and regulations. Put a visionary and viable policy in place, implement it methodically, and follow the proper process. We'll get to the promised land. We'll get to the promised land.
Anonymous said... 7/21/2006 9:49 AM
ReplyDeleteSACS process at FAMU in total disarray! However, remeber that although sheVivian Hobbs keeps all the documents, she is director only in name. So who is controlling the process?
To find the answer to this question, go see Janie Greenleaf who in turn is controlled by the president. She runs the show behind the scene and controls everything, including what and how the provost presents SACS information to the public. Ask her to discuss how she is conducting the SACS affairs or abusing the power invested in her office and her direct link to IP Bryant to hijack the entire SACS process to FAMU's detriment. The personnel office director should have no role in the SACS process except to facilitate by making available necessary documents. But that's not what Greenleaf is doing.
Well, I be DAMNED! This begins to explain the BIG blowout and teeth knashing and cursing between Hobbs and Bryant.
What did she say about Prof Bing and his wife?
ReplyDeleteResponse to Anonymous 11:09 pm July 19.
ReplyDeleteA broad comprehensive education is good and very important. However, it is important to understand that how ‘broad’ is viewed in academia from teaching credentialing perspective is very different from how it is viewed in business or other organizations.
Many businesses hire people from all sorts of background because, what they are hiring is a college graduate who by virtue of having gone through four years of college, regardless of major is considered trainable. Many of these companies or organizations that hire undergraduate students usually have some training program in place that help these students hone in on the business skills and competencies that those companies need their employees to have. Unfortunately, some professors who want to change career from one discipline to the other forget the training component of this equation.
In academia you are expected to teach in a particular discipline which requires some broad knowledge of the general area you are teaching and a deep knowledge in the particular discipline you teach. When you go to teach accounting, marketing, finance, or management strategy for example, you are expected to have a broad knowledge of business administration and a deep knowledge in the particular discipline you teach. This is why most PhD programs in business award a PhD in business administration with majors in a particular discipline. Some PhD program in business will even permit you to take a minor in a field outside business.
The reason for the PhD in business administration is because, as a PhD in Finance for example, you are expected to understand how finance, accounting, management and marketing interact to support good business decisions. When you earn a PhD in a field outside business, say for example, Geography, without any formal training or exposure to business, and you are teaching in a business school, you probably would not understand the basic principles of business to fully relate Geography to business. That is why the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) evaluates faculty credentials based on the faculty member holding an earned PhD in the discipline or a related discipline or a Masters degree with a major in the discipline, or a Masters degree with a concentration in the discipline (here concentration is determined by earning eighteen graduate hours) in the discipline the individual teaches.
From what have been published, the new Dean of SBI has a Master of Business Administration degree in Marketing from the University of Chicago. A MBA in Marketing provides her with broad foundation in Business and her majoring in Marketing provides her with the depth required by SACS. Once she has acquired the breadth provided by the MBA degree, her interdisciplinary PhD can be classified as a related area of business, depending on how she selected her course work and the area of her emphasis in her dissertation. I will be surprised that since she had earned a MBA before going for the PhD degree, that her dissertation will not have a business slant.
What is very disheartening is that some professors with non-business degrees would want to stay in the business school but are not willing to invest the time and efforts necessary to take business courses that will enable them understand the theoretical foundation of business administration. Companies hire engineers, pharmacists, Physicists and other talents from non-business disciplines and as they progress through the corporate ladder send them to business school to study business. These individuals were the people for which the Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree was originally created. If businesses and organizations would recognize the need for their employees with non-business degree to obtain a business degree, it bothers me when these stragglers who come to business school from other disciplines refuse to take legitimate courses necessary to build their business foundation.
Anonymous said...7/21/2006 11:05 AM
ReplyDeleteFrom what have been published, the new Dean of SBI has a Master of Business Administration degree in Marketing from the University of Chicago. A MBA in Marketing provides her with broad foundation in Business and her majoring in Marketing provides her with the depth required by SACS. Once she has acquired the breadth provided by the MBA degree, her interdisciplinary PhD can be classified as a related area of business, depending on how she selected her course work and the area of her emphasis in her dissertation. I will be surprised that since she had earned a MBA before going for the PhD degree, that her dissertation will not have a business slant.
What is very disheartening is that some professors with non-business degrees would want to stay in the business school but are not willing to invest the time and efforts necessary to take business courses that will enable them understand the theoretical foundation of business administration. Companies hire engineers, pharmacists, Physicists and other talents from non-business disciplines and as they progress through the corporate ladder send them to business school to study business. These individuals were the people for which the Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree was originally created. If businesses and organizations would recognize the need for their employees with non-business degree to obtain a business degree, it bothers me when these stragglers who come to business school from other disciplines refuse to take legitimate courses necessary to build their business foundation.
So Thomas Jefferson's MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloan Business School is a no go?. He sho' was fired, as well as Dr. Juanda Beck.
From what have been published, the new Dean of SBI has a Master of Business Administration degree in Marketing from the University of Chicago.
ReplyDeleteOk, this thing stinks sooo bad...Hollins Group is based in Chicago, Lowe got her MBA from Northwestern which is in Chicago, and now the new dean of the business school got a MBA from the University of Chicago. When will the madness ever end!!!
To Blogger #29 and to all other visitors to this site
ReplyDeleteThis blogger posted a slightly different version of his current comment in Rattler Nation blog news section on the hiring of SBI's new dean (there are more than 40 entries there). I just posted my following response to his blog in that section. Since he is posting his attack one me in this section as well, I am posting my response too.
*********
My name is NANDA SHRESTHA and I am the PROFESSOR AND GEOGRAPHER within SBI to whom Blogger #43 made a reference in his entry. I think I know who this particular blogger. This venom-filled personal attack from him or from one of his associates comes as no surprise because he has done this many times before. I am used to his insane tirade.
I usually do not engage in trash talking that this blogger obviously enjoys.
Somebody had alerted me to this blog site. I have visited this particular blog section on SBI's new dean. My visit took place a few days when it had only 16 or 17 entries. I did not enjoy reading all those unflattering remarks about our new dean. And all those remarks were being expressed even before she officially joined the SBI family. That, I think, was wrong.
Interestingly, the day before yesterday, I received a call from a couple of colleagues asking me to read the comments about the new dean. They said that there werre some 40 comments. But I waited until this afternoon to visit the site and read those comments.
To say the least, I was very shocked and dismayed by what has been said. Comments apparently go beyond Dr. McKinley-Floyd as they include the associate and assistant deans. Now there is even one on me although my name is not mentioned. (What a dubious honor!). Everybody at SBI knows who it is. Thanks Blogger #43 for drawing me into this fray.
Let me get to the point: When I reached Blog entry #42 and read it, I suddenly felt the chill running down my leggs. It was numbing because I deeply sensed that those at SBI would immediately link me to this particular entry because of its content.
Here I am, deliberately trying very hard to stay away from any entanglement with the negative issues associated with SBI. I am already in big trouble regarding SACS, and I know that very very well. I have not lost my sanity, at least not yet, to get in any more trouble. I adhere to my father's dictum that when you are in trouble, don't draw any attention to yourself.
Unfortunately, I am now being implicated and drawn into this mess and having to publicly deny what I have not done to begin with.
Personally, I am upset at the person who entered Blog #42. First, it looks like I did it when I did not. Second, it implicitly suggests that Dr. McKinley-Floyd's PhD degree in interdisciplinary studies might be questionable when the entry says that there is no Interdisciplinary Studies Program at Emory University. Such a suggestion is wrong and misguided.
Dr. Mckinley-Floyd never claimed in her vita that she received her PhD degree from the Department of Indisciplinary Studies. Her vita suggests that her degree is interdiciplinary because of her interdiciplinary focus. In fact, a couple days ago, I was doing some internet search on African American consumers for a paper I am working on. I happened to see a refeence to her dissertation. I managed to track it down through ProQuest and was able to download (only) the first chapter of the dissertation. Based on the introduction chapter I read, I can tell that it is a great piece. It is certainly indisciplinary in its approach and the focus is on Atlanta's elite African American women, including their consumer behaviors; the mothodology is ethnographic and clear and conceptualization thorough. I would, especially being a geographer who has done a significant amount of ethnographic-anthropological field research, never question her degree and intellectually integrity. In fact, I highly appreciate the fresh perspective it brings to the field of marketing (her MBA focus). In fact, once I saw a quote in Time magazine that said marketing is anthropology.
However, Blogger #43 automatically assumed that I wrote Blog #42. Let me once again categorically deny that I did not write that blog. And I have no intention of engaging in character assination through blogs or in any other forms. I'll leave that to Blogger #43 since he enjoys breeding and nurturing the culture of character assination. Me, whatever I have to say, I say it openly, and I am direct, in fact, one of my serious weaknesses.
Well, Mr. #43, if you have the courage, come forward and expose yourself, and then we can both go see somebody who administers lie-detector tests. I am willing to subject myself to a lie-detector test. And you do the same to prove to Dean Mckinley-Floyd that you did not write #43.
HAVE YOU NO SHAME MR #43 TO CONTINUE TO DEFAME ME IN THE WAY YOU HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS (THIS TIME HIDING BEHIND THE TAG OF ANNONYMITY TO AVOID GETTING IN LEGAL TROUBLE; I ALSO KNOW HOW HARD YOU ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF ME BY USING SACS CRITERIA WHICH YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND). IT IS TRANSPARENT THAT YOU ARE NOW (ALREADY) TRYING TO TURN OUR NEW DEAN AGAINST ME LIKE YOU DID WITH DR. PATRICK LIVERPOOL. IF THAT'S WHAT GIVES YOU YOUR MORNING FIX, BE MY GUEST.
Before I conclude this blog, I would like to draw public attention to one thing you wrote in your blog:
"......it bothers me when these STRAGGLERS (me and who else?) who come to business school from other disciplines refuse to take legitimate courses necessary to build their business foundation."
Good shot, my friend. Now you call me a "straggler" a discipline jumper and claim that I "refuse to take legitimate courses to build my business foundation."
First of all, please don't lie to serve your narrow agenda. Have some intellectual honesty for your own sake: I did not "straggle" (to use your word) into business and SBI. You know very well I was intentionally recruited by Dean Mobley to teach the courses I teach. I was given a 12-month contrat to lure me away from my previous insitution. I did not apply for the job prior to being interviewed. I applied after the interview because it was necessary. If you still refuse to accept this fact, why don't ask Dr. Beal who is the one who gave my name to Dean Mobley in response to her inquiry about a qualified geographer to teach the course I teach at SBI. If you had so much beef about a geographer being in the school of business, why did you not tell her to get rid of me before I was tenured and promoted at SBI, when there was a legitimate chance to do so?
You are being a hypocrit. If you had such a disdain for geography and for me, why did you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation when you were applying for tenure and promotion?
Please don't play ignorant to make your point. You know well that "taking legitimate (whatever that means!) courses" is just one way to become informed. There are many other ways one can enhance the foundation of their knowledge, whatever field that knowledge might be in, for example, self-learning, reading, writing, etc. By any chance, is it possible that you are attacking me because you can't accept the fact that as a "geographer" -- a disciplinary "straggler" as you prefer to label me -- I have published articles in your "business" field and plan to do so as long as I can. Or, perhaps, you can't stand it, especially in light of the fact that you are not even academically qualified in accordance with the AACSB standards on faculty? At least that was the case as of spring 2006. But that's not my fault.
Instead of wasting time on character-assassinating me or name-calling me, it would better to increase your research productivity, become academically qualified and further the process of our accreditation which we badly need. We would all greatly appreciate your efforts and personal commitment to accreditation as it would enhance our stature and standing.
I don't want to belabor my point for an "enlightened colleague/ academician" like you. However, if you want to test my business knowledge in an open setting, you and I -- or whoever else wants to join -- can organize a public forum where we can exchange/debate a wide range of issues concerning the global economy and global business and see how we do.
I don't need defend myself as to why I am at SBI and how I contribute to its educational mission. I will let my work and my students and my overall contributions to SBI over the years do the talking on my behalf.
Please don't demonstrate your insanity so publicly. I genuinely believe in my heart that you are a much better person than what you project to be or the way you are behaving. What do you have to gain anyway by berating me time and again. You do this because I have chosen the path of no response? I have done nothing to you. I have thought hard to see if I ever did anything to you -- even something inadvertently -- but nothing comes to my mind. If you are aware of something that I have done to you, then let me know and we can talk and clear the air. Trust me I hold no grudges against you despite what you have done to me time and again. I know one day you will find Jesus in your heart, not just on Sunday mornings.
But I do want you know that, yes, I am a geographer and I am very proud of my academic background, for it allows me things globally and to do what I do at SBI and for my students. I am also equally proud of being a part of the SBI family and doing whatever I can to raise its standards and image.
For the person who was asking about Thomas Jefferson, he should have been fired a LONG time ago. He hasn't published anything of substance since people were writing on papyrus. Teach a class? He has no concept of that. Ask anyone who has had the displeasure of being in his class. I'm not even going to get into his tenure as Director of PD.
ReplyDeleteDr. Beck Jones got the short end of the stick in my opinion though. She has a PhD and was doing research to my knowledge.
Dr. Shrestha,
ReplyDeleteI was a student of yours once upon a time and I know we had some disagreements, but I do respect you. I have to ask you a question though, why shed more light on the other blogger's comments when most folks wouldn't have even made a connection to you? I know I didn't see it but then maybe that's because I'm not at SBI anymore. Just asking.
Dear former student,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your support. As I said in my blog, I was responding to Blog #29 which is a much shorter version of his previous blog. That is, tThis person whom I know had posted a much longer entry attacking me left and right. Go to the blog posted on "Saturday, July 15, 2006
This just In..." on this blog site to read that comment (entry #43) so that you would get a full picture.
Once again thank you and thank you for concern. Here is my email in case you decide to contact me: shrestha@pokhara.us
Nanda Shrestha
Are you all done now?
ReplyDeleteEnough with the personal attacks. Let's not loose sight of the "real issues" at hand - That is the battle we have with the current adminstration.
Let not fight each other. If they divide and conquer - we loose.
Stop the bickering.
A revolution is in progess.
Let's get to it!!!!
Angela Davis
NANDA SHRESTA's tirade illustrates the wisdom of remaining ANONYMOUS on this BLOG and the folly of blind accusations.
ReplyDelete