Why not education?

Why has this school failed to teach its students how to sufficiently marshall language, facts, and logic in order to make a principled case for themselves? Why exactly is the fact that the woman both signs and reads lips some sort of disqualifying characteristic with respect to the presidency?

The kids’ sputtering outrage only degrades them and reveals **massive educational failure** at Gallaudet.

JBM, at 7:55 am EDT on October 16, 2006

Previously, on “Know Your Undergrads”

“People don’t just rebel against institutions for the fun of it...” I’m not sure if the author of this comment has ever actually met an undergraduate, much less one who would very quickly latch onto ANY anti-administrative action, especially if it resulted in shutting down the campus. I’ve seen students that couldn’t even spell the University President’s name join in with protests.

Look, the point that supporters are missing is the fact that they have no plan to deal with the repercussions of their protest. Again, are the 41 faculty offering to donate part of their salary to the night shift cafeteria worker who didn’t get paid? The entire “revolutions are messy” argument might be valid if we were talking about true change here; but this is an issue of a milquetoast presidential selection, not student oppression, civil rights or worse. I am a little fearful about the outcome of this protest and what it does to endorse intimidation tactics and the unseen collateral damage (such as low-income staff pay) on a campus such as this. We always have to be careful to be selective in the means as well as the ends. You are talking about students here; neophytes that are still learning. And while the faculty are happy to see them as equals as long as the same agenda is being pushed- the faculty also know what battles are worth using these kinds of extreme measures for (I hope) — the students likely don’t have that insight. I worry what this has taught them about the means to this battle- and unfortunately if nothing is done about the presidency, we may have taught them that they didn’t go far enough, which would be the wrong lesson, and I hope the Gallaudet faculty take the opportunity to watch it carefully as a campus culture shifts.

d, at 11:00 am EDT on October 16, 2006

Education, Indeed

JBM asks one good question: why a woman who uses multiple methods of communication is considered ill-equipped to lead Gallaudet. JBM could learn a lot from listening to answers to that question, carefully considering those answers in relation to the world of deaf education, and further questioning protestors who say that Deaf politics isn’t the only problem with the incumbent.

However, the true **massive educational failure** is that JBM isn’t asking this question to learn. JBM asks simply to dismiss the issue without apparent curiosity or understanding.

What if the position of the students (and faculty and alumni) is based on logic, facts, and experience?

What if the students are eloquently and appropriately making their case to the current administration—and the administration is simply ignoring or dismissing their concerns?

The only people who can answer these questions are those involved. Articles like this one—which is thorough and which continues to provide updates and context; thanks IHE—keep those of us on the outside informed to some degree. However, every news clip in every medium paints a partial picture at best. When the story is of a unique culture, relayed through an interpreter, we know even less of what is actually happening.

But at least we can watch. And some of us can learn.

Marion, at 11:00 am EDT on October 16, 2006

Power Vs. Education

Fernandes has probably got to go — we’ll have to see what the students decide to do. She made a huge mistake by hiding from those who oppose her, and trying to “spin” the issue in the Washington Post. This just increased the impression that Fernandes’ appointment comes from playing politics in the “hearing” world instead of dedication and involvement within the deaf community.

This is a power struggle plain and simple. The problem seems to be that the “powerful” give the impression that they are making decisions based on their own criteria and don’t give a damn what the desires of the community being served are. In one action Jorden just erased a lifetime of goodwill within the deaf community — he’s now the guy who put a bunch of his own people in jail.

There is a glaring double standard in Jorden’s position. His presidency is the result of a huge student protest. He has his job because back in the 80’s the students demanded an appropriate leader. For decades, he’s held that position and never indicated anything inappropriate in the way he was hired. It is truly bizzare that this person would now view the concerns of the student body as secondary. Based on his history, Jorden should have known that servicing such tight-knit and extended community should start with involvement of those community members. Instead the administration took the intractable position that they were in charge and that maintaining authority over the student body was more important than finding a candidate that would work hand in hand with them as partners.

Whatever the issues started out being, now it’s a struggle over who will dictate the future direction of the institution. When the power to make a decision becomes more important than accomplishing the goals of the institution, it’s time to take a good hard look at what’s broken. The administration’s position becomes increasingly untenable. Jorden’s attitude looks alot like Bush/Cheney/Rummy: “It’s not that we don’t hear you, we just don’t give a damn what you’d like — YOU are stupid, and WE are in charge!”

KGB, at 12:50 pm EDT on October 16, 2006

Gaining Perspective

I am a recent graduate from Gallaudet and I too have often felt befuddled by the various reasons for this protest. When I read the media, I’ve often felt like I was reading a foreign newspaper. So I’d like to take this opportunity to share some perspectives I’ve gained during my tenure as a student and as an alumnus.

I would like to raise some concerns, which have not been addressed in the media. On October 6th the campus took time to honor both I. King Jordan and his wife Linda by naming the Student Academic Center after King and the premier art gallery after his wife. What really bothered me was that this honor was bestowed upon both of them with little input from the community and decided entirely by the Board of Trustees. This is a board people on campus have long felt uncomfortable with as it is self-perpetuating and members are usually, if not always recommended by I. King Jordan himself.

The board’s decision to name this art gallery after Linda received cries of unfairness throughout the campus community, as Linda has done nothing for deaf art and even the field of art let alone. Would any reasonable person support the naming of a Federal Building after Laura Bush while G.W. is a sitting president? Probably not.

To top it off, this board is the very same board which has made King one of the highest paid university presidents in the nation — to the tune of approx. $577,000 including benefits (see Gallaudet’s 2004 501c3 990 Tax Filing) while Gallaudet gets about 107 of its 150 million dollars a year revenue from the government. Jane Fernandes as Provost received about $311,000 that year and Paul Kelly, VP of Administration and Finance was listed at about $274,000. I think the top three are paid way too much given that most of their money is from the federal government and Gallaudet’s performance has been dismissal during my few years and was rated “inefficient” by the White House PART report in 2005 largely due to low graduation and employment rates (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10003306.2005.html).

Furthermore, this is the very board who came to campus explaining that community input in the presidential search process was valued. Well, an April 26th campus-wide poll found candidate Jane Fernandes unacceptable by 81% of undergrads, 65.9% of grads and also the faculty had their own poll where 63% found her unacceptable for the position of president. She later received a vote of no confidence in her selection by the faculty on May 8th by a 2-1 ratio. This faculty vote certainly had nothing to do with Fernandes not being “deaf enough” but rather her performance as Chief Academic Officer (Provost).

There is a feeling that I. King Jordan has railroaded Jane Fernandes into the office of president and that he has the board in his pocket. In fact, throughout this protest there have been times where Jordan seems more interested in Fernandes being the next president than she does herself. Shouldn’t Jordan post a sign in his window that says “Off Running” and instead of fighting Fernandes’ battle focus on his legacy and golden years of retirement?

I have hope for a better Gallaudet… and it starts with accountability and leadership.

S, Alumnus at Gallaudet, at 12:55 pm EDT on October 16, 2006

I am appalled to see what is happening at Gallaudet University. If you were to come on campus it looks like a party with an unknown purpose. It does not look like a protest; there are barbeque grills, tents, and children running around playing. This is a social event and the disruption of business at a fine institution.

There are many signs on campus some say “JF resign now” and others that say “stop audism” WHOA!!!! Jane is the senior administrator on campus who has been visibly busy trying to work on issues of audism on campus. So to hear that you want her to resign does not make sense that would be shooting yourself in the foot. Yes, there are issues on campus that need to be dealt with and Dr. Jane K. Fernandes is ready, willing and ABLE to do just that. She wants the university to embrace all types of deaf and hard of hearing people, not just those who have deaf parents or those who went to residential schools and are fluent in ASL. While she embraces the culture and language of deaf people she wants others to have that opportunity. She needs to be given a chance to move the university forward.

Cathy, Gallaudet, at 2:35 pm EDT on October 16, 2006

National Assoc. of the Deaf and others have not say the facts why they are protesting. NAD only said for Jane to resign without explaination why. You all protesters are all discriminating Jane. If she have to go through the search process again, she will be the top choice anyway. Other candidates did not match her credentials. For example, she created a national wide ASL storybook for the children and their parents to communicate in sign language while reading the storybook. She did alot more than other candidates. Your statements about protest are still weaken. You simply joined the protest because you feel pressured by other deaf folks and NAD CEO is simply a puppet without explaining the factual information. Instead of that, you all keep saying Jane has to resign without logical or rationale explaination. YOu need to work in the hearing world to understand the realistic issues.

R, at 7:20 pm EDT on October 16, 2006

Twice in the negotiation process, the SBG President proposed hiring an independent assessment to investigate the presidential search committee that led to the selection of Dr. Jane Fernandes as the 9th Designate President of Gallaudet University. Both times, Irving Jordan declined a proposal in hiring an independent assessment.

Now, the Board of Trustees and President Jordan of Gallaudet University have been making claims that the presidential search process was square and fair. If the process was truly fair, why didn’t they agree to hiring an independent assessment to investigate the presidential search committee?

Look, all the Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University and President Jordan have to do is to accept the proposal in hiring an independent assessment. Supposing, the independent assessment finds nothing wrong with the presidential search process, it would make the protestors look stupid for suspecting a flawed process in the Presidential Search.

But President Jordan chooses extreme measures to make the protestors look bad.

PR, at 7:25 pm EDT on October 16, 2006

Questions

I read the letter from the link provided. The letter says, “We question why the Board of Trustees selected Dr. Fernandes despite the public concerns that were brought to their attention BEFORE theselection was made.”

What exactly ARE these public concerns? Some specific examples (a list?) would help outsiders understand the protesters’ stance. Right now, all I understand is that the administration has been less than approachable (not good, but not uncommon on many campuses and in many schools) and has not managed the cultural conflicts well (also not good, but not uncommon). I guess I am not clear how this translates to protesting about a particular presidential selection, since there was a valid selection process.

kgotthardt, at 3:25 pm EDT on October 17, 2006