Search News


Browse Archives

News

Gallaudet's President Has His Say

October 18, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For the last few weeks, Gallaudet University has been torn apart by protests -- led by students but joined by faculty, staff and alumni -- over the selection last spring of Jane K. Fernandes, the provost, to succeed I. King Jordan, the university's president for the last 18 years. Jordan, the first deaf person to preside over the world's most prominent university for the deaf, himself was selected after a 1988 student protest over the hiring of another (hearing) person for president. Jordan had been extremely popular, but Monday, three days after he ordered the arrest of 133 students who had been blocking access to the campus, the university's Faculty Senate voted no confidence in him and the Board of Trustees, and called on Fernandes to resign. On Tuesday, the same day he announced he was calling off this week's planned homecoming activities because of the continued turmoil, he spoke to Inside Higher Ed about the controversy and about Gallaudet's future.

Q: How are you handling the votes from the faculty?

A: Well, obviously, I was very disappointed in the votes and in the numbers. But right now, there’s a lot of emotion. Emotions are running very high and it’s a stressful time on the campus. I would like to think that if the votes took place in a different environment and different circumstances, that the numbers would be very different.

Q: People have not been happy with Dr. Fernandes for some time. The students were unhappy with her and the faculty gave her a vote of no confidence. Perhaps the most shocking votes were the votes of no confidence in you and in the board. Were you surprised at those?

A: I was disappointed, obviously. I’m saddened that there was a vote of no confidence in me and that there was a vote of no confidence in the board. I can tell you about the board, especially, they’re all volunteers. They do this on top of their regular jobs, and they give a lot to the university. So to receive a vote of no confidence is probably painful to them as individuals.

Q: You gave a speech at the National Press Club in which you said that you had made a mistake in appointing Fernandes as provost instead of going through the normal process, with faculty involvement. Is this coming back to haunt you?

A: There’s no question that I should have used a different process when I named her provost. I should have established a search committee and done a search that involved significant faculty involvement. And I’ve told that to faculty again and again. I don’t hesitate to stand up and acknowledge a mistake when I know I’ve made a mistake. I regret that that’s still an issue. That’s six and a half years ago, I think. We’re way beyond that.

Q: I asked Mark Weinberg, chair of the Faculty Senate, "Can we still legitimately call this a 'student' protest?” And he said, "No. This has never been a student protest. It has always involved the Gallaudet community." Do you still see this as a student protest?

A: I see a protest and I see a campus lockdown. And the protest has involved different people and I think that’s fine. I fully support the rights for people to protest and dissent. But what is happening right now with the students is that they are restricting access to the campus. And that is the thing that is clearly damaging to me, damaging to the institution and to the educational opportunities for our children. So I see them as separate.

Q: Are you still going to move forward with the Fernandes appointment?

A: Yes.

Q: Authority requires subordinate people to acknowledge leadership. Do you feel that you still have authority on this campus?

A: Yes. Yes, I do. I do. I do feel that I have authority and I feel that over time, there will be a lot of healing. And I feel that we’ll be stronger when we’re done with this protest and this very intense discussion and these very intense discords.

Q: Dr. Fernandes has already gone through one vote of no confidence. The students voted her the least liked of the three finalists for the position and now the faculty have asked her to resign. Come January, she’ll have the power as president, but do you think she will ever gain the authority?

A: Yes. Yes, I do. I know that you don’t see many of the supporters, but there are many supporters. Some of them speak out and are visible in support of her. Most of them don’t speak out and the reason they don’t speak out is because they’ve been harassed and oppressed. The easiest of example of that is the front gate and only people who support Dr. Fernandes must turn around. They must go in the 6th Street gate.

Q: Do you know T. Alan Hurwitz, dean of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf?

A: Sure. Sure, I know Alan very well.

Q: He wrote an e-mail saying that he believes that the problems here have been caused by the selection process for Dr. Fernandes. He wrote, "I believe that the controversy is based on a flawed selection process, nothing else."

A: So what was an issue is the belief by some of the protesters that the process was flawed. But the board has again and again explained the process. It was very open, transparent, inclusive. The process was not flawed. So the process was a good and fair process.

Q: Robert Hoffmeister, who runs the program in deaf studies at Boston University, hinted that trustees may have chosen Fernandes because you had unduly influenced them. I’ve also heard this from numerous faculty members. Hoffmeister wrote in an e-mail, "This board has backed King Jordan, not the wishes of the DEAFWORLD as exemplified by the revolt by the students, and there’s a dissatisfaction with the choice beyond Gallaudet.”

A: That’s another misperception. I really had nothing to do with the search process from the time the search committee was established until the time that the board deliberated and decided which of the final three candidates should become president. I was told very directly by the board to stay out. They drew a line and communication about the search stopped. It completely stopped. So any influence is nonexistent. There was no influence because I wasn’t to have conversations with the board about that and I didn’t.

Q: Critics often refer to an incident, at the time you announced your retirement, when you called Dr. Fernandes to stand next to you and inadvertently signed the phrase “next president” instead of her actual title “provost.”

A: The word “next” wasn’t in there. I had inadvertently signed, began to sign “president,” when I was saying “provost.” It was a mistake. I was very emotional. I was announcing my resignation and I made a signing mistake. That has become very big, as if I was naming her the next president. Nothing could be further from the truth. I made a simple signing mistake.

Q: Some people have ascribed it to be a Freudian slip. That you tipped your hand.

A: I know. This has gotten great mileage, great support. And I’m a psychologist, and I’ll tell you it wasn’t a Freudian slip. It was just a signing mistake.

Q: You became president during a protest and you’re leaving during a protest. After two decades of service, you’re leaving potentially under a shadow. Everyone thinks about their legacy. How are you assessing this?

A: I think one good way to answer is to look at the difference in the protests. The protest in 1988 was really a wonderful thing. It was a civil rights issue; it was a very positive protest for something very important; it was a protest for an ideal. It wasn’t a protest for me, as an individual. It was a protest for the idea of a deaf president, that a deaf person should lead the university. [Everyone] came together to support that very positive movement. Now instead we have a very negative protest. It’s not about or for anything; it’s opposed to an individual. So instead of pulling together all the different factions of our community, it’s pulling apart. So it’s very painful to me. It would be painful if I wasn’t president, just watching it from a distance. But to be in the middle of it, tears me apart.

Q: LaToya Plummer, a junior here, said that she felt her protesting was an act of justice and that she was proud to have been arrested, but that she is “disgusted" that you let things go so far.

A: There were many attempts at a meaningful dialogue. LaToya was part of a meeting with Dr. Fernandes before the arrests and tried to engage in meaningful dialogue, but [the students showed] no willingness to discuss the very important issues that needed to be discussed. As to the arrests, we exhausted every possible means of negotiation and the campus stayed closed. We asked again and again, “Please open the campus so our elementary school children can go to school, so our high school children can go to school, so that the university can get back to the business of education.” And we were told again and again, “No.” So I reached a point where I needed to ask the D.C. police for help in opening the campus. But the request was for help in opening the campus. People who interfered in that help chose to be arrested. I didn’t “order arrests.” I asked for help to open the campus. Did you see the arrests?

Q: Yes, we reported on it.

A: So people lined up and D.C. police opened the gates and people just blocked the street, and basically challenged the police, and I just can’t imagine how there’s nobility or something to be prideful about in being arrested for that. They’re protesting against something, not for something. If you have an ideal, a mission, a passion for something and somebody is blocking that, then maybe arrest is appropriate. But protesting against a person and being willing to be arrested for that? I don’t really understand.

Q: The president of the National Association for the Deaf feels that the process of the Fernandes selection was flawed. So do the students, the faculty and many in the outside community. They are united against, you, Fernandes and the board. Is there a point when you simply cannot continue?

A: Let me talk about the process again for one minute. Because last week, the board was here and meeting, and we had our first offer to negotiate with the students. And they wrote to the chairman of the board asking that the chairman have an outside investigation of the process of the search. And the board was willing. Of course, they gave the board a deadline that the board couldn’t meet because they weren’t meeting again before that deadline. But the chair did meet with the protesters and say, “Tomorrow I will have a response for you.” But they took that off the table.

We in the administration and the board, everyone has said they are very willing to open a review of the search.

Q: You would appoint an independent investigation of the selection process?

A: Well, that has stopped because no one is talking about that now.

Q: But you would be fine with that?

A: Yes. Absolutely. Independent.

Q: If I could ask my previous question again: With all these groups lined up against you, Fernandes and the board, can you continue?

A: Well, you’re a writer about higher education, so you surely know the process by which a university president is selected. It’s not an election, it’s a process. There’s a committee established and then the committee meets and screens, interviews and recommends. The committee had substantial faculty representation, student representation, staff representation and alumni representation. It was very diverse and inclusive committee. That’s how boards select.

Right now, it’s as if the protesters will determine who the president is. That’s not how things work. No. The board decides who’s the president.

Q: But what about philosophically, politically, not procedurally? At what point do you bow to outside pressure when there is so little support?

A:  I think there’s a lot of support that you don’t see.There’s support from other people in higher education who’ve contacted me. I get e-mails, off and on, all day, every day, from people who are saying, "Hang in, you did the right thing. Time will show that you did the right thing.”

Q: Why are people so passionate on all sides about the choice of president for Gallaudet?

A: Gallaudet is a beacon of hope for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. People who are deaf, who earn university degrees, many earn those degrees here. People who have degrees are very successful in life. They go on to get advanced degrees, they become leaders here and around the world. So  people look at Gallaudet as the leader of the deaf community and the deaf world. So we are both a distinguished university and a leader for the deaf community. That’s not true in most other colleges and universities.

Q: Do you have any last thoughts?

A: I do want to say, when I became president, I said that “deaf people can do anything but hear.” When I travel around and speak, I say that what happened at Gallaudet 18 years ago led to opportunities for people who are deaf, opportunities for people to show what they can do. Right now, Dr. Fernnades has an opportunity, but we’re not giving her a chance. She’s not yet president, so how can people prejudge what she will do as a president?

So I say give her a chance. Let’s see what she can do. I’m very confident that if she’s given a chance, she’ll do fine. But give her a chance.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Gallaudet's President Has His Say

  • Our Collective Inability to Hear
  • Posted by MLM on October 18, 2006 at 8:10am EDT
  • The students protest and imposing limits on the opportunity to gain an education at Gallaudet give a whole new meaning to 'turning a blind eye...or deaf ear.' Gallaudet is a shining example of giving people perceived as 'disadvantaged' the opportunity to succeed. It is its legacy and the responsibility lies with the students to continue such an honored mission. Isn't it time to give everyone the chance to succeed in the delivery of that mission?

  • Posted by d on October 18, 2006 at 9:35am EDT
  • "The easiest of example of that is the front gate and only people who support Dr. Fernandes must turn around. They must go in the 6th Street gate."

    This is absolutely stunning to me that a community would support such a deliberately shaming act for someone that disagrees with them. Moreover, that a community that has been through so much discrimination themselves would be so arrogant.

    I don't agree with the board and the current president. But I also don't agree with the protesters.

  • Was Jordan Involved?
  • Posted by S , Alumnus at Gallaudet on October 18, 2006 at 9:40am EDT
  • I appreciate the blunt questions asked here and I believe more investigation is needed. Contrary to President Jordan’s response that he had “nothing to do with the search process,” I beg to differ. As a concerned alumnus, I have kept a close watch on all that has unfolded on campus and I’d like to quote a May 3rd Washington Post interview with President-elect Jane Fernandes that may interest you.

    May 3rd, 2 PM ET Washington Post Online Interview

    Washington, D.C.: Did I. King Jordan interview you and the other candidates?

    Jane K. Fernandes: Yes, King Jordan interviewed all three finalists.

    President-elect Fernandes later recanted her response and explained that they had “tea” with [the?] King and it was not an interview.

    Also at the same time members of the community were concerned about Jordan’s whereabouts on the night of Sunday April 30th. The night before the president-elect was announced and the very night Fernandes was informed by the BOT of her selection. On Sunday night Dr. Robert “Skip” Williams was also having a retirement party and Jordan was fully well expected to show up, after all Williams is known around campus as one of Jordan’s best buds. They did their doctorate studies together at the University of Tennessee and he joined Jordan at Gallaudet where they both taught together for many years in the Psychology department. Much to students’ glee Jordan has often stopped by Williams’ class and participated in classroom discussions, a relative rarity in other classes. Where was Jordan on the night of April 30th?

    Maybe he was visiting with the board? After all he’s ex-officio and his house is 300 yards from the Kellogg Conference Hotel where the board was meeting. Section 2.2.6 of the board bylaws state:

    Section 2.2.6 The President. The President of the University shall be a Trustee, ex-officio, and shall sit with voice, but no vote, on the Board, the Executive Committee, and standing committees other than the Committee on Compensation and special subcommittees.

    http://bot.gallaudet.edu

  • Posted by D on October 18, 2006 at 10:50am EDT
  • S,

    I certainly hope you have more concerns than that. I cannot imagine an academic institution where the presidential candidates of a resigning president slot didn't meet with the current president. Furthermore, most BOT's require the Pres and VPs to attend, especially for certain major situations.

    Does it smack of involvement? No more than it would smack of a lack of involvement if these are the two biggest issues that come to mind. Again, I feel like the means and scrutiny here lacks logic and nuance. On both sides.

  • fascinated, but confused
  • Posted by MB on October 18, 2006 at 11:15am EDT
  • One thing has never been made clear in any story coverage. Why are the students, alumni, and faculty objecting to Fernandes' appointment? I've read a lot about protests and who has voted no confidence and how the selection process has gone, but still have no idea what the protesters don't like about Fernandes.

  • Chance?
  • Posted by JC , Deaf Student at Rochester Institute of Technology on October 18, 2006 at 11:45am EDT
  • I. King Jordan quoted: "Right now, Dr. Fernnades has an opportunity, but we’re not giving her a chance. She’s not yet president, so how can people prejudge what she will do as a president?

    So I say give her a chance. Let’s see what she can do. I’m very confident that if she’s given a chance, she’ll do fine. But give her a chance."

    On the contrary, she already had her chance as a Provost for the past 6 years. During those years, she made a lot of controversial decisions, which a lot of people found questionable. I better let Dr. Carol J Erting Ph.D speak for herself:

    Letter from Dr. Carol Erting
    Filed under: General, * Faculty, FSSA — gufssa @ 1:12 pm

    October 16, 2006

    Dear Faculty colleagues,

    On Saturday, President Jordan appealed to the campus community to “…give Jane Fernandes the respect that is due her and the opportunity to bring us all together…” Last night, in a statement from the Board of Trustees, Chair Dr. Brenda Jo Brueggemann wrote that Dr. Fernandes “…deserves to be given the chance to assume the office we have appointed her to.”

    Six years ago, when President Jordan appointed Dr. Fernandes to lead the division of Academic Affairs as Provost of this institution, the Faculty Senate objected and reprimanded Dr. Jordan for violating the principle of shared governance in making that appointment. A minority of faculty members disagreed, believing that she should be given a chance. I was among them. We argued that we should support our President and Dr. Fernandes herself–to give her the opportunity to demonstrate that she could do the job as the university’s highest academic officer. To that end a colleague and I mounted an official challenge to the Faculty Senate resolution, obtained the necessary signatures of 10% of the faculty, and the challenge went forward to the University Faculty. The Faculty overwhelmingly defeated our challenge, asking Dr. Fernandes to step down and sending a strong message to President Jordan that he was wrong to have appointed her unilaterally. Dr. Fernandes was, however, given the chance to lead because she refused to step aside and President Jordan refused to change his decision. Now history is repeating itself.

    I was wrong six years ago. I failed to attend carefully to what my faculty colleagues were expressing. I wanted to believe Dr. Fernandes could do the job and I wanted to give her a chance. In her role as Provost and now as President Designate, Dr. Fernandes has had the chance to lead. Unfortunately, she not demonstrated the leadership and sensitivity that this community so desperately needs. She has divided the community, not united it. The University Faculty, having experienced six years of her leadership, voted “no confidence” in her as President Designate in May and asked her to step down so that the search could be re-opened. She refused. On October 11th, the Faculty officers with the support of their Advisory Committee, asked her to resign in order to bring this crisis to an end. She refused again. President Jordan tells us to give Dr. Fernandes the respect she is due but how do her actions demonstrate respect for the opinions of so many faculty, staff, students and alumni? What kind of a leader insists that only she knows what is best for our community while that community is being torn apart because of her appointment?

    Carol J. Erting, Ph.D.
    Senator, University Faculty Senate
    Professor and Chair, Department of Education

  • Jordan says:
  • Posted by kenenth g samson on October 18, 2006 at 1:05pm EDT
  • "The protest in 1988 was really a wonderful thing. It was a civil rights issue; it was a very positive protest for something very important; it was a protest for an ideal. It wasn’t a protest for me, as an individual. It was a protest for the idea of a deaf president, that a deaf person should lead the university. [Everyone] came together to support that very positive movement. Now instead we have a very negative protest. It’s not about or for anything; it’s opposed to an individual."

    I.K. Jordan, it's time to set the record straight. As one of the students in '88 who participated in the the DPN movement whose coattails you gleefully rode into your position as President of Gallaudet, let me remind you that the DPN protest, as a matter of fact, DID start on the basis of negative energy towards certain individuals, namely Ms. Zinser, the person selected by the BOT to replace Lee, and Ms. Spilman, chairwoman of the BOT at the time, for her disparaging remarks against the deaf community. Only later did the protest turn into a protest FOR the ideal of a DEAF president. Today's protest began with negative energy as well, when people spoke out against the corrupted selection process, against the management style of Ms. Fernandes, and against YOUR handling of the situation by ordering mass arrests of peaceful protesters late on a Friday night when there was no classes coming until the following Monday. [you jumped the gun there, fella!] This protest is also against your attempts to slander the protesters with carefully constructed untruths, such as the one in which you claimed they blocked the school students at Kendall Green, Clerc Center, and MSSD from attending classes last week, when, in fact, the leaders of the protest specifically informed you and Ms. Fernandes that those portions of the campus and their support staff WOULD NOT BE BLOCKED. Instead, YOU chose to close those portions of the campus and pin the blame on the protest. It was pure PR SPIN, nothing more, and you know it. You also have repeatedly played the 'deaf card' which you KNOW is yet another carefully constructed untruth from your PR spin machine. Ms. Fernandes lack of signing skills is only a minor grievance to the protesters. The major grievance is her MANAGEMENT style. You used to be my hero, King..... what happened to you? Kenneth G. Samson, Alumni, class of '92

  • Posted by I on October 18, 2006 at 1:05pm EDT
  • Folks - don't be naive - this is nepotism at its best. People in power get their buddies into power (the signs are all there, just read them, including the feable defensive arguments by president Jordan) - it's the same in all upper leadership positions, be it in academia or for CEOs and industry/academic boards. It is "at its best" because it is done in the guise of "being done properly" (search committe, search, interviews, board appointed, no undue influences - yeah right and pigs can fly!). Anyone who thinks otherwise really does not understand humans. Now sometimes that is actually not bad, because many of those put into such positions are very capable and (almost) everone is happy, so the system works more often than not. Unfortunately, it can explode in your face, if you have not learned from the past and that is what happened to president Jordan.

  • But survey the entire battlefiled with that critical eye
  • Posted by D on October 18, 2006 at 2:55pm EDT
  • And remember I, the protests are being led by the relatives of a candidate who didn't make it to the final selection. You are very right in your comments, I would just caution that it go the full measure.

    Anyone ask the feelings and thoughts of the parents of the K-12 students who had to take off work or arrange daycare when their students were denied entry last week?

  • Higher Education
  • Posted by david brody on October 18, 2006 at 2:55pm EDT
  • He quoted "There’s support from other people in higher education who’ve contacted me" I am sure that other people in higher education don't want to have a similiar incident in their schools and send a strong message to students and faculty not to interfere with them. Where is the support from other people besides from higher education?

  • BLAST from PAST to BLAH to TODAY!
  • Posted by Barney on October 18, 2006 at 2:56pm EDT
  • ITS A BLAST from PAST when we SUCCEEDED in DPN 1988!

    TODAY...

    ITS A BLAH to TODAY when FRUSTRATIONS rise in BPN 2006!

    FYI:

    PAST: Jane Spilman once said :

    Deaf People are not ready to function
    in the hearing world

    TODAY :

    Jane Fernandes is DEAF B U T....
    Fernandes is NOT ready to function in
    the DEAF WORLD!

  • I demand proof!
  • Posted by Tom Willard on October 18, 2006 at 4:45pm EDT
  • "And remember I, the protests are being led by the relatives of a candidate who didn’t make it to the final selection."

    This is one of the most ridiculous allegations I have heard throughout this whole sorry story.

    I absolutely DEMAND that you follow up with some proof to back up this patently absurd allegation!

  • We have seen the enemy and they are us
  • Posted by Concerned stakeholder on October 18, 2006 at 4:45pm EDT
  • This interview by Paul D. Thacker was an excellent and hard hitting job. Dr Jordan did quite well in his responses also. The protest has brought out numerous reasons for its existence but it really boils down to resistance to inclusiveness which Dr Ferandes advocates as necessary for the continued existance and growth of Gallaudet in a changing world where students can go to any college they qualify for and receive support services under the Americans for Disability Act and Section 504. Gallaudet needs to accept deaf and hard of hearing persons which are very diverse in terms of residual hearing, educational background, ability to use sign communication, etc., and do not fit the one size fits all image of a "D"eaf person, someone with a specific cultural identity. A scan of the blogs will show hundreds of entries which state that Dr Ferandes does not meet the image of a "D"eaf person and because, they claim, the President represents a "D"eaf person, she is, in effect, 'Not Deaf Enough'. Hundreds of others claim this is not the issue and it is true that it did not start as this. If Dr Ferandes is out, like i suspect she will be, this issue is going to become very divisive as Gallaudet seeks another new president. Gallaudet needs to decide whether it is to become a college for the "D"eaf and focus on ASL as a distinct language or to remain a college for the deaf and hard of hearing and maintain its broad definition of ASL as inclusive signed communication. The deaf population is too small to engage in cultural/civil wars within itself.

    It was recently disclosed that Dr Fernandes was only offered a one year contract, renewable only if she satisfactorily resolved three identified problems at Gallaudet: racism, audism and Management by Intimidation. Surely the stakeholders at Gallaudet can give that a shot.

  • Posted by ds on October 18, 2006 at 4:45pm EDT
  • "...the process by which a university president is selected. It’s not an election, it’s a process. There’s a committee established and then the committee meets and screens, interviews and recommends. The committee had substantial faculty representation, student representation, staff representation and alumni representation. It was very diverse and inclusive committee. That’s how boards select."

    What was the faculty, student, staff, and alumni recommendations to the board? If for the appointment, there's no basis for protest. If against the appointment, how could the board defy their recommendation and not expect significant protest. If the idea is to unite factions of the deaf community, that's a sure recipe to divide.

  • LIVING WITH UNCERTAINTY
  • Posted by Bert Shaposka , Graduate, Class of 1960 at Gallaudet University on October 18, 2006 at 5:05pm EDT
  • President Jordan is correct in stating that there is support for Dr. Jane Fernandes, the new President-designate. We have not been visible because the Gallaudet Faculty and the student protesters are pursuing their own agendas. I doubt they would permit me and others to contribute any dissenting opinions. The media should be wary of providing one-sided coverage. I live from day-to-day in fear that the Board of Trustees will succumb to this outside pressure. If Dr. Fernandes were to resign, it would be very difficult for Gallaudet in terms of academic integrity. In my view, there has been a change of emphasis away from academic excellence to the linguistic and cultural aspects of deafness. The Departments of Counseling, Communication, and Deaf Studies are fueling this protest. Do they propose to make a mockery of higher education of the deaf in America? Gallaudet deserves a high-profile leader to pull the university back from the brink of academic disaster. I admire Dr. Fernandes' courage and stoicism in the face of such extreme provocation.

  • The protesters...
  • Posted by SusanP on October 19, 2006 at 5:50am EDT
  • ...seem to be unreasonable, spoiled and wanting to relive past activism at Gallaudet that was certainly justifiable. This case, however, is different, and they must understand that they do not -- and should not -- have the final say. There simply isn't a smoking gun behind Fernandes' appointment. They are making a culture that is already confusing to most of the world appear even more confusing by not giving her a chance to be Prez.

  • Re: Tom Willard
  • Posted by d on October 19, 2006 at 10:51am EDT
  • Mr. Willard,

    While I think it would be better if you used your heavy "DEMAND" for actual journalists and not the messageboard of a news article-- I have to acquiesce on this one.

    I should have used the term "allegedly" since I have only seen the accusation that protesters were originally stirred by members of a final candidates family who attend (or have attended) the University. Lately I've seen the accusation come up again, both here at IHE and such--- but I haven't been personally shown any hard evidence and I shouldn't have suggested that it was fact; although with the milquetoast arguments against JKF I would almost hope that there's something more substantial like a dramatically better candidate that students had knowledge of.

    I'm sorry again for not using the appropriate warnings or clarifiers. But I did not invent this accusation, not by a longshot. It may be worth turning your ire towards those that can actually clear this up for everyone.

  • response to Bert Shaposka
  • Posted by Robert Harrison , chair, Communication Studies at Gallaudet University on October 19, 2006 at 2:55pm EDT
  • In response to Bert Shaposka's observation that the Communication Studies Department
    is one of the departments "fueling the
    protest" (See October 18 at 5:05 pm EDT),
    I wish to correct the record.
    While individual department members may
    or may not support Gallaudet's President
    designate, the Department itself has never
    formally articulated a position--nor do we intend to do so.
    Our department is committed to the study of communication. We view our role as finding ways to encourage the free flow of ideas, helping to promote intelligent discourse; and, in short, fostering effective communication.
    As a department, we are not part of the protest--nor is it our intent to foment
    disturbances.

    Robert Harrison, Ph.D., chair, Communication Studies Department of Gallaudet University

  • WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, DR. HARRISON
  • Posted by Bert Shaposka , Graduate, Class of 1960 at Gallaudet University on October 19, 2006 at 7:35pm EDT
  • Thank you for responding to my comment. It brings me considerable relief to know that the Department of Communication Studies has not taken an official position in regard to the Gallaudet protest. Communication is a generic term that has kept us spinning our wheels since time immemorial. It reflects an ideological twilight zone insofar as it concerns higher education of the deaf. I recall a statement issued by Dr. Jordan a couple of years after he became President. The statement read: "This debate is truly magnificent because we are wrestling with the thorny, intellectual problems in which we all have a heartfelt stake." I remember my response as: "There could be no better epitaph for this generation." Is it still possible to merge the ideals of "academic rigor" and "effective communication" in the 21st century? Your role of promoting the free flow of ideas, intelligent discourse, and effective communication is in line with the Gallaudet philosophy.--Bert Shaposka

  • Posted by Ruby on October 20, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • In responding to Tom asking for proof of family member of a candidate fueling the protest last May, I believe it is true that a son of Roz Rosen, one of the 6 candidates for the President, immediately arrived on campus and said bad words to the group of students about the announcement. He did it as self serving to advocate his mom. Also, a board member is a brother to Roz so he cant vote I believe due to appearant conflict of interests. This is one of several elements how it fueled the protest last May. Samething for Dr. Stern, I believe Ben the other board cant vote due to apparent conflict of interests because Dr. Stern is on the board of Ben's employer. Another element I believe is that CSD is fighting hard to remove Sorenson as major donator to build the center on campus while CSD wanted to be the donator, not Sorenson that President Designatee is working with to build a new center on campus. Last note, I want to say to hang on there to Dr. Jordan and Dr. Fernanades. Please give Dr. Fernanades an opportunity to become a President.

  • Many don't know...
  • Posted by Robert Holmes on October 20, 2006 at 5:35am EDT
  • There are things people are not being told. Many in the Gallaudet community would rather this be a popularity contest. The other two of the top finalists for the job may have been popular, but one did not even have his PhD. The other had little administrative experience. There is no such thing as the perfect manager or a perfect institution. (Anyone work for the government?) Dr. Fernandes, like all of us, is an imperfect being. Criticize Gallaudet for spin, but also look at what the deaf community roots are saying: a person who grew up oral is unacceptable. This is typical of the kind of "elitism" that has pervaded Gallaudet for years. One of the candidates for the job was a former provost who did not get along with the current president. She was pushed aside and Dr. Fernandes appointed to the job. Although the previous provost was a popular figure in the deaf community, she did not get along with her boss. The community was outraged at her ouster. The previous provost, a tenured professor, took extended vacation and eventually left Gallaudet. Today, her children are helping lead this protest. And this is just one example. Due to the genetics of deafness, there are many family connections at Gallaudet. Nepotism runs rampant. Cousins, aunts, uncles, spouses, siblings, children, and parents are everywhere at Gallaudet. These people, though they represent but ten percent of the entire deaf community, feel they are the royalty of the deaf community and that they "own" Gallaudet. Many of the chief instigators of this protest are of this group. Their emotional outrage at perceived rejection is understandable, but misguided. The fact is, technology, opportunity, and communications are changing in the deaf world. Is not one goal of genetics to eliminate the state of deafness, thus removing its burdens on society at large? Many of these deaf people go out of their way to marry genetically deaf people and to bear deaf children. But there is a much larger number of deaf people in the mainstream than in this small but outspoken genetic clique. The fact is, most deaf people, given the choice, would be hearing people. Those protesting would deny this simple fact. Dr. Fernandes represents a bridge between the deaf community of the past and the deaf community of the future. It's going to be years yet before deafness is eradicated. In the meantime, deaf people need someone like Dr. Fernandes. Gallaudet needs a leader like her who can straddle both worlds and include deaf people from all walks of life. Gallaudet cannot stand on history alone. It must evolve and include us all. More than anything else, this protest shows the historic elitism of the deaf community. The deaf masses are being manipulated by fearful and cynical "leaders" who clearly will stop at nothing to get their way. This is about control of Gallaudet and its purse strings, identity politics, and protecting institutional incompetence at the expense of education. Real academic and personnel change is needed and hopefully possible with Dr. Fernandes running the school. If this were a hearing school, the protesters would have been expelled by now and dissenting faculty fired or reassigned elsewhere. The true issues are clear if you blow away the smoke and cut through the emotion.

  • Shame on You!
  • Posted by Alison Pinsley on October 20, 2006 at 8:15am EDT
  • Shame on You I King Jordan for not listening to the pleas of the faculty and students not to allow Ms. Fernandes to become the next President of Galludet. You once had their respect, now you have lost it ina vote of "no confidence". When the President of a University can't rectify the situation between everyone involved, they deserve that vote. What is Ms. Fernandes objective here, to encourage all the students to try and live in a hearing world, when they cannot hear? From what I've read, she grew up in a hearing environment and did not learn sign language until she was an adult. Many of the students who go there do not have that opportunity, and will never know what it is like to grow up in a hearing environment. It is time for a reevaluation of the incoming president and time to re-open the search process.

  • Students involvement
  • Posted by Alison PInsley on October 20, 2006 at 8:15am EDT
  • Were there any students involved in the selection process last Spring of Ms. Frenandes to be the next president of Galludet?

  • Mediators can help
  • Posted by Carol C. on October 20, 2006 at 1:20pm EDT
  • I've watched this situation carefully; my hearing mother is a graduate (mid 1940s) of Gallaudet's teaching program, and spent her career teaching (quite effectively) at a state school for the deaf. So, we've long had a connection of pride with Gallaudet, despite being part of a disparaged and discredited group.

    I have watched similar situations characterized by deep emotion and conflicting philosophies that threatened to tear an institution apart. A particular union vs. management situation comes to mind, where it became impossible for polarized factions to hear each other. After the contract and strike were settled, a professional mediator was brought in to work on bringing the two sides into closer understanding(along with the silent ones who had suffered through the long months of rancor) and the results were phenomenal. The process created a safe haven for all points of view, but also insisted on building connections and bridges, without compromise of deeply held beliefs (although people on both sides did change their minds when they started to understand the larger context). I would urge the administration to spend whatever it costs to find one of these organizations to help the rebuilding, healing process that accommodates all perspectives.

  • Posted by Rob V. on October 24, 2006 at 6:00am EDT
  • Carol C.:

    Unfortunately, it appears that the university would rather spend its funds on subcontracting PR firms rather than mediate the crisis.

    I know of at least two "outside" PR firms reportedly being used by the administration. And when I say "outside," I mean firms that don't have a clue about Deaf culture.

    The administration already knows it has "lost the battle" among its primary constituents, i.e. the Deaf Community, yet has chosen to continue to wage the war in the "hearing" media.

    There's no question the battle's lost when a major Deaf donor says he's suspending his million dollar endowment to the university because of his unease at the administration's handling of the protests.

    There's no question the battle's lost when a widely-respected Deaf individual informs the administration that he will not assume his role with the university presidential transition team because he believes Fernandes needs to resign.

    There's no question the battle's lost when the National Association of the Deaf says that Fernandes needs to go as well.

    However, it appears that I King Jordan still prefers to continue the war in the "hearing" media, including his and Fernandes' incredible decisions to host several interviews on the radio, which is an insult to many in the Deaf Community and is widely perceived as an indication that the administration prefers to fight its battles in the "hearing" world.