Comments on Calm at Gallaudet

• She's NOT well qualified !!!
• Posted by Tom Willard on October 31, 2006 at 1:10pm EST

• I'm not sure who is saying Fernandes is "well qualified" -- the unnamed consultant or your writer -- but she most certainly is NOT well qualified. For goodness sakes, that's what the whole protest was about -- her dismal track record at Gallaudet over the past 11 years and her lack of qualifications for the job. She was hand-picked by the outgoing president and rubber-stamped by an out-of-touch board that was also hand-picked by the outgoing president, a man who was able to amass WAY too much power over the years, even to the point of controlling the Board of Trustees. Are you people EVER going to get it?

• Tired of this.
• Posted by Alan on October 31, 2006 at 1:15pm EST

• I'm an intelligent Deaf, gay male that teaches American Sign Language and English at a community college in Salt Lake City. I have two BAs (including a minor in Journalism), a MA, and am working on my PhD.

  I get tired of reading news report after news report that shows only the administrators' views of the protest at Gallaudet. Why don't the reporters talk with the protesters or the FSSA (Faculty Staff Student Alumni Coalition) of Gallaudet University and find out the facts?

  The protest had nothing to do with "Deaf politics," but with an improper, suspicious, and fixed presidential search process. It is clear that the search process was not conducted properly.

  In addition to this, the former president-designate, Jane Fernandes, had demonstrated time and time again that she was an ineffective leader. This has been documented so many times, it spins my head. This information was kept from the Board of Trustees when they were deliberating on their choice for the next leader of Gallaudet University.

  Mercy Coogan, Irving K. Jordan, and Jane Fernandes used a common tactic to gain sympathy and support--playing the "race card," only in this case, they played the "deaf card." This was unfair and put Deaf people across the world in a bad light.

  Since they pushed the issue, though, deaf politics came into the picture. Nearly 15 thousand people across the world participated directly and/or indirectly in this protest. How can that many people be wrong?

  The protest was not about preserving Deaf culture or American Sign Language, it was about unifying the Deaf community and eradicating Audism (akin to racism).

  Please, reporters, educate yourselves on ALL sides of the story and write neutral, informative articles. Isn't that what journalists are supposed to do?

• Jane Fernandes
• Posted by Mike Kaika , GUAA Board Member at Gallaudet University on October 31, 2006 at 2:46pm EST

• I am the Home Region Representative on the Gallaudet University Alumni Association Board of Directors and was very much involved with the protest.

  Before I retired two years ago, I was the Director of Media Relations in the Public Relations Office at Gallaudet University.

  It was very obvious right from the beginning that the PR Office and Administration was going to play and harp on the "not deaf enough" card. Unfortunately,the media kept picking up on this topic throughout the protest.

  The fact is, Dr. Fernandes just doesn't have the leadership or management savvy to run the university. I would like to point out a few things about Dr. Fernandes lack of leadership and management.

  When the Head Librarian left several years ago, Dr. Fernandes took it upon herself to be the Acting Head Librarian.

  When the dean of CLAST (College of Liberal Arts, Science and Technology) resigned, Dr. Fernandes took it upon herself to be Acting Dean.

  When the 2001 Tower Clock (student's yearbook) had some "off color photos and comments," Dr. Fernandes ordered the Department of Personal Safety to padlock the Tower Clock offices to prevent the yearbook from being distributed. This problem actually falls under the domain of the Dean of Student Affairs but once again it was Dr. Fernandes who stepped in and took over.

  This led many people on campus to feel that Dr. Fernandes didn't have any confidence in her subordinates. Of course, Dr. Jordan gave her blanket approval for the above (as well as a few other lesser incidents) which contributed to the speculation that Dr. Jordan was "grooming" Dr. Fernandes to take over his position when he retired.

  No my fellow colleagues in the media, "not deaf enough," or her lack of ASL were not the issues. When 82 percent of the faculty gave her a vote of no confidence, it's quite obvious that leadership, management, and to some extent, charisma, were the issues.

  Mike

• Posted by Virtua on October 31, 2006 at 3:00pm EST

• Hmm, how can a large number of people be wrong? Gosh, just off the top of my head: can you say Nazi Germany? This is not to make an analogy here, but to illustrate how ridiculous is the statement. Slavery in the US, Jim Crow laws, the geocentric universe, the Spanish Inquisition... As you say, "it spins the head."

• Posted by Greg Wood on October 31, 2006 at 3:51pm EST

• Most media organizations like this author are interested in the simple lie than the complex truths.

  A few days before the president select Jane Fernandes, the Linguistic Professor Dr. Robert Johnson at Gallaudet University released his 17 pages explaining the details of the problems(lack of leadership, inidimidation, manure fertizilier, and others) at the university. This letter really impacted the board's decision to terminiate her.

  Read this letter if you, Paul, care about the facts.

• Not Deaf Enough
• Posted by Concerned Deaf Educator on October 31, 2006 at 6:15pm EST

• The comments so far have tried to divert our attention from the real issue that developed during the protest and has Deaf people around the United States and indeed, the world, clamoring for Dr Ferandes' resignation or termination of her contract. Initially the outcry was that a white male without a doctorate was included in the 3 finalists while a black male with a PhD was excluded indicating that the process established was not being followed and was further indication of racism on campus. Not being enough, the faculty found another reason to seek retaliation for her being appointed Provost 6 years ago without her appointment being processed through an expected shared governance procotol. The faculty had passed a no confidence motion on her appointment but the President knowing that he had the right to make the final appointment anyway ignored this and alienated the faculty. He later realized his mistake and apologized for it but many of the faculty were unforgiving and never let Dr Fernades effectively function as Provost and later used this ineffectiveness as being the rationale against her selection as the new President.

  The students were involved in a wild homecoming celebration in 2005 and caused several thousand dollars damage to the Hyatt Hotel on Capitol Hill and caused a disturbance with guests of the hotel in the wee hours of the morning. Others tore down the goal posts on the football field which could have caused injury or even death to some in the crowd involved. As Provost, Dr Ferandes had to mete out punishment for these reckless activities which brought shame upon the University and the students were unwilling to accept responsibility for these acts and held this against Dr Fernandes and this in addition to normal discipline for other wanton acts of the students also set them up for payback when the opportunity arose with the selection of her as the new president.

  Now neither of these had anything to do with her not being deaf enough so the claims of most of the faculty and most of the students that there was no issue with them of her not being deaf enough is correct.

  However some of the alumni seized upon this situation of opposition to her appointment and added that the President of Gallaudet should be a symbol of what they call 'real' deafness and that the university represents what they call Deaf culture and the use of American Sign Language (ASL) as a distinct language in its own right with its own rules of grammar and that Dr Ferandes did not accept her deafness until she was in her twenties and she was not fluent in ASL and would not promote Deaf Culture and ASL as president because she was for inclusiveness which embraces all forms of signed communication (including but not limited to ASL) and to survive the university needed to embrace all types of deaf persons, not only those who identified with a separate culture. This set off a cultural war among deaf persons. Capital D Deaf against deaf, Deaf against Hard of Hearing, Deaf against hearing persons, deaf against Deaf persons with Deaf parents and Deaf siblings and children and if you have the opportunity to read thousands of Blog items from outside the university you will indeed find that the main issue evolved into being 'not deaf enough' and into what the Washington Post labels protecting their 'cocoon'.

  In their anger protestors then raised issues of audism, racism, oppression, favorism, fraud, babying down the curriculum, accepting 120 students who did not meet entrance requirements this academic year and forcing the faculty to give many passing grades and a host of other issues. They vilified the current President and the Board of Trustees and asked people to contact congress to intervene but with all these other issues it came back to 'not deaf enough' and denial that it was this from those who had different original reasons. In the process some faculty and some students picked up this theme of 'not deaf enough' not using those words but clearly implying them.
  They deny this because they realize that the truth effectively influences the readers of journals, newspapers and blogs that share these facts.

  When the new congress convenes early next year, there will be a demand that they investigage Gallaudet and discuss its ineffectiveness, dysfuctionalness and waste of taxpayer money. It is time for congress to demand accountability for over 100 million dollars a year that results in what one deaf blogger claims is a 13% graduation rate and another claims that over half of the students are attending with government funds beyond the 50k plus the federal government is already subsidizing them.

• Calm at Gallaudet
• Posted by Lonamstven on October 31, 2006 at 7:30pm EST

• as a 49-year old, Gallaudet alumnae, I first found the two of the three finalists for the president to be odd, even though I grew up with them in NYC. I immediately could see they chose the two candidates to be weaker than Jane Fernandes herself. Granted with her years as director of Clerc Center and as a provost might have had given her an edge, I would expect some stiff competition with better qualified candidates than these two. The more I read about this, I began to feel open forums on campus to solicit surveys and feedback from students, faculty, staff and alumni leading up to the final selection were a farce. The search consultant team might or might have not been a farce, too. I might have not been able to lay a finger on this but I knew something wasn't right. Granted that Jane has strong skills in some areas, presidency and leadership aren't based on evidence of the undergraduate faculty that voted against her three times, as well as a few retired Gallaudet professors who didn't support her as president-designatee (One of them once held presidency of the World Federation of the Deaf which composed of deaf individuals from 125 countries). Trust them, they know. I do feel bad for the Academic Search Consultants too. I think they got the wools pulled down over their eyes, not knowing the history and machinations of Gallaudet administration over the years, including the ratings that the U.S. government declared as ineffective. Keep in mind, this is not an isolated incident as nine other presidents from various universities and colleges have had been ousted too.