Worlds Apart: Divergences in Perspectives on the Protest
By Allison Kaftan on Wed 11 Oct 2006 |
Email This Post
Marc Fisher’s posting on his blog Raw Fisher entitled “The Ruckus at Gallaudet,” despite portraying opposition to Dr. Fernandes’ selection as primarily student-originated, and flaying around for a handle on the cause for the protest, is able to finally grasp that it isn’t really what he calls “another campus culture war,” but in fact the protest (which, by the way, isn’t wholly comprised of student protesters) rises out of “the absolute need to be heard and understood, especially in your own home.”
It’s mind-blowing to see how different perspectives on the protest are. Those who respond to his blog show an absolute misunderstanding of the issues at hand. To be honest, I can imagine their inability to comprehend. If this were another culture, somebody else’s fight, I might say similar things.
Take “OD,” who writes, “Wait, does that mean that only people who were learned English as their first language can ever become presidents of major universities in America? Surely that cannot be what they are advocating, can it? Just because they’re deaf doesn’t mean they get to be bigotted [sic].” So for these people, the protest represents discrimination. Only, in this case, it is the discrimination of the chosen leader by the supposed-to-be-governed.
I would so agree with OD, if I weren’t also one of those people who learned ASL later in life. Sure, I’m never going to be president of Gallaudet University, but if I were, my childhood wouldn’t be considered during the selection process, nor would it be cause for protest. I’m fully capable of empathy and possibly leadership, with or without late-acquired signing skills.
Or, like, “DMVA” writes, “There is no way that someone like Dr. Fernandes–or soemone [sic] like her–can understand what it means to be part of Deaf culture. She was not to the manor born.” That puts the protest in a particular light - the outsider coming in to reign over the natives. With that view, I’d say heck with the protest too. The natives don’t know what’s good for them, do they? Oops, am I being too imperialist?
So again, people outside of the protest aren’t quite getting the nuances of what Fisher writes when he says “heard and understood.” We’re not talking about the ability to hear or the commonality of deafness. We’re not talking about ASL vs. English or sub-par signing style, no matter how many times Drs. Jordan and Fernandes and PR spokesperson Mercy Coogan tries to convince the press and, by extension, the entire world that our linguistics are the problem. We’re not at all talking about communication in the most basic of terms.
Raise your consciousness a bit: We’re talking about the ability to be led by someone who empathizes with his or her constituents and will act on behalf of and in the common interest of the Gallaudet University. This also means recognizing Gallaudet’s unique role as not just a place where students should be expected to excel academically, but also as a model to D/deaf people everywhere of what we’re capable of doing.
The fact that Dr. Fernandes grew up orally and learned ASL later has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to empathize and lead. In theory, she could be a deaf child of deaf adults (in fact, isn’t she?!), an extremely articulate signer (of which she IS capable of being, though she doesn’t show it), and still not be able to lead the University.
But because the Board of Trustees received from her a gorgeous curriculum vita and because her vision looks good on paper, if not a bit abstract, it’s hard to distinguish between her ability and her qualifications. One is demonstrably horrid. The other is sparkly. It’s easy to forget which is which.
Which is perhaps why people who don’t understand the protester’s cause are poo-pooing the protest. And which is probably also why Dr. Jordan, in a conversation with frustrated alumna Christine Roschaert reported in the now infamous Elisa Abenchuchan’s blog this morning, walked away wordlessly after she explained “all about her frustrations while working for the SBG fighting for students with additional disabilties’ rights. She fought hard and long to get cracks in sidewalks fixed, to get the stairs lined with yellow strips, and many more [sic]. She worked up in the system up to the provost. After meetings with the provost, Fernandes have not done [sic] anything in two years.”
And which is probably also why the Washington Times printed an editorial this morning that says,
“The protesters should realize that the 1988 episode was an anomaly, not a precedent. It is the prerogative of the trustees, not the faculty or students, to appoint the university’s president. This is not to say that no student can be displeased with the trustees’ selection, but their methods of expressing this displeasure are disruptive and harmful to the rest of the student body. Mr. Jordan’s effort to keep the university on the right track during this ugly experience is laudable, since the most baleful impact of besieging the main academic building falls on the students themselves. To move Gallaudet forward, the protesters and others who egg on the type of deaf-president-now tactics that disrupt Gallaudet’s unique learning environment need to start working with Mrs. Fernandez, [sic] and stop working against the university.”
If I didn’t know, if I wasn’t an alumna and pseudo-faculty member, I’d agree with the above excerpt. Classes and education should be the focus of the students, not the administrative placements of the Board of Trustees. Just because we had a fun protest back in ‘88 doesn’t mean we get to have another party that keeps other people from getting their education.
That Deaf President Now protest in 1988, which brought about Dr. King’s selection as president, I think, is a big problem for this one. It’s easy to look at that protest and look at this one and be tempted to try to find commonalities. There is one: a Board of Trustees that is a bit out of touch with the University community. In 1988 they didn’t realize that deaf students, faculty, and staff, as well as members of the deaf community, desired to be represented by one of their own. In 2006, what? It may be too early to say and probably too presumptive, but maybe they didn’t realize that their University was ill and in need of a change of guard.
I’ve always hated the terms “hearing world” and “deaf world,” in part because they stink of exclusivity. If someone participates in both “worlds,” they’re called “stuck in between.” But those terms may have something going there that parallels current events: the climate on campus is worlds apart from the one off-campus. There’s a clear division between those that want to say, “that’s the way the world is. Put up with it and shut up,” and those that say, “no, we’re capable, even though you might not understand.”
Not one person I’ve spoken to on-campus since May of this year, protester or not, has denied the fact that there are things about Gallaudet that need to change. Admission standards are problematic. So are graduation rates and the quality of education. There’s a strong good-ol-boy social network in place, which inevitably results in elitism and weak diversity recognition. The current administration, other than hold meetings and formulate plans, has done nothing to address audism in the last place on earth that it should be found. The language policy is broad, weakly worded, and rarely understood or enforced.
The overall reputation and image of Gallaudet, both in the deaf community and outside of it, suffers as a result of all of these. It’s been that way since at least 1998, when I first arrived as a freshman, and probably before.
And now, the protest has shed new light on more evidence of a corrupt administration. There are currently calls for investigation into financial mismanagement. Gallaudet alumni have just realized they have no voice because Gallaudet administration controls the alumni contact information (in other words, although many alumni support the protest, they cannot disseminate information among themselves, while Dr. Jordan has carte blanche to send e-mails to them).
The public relations department is leading a disastrous campaign - every statement they make is questionable in its credibility ever since they said there were no student injuries (photos and videos soon came out showing the contrary was true). They refused to let media on campus, then backtracked and said of course media were allowed, just not their trucks (although trucks were allowed in force during the murders several years ago). While student protesters were in negotiation, the PR head simultaneously appeared on newsfeeds saying demands would not be met, effectively undermining any progress made in establishing a meeting of minds.
Dr. Jordan’s retirement announcement in September of 2005 was significant in two ways. It was historically important because it marked the end of the presidential term that came as a consequence of the week the world heard Gallaudet: when we realized that we could and were capable of achievement in spite of a world (and a Board of Trustees chair) that told us we couldn’t. It was also wildly important, in terms of the new leadership, in that it was an opportunity to move forward and finally address Gallaudet’s weaknesses.
So is it any surprise that the selection of Dr. Jane K. Fernandes as president, stellar qualifications and all, was a huge disappointment? Imagine having the opportunity to see Gallaudet handed a new chance for success… and then after a rushed and suspiciously structured and guarded selection process, being told that the new president, in fact, was a member of the old guard. What reason did we have to believe, after her selection, that there was any hope for Gallaudet?
But, given the magnitude with which perspectives are being disseminated, its easy to sympathize with “Cliff,” who responds to Marc Fisher’s piece by saying, “I’ve been following The Post’s excellent and informative coverage of the events at Gallaudet. Unfortunately I still don’t get it. The President says it is because she is not deaf enough. The student leaders say that is not it; that it’s because the board did not involve the students in selecting the President and that the President herself is autocratic. Now you provide another explanation that is well though [sic] out. I still don’t get it. I’ve decided that you have to be deaf to understand the issues. I hope they find some common ground between whatever their positions are, which I don’t understand.”
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Allison,
Much grease to your elbows! You explained everything. I hope the world out there get it this time by reading what you have beautiful put down here.
Allison, this was a great post. I think we’re finally getting somewhere in terms of identifying what the issue is. You’re right, it’s about the need for change. Things have been really wrong at Gallaudet for a long time and that is why Jane cannot become President. It doesn’t matter how qualified she is anymore. The system is broken and she is a part of the system. There is no trust of the current administration so how can she lead, especially in light of her “insider” status?
“a reflection of the self-righteous and self-centered upbringing that is all too common in this generation. The Gallaudet protesters seem to believe that the university ought to have ceded to students the right to select, or at least to play a role in selecting, the college president. This is a grandiose and wildly unrealistic sense of how the world works and of how it should work.”
Yep, all the complaints about “we” versus “them” and claims of audism isn’t going to disguise the fact that the student protesters have a thinly veiled “self-righteous attitude” and a burning belief that their opinions should matter.
It looks like they’ve been mollycoddled for so long with leftist claptrap that their brains have addled. Either that they have not been exposed to the real world.
grin,
their opinions shouldn’t matter? :) leftist claptrap? :) not exposed to the real world?
On the contrary, it’s because they HAVE been exposed to the real world that they have the knowledge and courage to protest.
Anyways, the faculty have been involved from Day One. This is a huge group of people, not just students.
Cute comment though.
I guess in my experience as a graduate of a private college in the San Francisco Bay Area (yes that bastion of liberalism) is that private colleges don’t have to nor need to answer to their students or faculty.
I will say, though, as someone that spent a good deal of time around DC where private college students and faculty regularly took their leaders to task — it was a bit odd to me that when I moved to California that this wasn’t really the case at all.
Most private colleges had very specific rules governing students that would have prevented such protests. At my school, the California College of the Arts, anything done that prevented others from attending class or might be considered disruptive was cause for immediate expulsion. Immediate. And I’ve seen it happen. Students actually drag away from campus.
It was hard to believe in an area that was so influenced by the student protests of the 60s that this was acceptable. Although perhaps that was the reason.
Private schools are completely within their rights to not only not listen to students, but to create policies that ban student comment from happening anywhere on their campuses.
So, as much as I think what Gallaudet students and faculty are doing is admirable (as so with AU students last year), I also must admit that this is a right completely granted to them by the school leadership as Gallaudet is a private institution.
Well put. Even with this wonderful piece by Allison Kaftan, I remain absolutely unconvinced that the protests are the right course of action. Nobody is pointing out the fact that Gallaudet *did* give their students, faculty and staff plenty of opportunity to be heard *before* the BOT began deliberation. Nobody is pointing out the fact that the protests are entirely reactionary in nature. Fernandes, in some ways, may have been very ineffective in her tenure as Provost, but again, we are ignoring what they said: “The public is *not* privy to the reasons why the other candidates were eliminated.”
I have *not* yet seen a *single* blog (written by a Deaf person such as myself) explaining why we need to go forward with Fernandes as our President, and take *different* approaches as to what should be done. I sincerely hope that DeafDC.com will become the first site to post something coherent *and* in full support of universal acceptance towards the BOT’s decision. Corrective action can *still* be taken, even with Fernandes in office. I only wish that I could articulate such sentiments as eloquently as many of those supporting the FSSA movements, especially since I know I am not alone in my sentiments.
Julie — Just a clarification; are you saying that since the protests are reactionary in nature, they are irrelevant? And I thought the biggest point Allison made was that Fernandes is of the “Old Guard” and would not engage in *different* approaches?
I understood Allison’s point, but is it really entirely up to the administration to address all the ‘isms’ happening on campus? Students bring some of that with them when arriving- as do many of the faculty and staff members. Of course, administrators can serve as role models, but their efforts are only so cumulative. I feel that the protestors are using Fernandes and IKJ as the scapegoat of all their problems, and also that their Deaf identity has become somewhat of a part in formulating their mindset. Many may vehemently disagree with me on that last point, for perfectly understandable reasons, but remember what exactly makes this protest so unique from all the other collegiate outbreaks across the nation. Although JKF’s deafness has nothing to do with the issue, it is still her perceived treatment of such issues that lie at the very core of this whole outcry- whether you like it or not. We would have so much more solid evidence against Fernandes’ ineffectiveness only if the affected had taken greater initiative in directly addressing such wrongs- and doing so publicly *at the time* they happened. This is like what happened with Anita Hill, she waited ten years until Clarence Thomas was nominated before telling the world how she had been wronged. I am not denying whatever greviances the protestors have, they may be very much valid, but I do strongly question their tactics. Hence my position that the protestors’ current tactics cannot be fully justified due to their past inactions (and plenty of examples can easily be cited in support of this).
Will this protest really get Fernandes (and all future Presidents) to act provactively in full accordance with the FSSAs’ principles? Maybe. But we keep forgetting that, as we point fingers, many more fingers are pointing back at ourselves.
the faculty had passed no confidence votes on her in the past. of course they were ignored. faculty members have raised concerns about her conducts and were ignored. what could they do? u tell me.
Julie,
And tell me, what exactly has the administration done to address these charges of “-isms”? Nothing. Exactly nothing. Actually, they had a few platitude meetings, but other than that, nothing. And all of a sudden Dr. Fernandes announces a $800,000 initiative to address these issues. Too little, too late. Sure, I welcome hearing other people’s perspectives on the other side, but in my opinion, the bottom line is people have lost their faith in the ability of Dr. Fernandes to lead the University. She will not be able to lead a united university with so many teachers, staff, and students against her.
I’m not denying that the Gallaudet administration has their woeful share of misfits. However, I don’t believe that hindsight is 20/20- and so I’m not going to tell you what “shouldva” been done. I am simply stating that I do not agree with the tactics employed by the protestors, and that I am not the only one who feels that way. I am also saying that some of the responsibility also lies with the protestors (students, faculty and staff) for helping perpetuate the ‘isms’. And as McConnell would say, Unity for whom? This university does not belong to the protestors; it, too, belongs to the rest of us.
I’ve tried to see where your stance is yet I cannot really fathom it. You say that you don’t deny that the Administration has “their woeful share”, yet you don’t agree with the protesters. So, where exactly do you stand along with the others who “feels that way”?
The protesters are there because they’re ‘voicing’ out their concerns. You say that Gallaudet doesn’t just belong to the protesters but to “the rest of us”. My question is where are “the rest of us” at Gallaudet? Why aren’t they there on the campus of Gallaudet? Why aren’t they making themselves visible?
I have seen some commenters in some posts where the ‘d’eaf decry the ‘D’eaf. Instead of throwing around this “guilty by association” stance, just because a handful of Deaf people do not accept their communication methods or identities, the “rest of us” need to shrug off that insecurity and join the united front with the Deaf community.
(Before you jump about my usage of ‘D’, please know that I use ‘D’ for anyone, regardless.)
For clarification in the regardless note…I use “D” for the Deaf involved in the cultural Deaf community, whether they sign, cue or sport a hearing aid or cochlear implant.
There are other deaf people, who have no association with the Deaf-World, such as the elderly who might wear a hearing aid just to help them “regain” their original hearing and continue their regular lives, without any thoughts or awareness of other languages or communication methods.
“just because a handful of Deaf people do not accept their communication methods or identities, the “rest of us” need to shrug off that insecurity and join the united front with the Deaf community.”
I’m sorry, but a blind allegiance to the cause of Deafism coupled with a continual accusations of “audism” doesn’t solve anything.
And I find many of the deafist protesters to be more than a tad hypocritical. If Ron Stern had been selected, you wouldn’t be running around in streets. The only people protesting against Ron Stern would be the Gally students of color who would be favoring Glenn Anderson, and, guess what? Many of the white deafists wouldn’t be protesting, either. Yes, hypocritical and racist. See, I can fling around labels just as you do.
You might be right that there might not be a mass protest against Ron Stern if he was elected instead. However, that doesn’t mean there were no concerns about Ron Stern.
However, since he wasn’t elected, there’s no point in doing “what if’s”.
Then there’s no need for me to do “what ifs” since Fernandes has been selected, then?
Julie,
While I don’t agree with all of the tactics by protesters, I think Ben Moore hit it well in his blog. If just occupying HMB and hosting a tent city on the mall would have been sufficient, we wouldn’t be where we are right now. I have seen the protesters and FSSA give too many opportunities to Jordan to work things out, only to have almost every one of them backfire in their face.
Teachers and Staff at KDES and MSSD were upset about closing of the schools. Guess whose decision it was to close MSSD and KDES? Gallaudet University. Not the protesters. Gallaudet sent out an email at 5 am on Wednesday morning stating the University, MSSD, and KDES were closed. It was not the protesters’ decision to do so.
There are too many problems here with the protest, and I just wish a resolution would come quicker, but I’m afraid it won’t.
In response to comment # 23424 by LARRY:
My stance is not clear-cut. I just see many different truths at once. I personally feel that the protestors are not taking responsibility for some of the wrongdoings of the administration, as they should, and that many, if not most, of their reasons actually undermine their actions. As for why you don’t see people like myself coming forward, I don’t want to answer for them. And as for your ‘d’ versus ‘D’ point… well, the exactly same thing is happening in both camps. I don’t see any difference. And I know many ‘d’ people who do *not* feel insecure about their preferences. Yes, some ‘d’ do- but many don’t. That bewilders many ‘D’ people because they think that living the ‘D’ life is the only key to happiness. Still- your questions were very good, and I really appreciate the sincere manner in which you brought them up.
In response to #23442 by CHRIS:
I was also referring to the (in)actions taken by students, faculty, and staff *prior* to the announcement of Fernandes as President. Had things been handled differently from the very onset (such as students actually showing up at BOT meetings, or attending one of those sessions held for the public by the administration inviting feedback on the presidential search process)…. eh, hindsight is not 20/20, but the protestors would at least have had the “hard evidence” to back up their greviances. I’m tired of statistics. They always lie- you can always, always twist numbers around. I’m also tired of hearing testimonies about events that happened many years ago. I want to see cold, hard evidence that would break a witch’s teat.
And, finally, in response to #23429 -One True Church- your language is rather strong. But it is also the voice of many people not wanting to come forward publicly.
I wish DeafDC.com would publish a blog by a person like yourself outlining all the valid (as seen from that perspective) reasons why this protest needs to cease. Up to this date, I’ve only seen either neutral or those in support of the protests. They are very well written, and I value the things I’ve learned from those, but I also greatly welcome perspectives from the other end of the spectrum. And other DeafDC.com readers should, too. If you want to submit a guest blog, please contact Shane Feldman (the DeafDC manager) regarding guidelines.
Julie:
That’s one thing I totally agree with. Why didn’t enough students attend the pre-selection workshops or sessions set up by the Presidential Search Committee? But, that kind of action is normal for Gallaudet students. They don’t participate as much as they should in campus activities, only to take action when something they don’t like happens — like now.
But, regardless of what happened last spring when the search process was occurring, it is still a thorny issue for all of us to grasp.
I think it ultimately has to fall onto the leadership abilities of Dr. Fernandes, and for this, there is plenty of concrete proof of mishandling or flawed leadership while she was vice president and provost.
Chris,
I am concerned about your comment. You claim that it is normal for Gallaudet students not to participate in events such as the PSC workshop and sessions.
The protesters are now telling us that they are oppressed at Gallaudet. If that is the case, why weren’t they angry enough about their oppression that they overflow the workshops expressing their concerns and anger about the current leadership and status quo? This may also have been a good time to address the issue of racism and audism and how the process could have ensured a fair outcome. What do you think, Chris?
This protest started three years ago and students have been raising the same issues again and again for over a dozen years.
I too went to a private college. Unfortunately, this is NOT a private college. This is the only university for deaf people on the frikking planet. When the people who go to the university tell people Hey! Look here! Problem! for a dozen years, and they don’t have any place else to go, this is what happens.
I went to Haverford College, which is a private University funded mostly by alumni donations and a great stock portfolio. The University had no rules. Students managed themselves totally. We had an Honor Code we went to great lengths not to break, and Haverford wouldn’t have waited twelve ******* years to ignore the fact that the campus police couldn’t communicate with the students, for example. So, sorry about your experience, but no, it’s not common.
Wonderful post. i really wish someone would post a timeline, because i think seeing things clearly put out would be great. we had the SBG doing the Audism Mandates, there were the Audism Monologues, and then no concrete response or involvement from the University Administration. A LOT was going on at Gallaudet last year, and this protest isn’t coming from out of left field.
But the situation goes beyond that, because what we have are a young generation of students who grew up with full access. This isn’t 1988: students aren’t trying to prove they can do anything except hear. This is 2006: students have done everything, and expect to go further. It seems they want to take the next step.
I do believe the current administration has its… desires. I think the goal is to turn Gallaudet into a training ground for future workers, janitors, etc. They tried to do something similar with MSSD, but it totally failed, and teachers there tell me it took years to return MSSD to a working state.
yes you said it! the key word you said is “taking the next step” that’s what my first blog is all about–”Taking Back the Destiny” (forgive me if I appear to be self-serving here)
Beautifully written, Allison.
While I still am not sure if I can give this protest my full support, at least you have helped me to better understand the issues which have led to such.
Thank you.
This is the most coherent post I’ve seen on this issue. However, claims of a “culture war” are still legitimate, what with many people tying this protest to what it means to be “Deaf” and excluding oral Deaf people like me out of that category.
Noelle,
Nobody is excluding you here.
Why do you need to bring up the fact that oral people are excluded all the time on deafdc.com?
I am “Deaf” and married to an oral deaf woman. Oral people aren’t being excluded. If they are, it is not because “Deaf” people in general exclude them…it’s because some a-hole excluded them.
There are only two kinds of people in the world: A-holes and non-A-holes…and it’s all relative.
It is not a “Culture War” at Gallaudet, IMO. I do not understand the issues, but it is definitely not because KKF is “not deaf enough”. That much I know.
Entirely valid comment.
I’d say issues get a bit conflated in the emotional catharsis that is becoming best friends with this movement.
There are indeed people expressing exhaustion as a result of oppression by oral/auralists, and that backfires when deaf people who don’t fit the capital-D trope come into the picture.
That is not exactlty what is going on. Noelle you come as you are and its perfectly okay to be you. The real issue is fairness and equal communincation access. Hard of hearing people with excellent speech can participate in spoken English discussions. What about those who are fluent in American Sign Language (ASL)? Gallaudet does not REALLY accept ASL equally with spoken English. Whatever you are, cued-speech, oral, etc. Deaf people have no problem with them. Respect is a two way street and when two respects each other equally then everything is normal. When someone thinks that Deaf people are subhuman because of their ASL fluency and it causes friction.
People need to stop the upper/lower case D/d argument. Diversity in people who they are should be celebrated at Gallaudet.
Again, no one is excluding anyone except the administration’s attitude towards a specific group, namely, ASL native signers.
Allison …… great post!
I have great admiration and respect for those who stand up for what they believe in.
However, I’d like to speak as an outsider.
Being angry is one thing. Being angry, demanding, and abusive is another. It is necessary for the person(s) involved to work together with their opponents, to seek a solution. Working against the enemy only makes matters worse and we all know the term “Stay close to your friends, stay even closer to your enemies”, nothing is truer.
As we already live in a complicated world, we live in a “world”. It’s not a deaf world, it’s not a hearing world, it’s not a black world, or white world. We live in a “world”, and I think it’s important for everyone in any situation to take a step back at some point and really analyze the necessity of the situation on reaching solutions, and resolving conflict it in the most mature and respectful of manners.
It’s almost like a child going through the “terrible two’s”, you scream, cry, and pitch a fit….. But only an irresponsible parent would give you what you want ….. How do you really learn to prosper and grow?
As I strongly believe and stand by the students of Gallaudet, it is their school, it’s not mine or ours, and it is their school. Each one has been a student there, a faculty member, an administrator, an alumnus and every individual has their own views and perspectives. These views and perspectives, should always be respected, and their minds should be spoken, and have spoken, per se.
The beauty of America is our right to “Freedom of Speech”. We have our Bill O’Reily’s, Eminem’s, and Jerry Farwell’s, each who respectively stand up for what they believe in.
Then we have people who will never understand what you are speaking for, because they just don’t understand and have never been in your shoes. I feel you, and applaud you in your actions, more power to you.
Just as the people involved in the protest are allowed their freedom to speak, just remember ………. doing this peacefully and respectively is the best solution to get what you want!
It reminds me of a Rolling Stones song called “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”
“You can’t always get, what you want, and if you try sometimes you find,
You get what you need”
I wish each and every one of you the best of luck, and I look forward to the next time I visit Gallaudet.
Sean P. Forbes
Beautifully put. I do understand the point of the protest but the problem is, there is so much corruption in the Deaf community. There are some Deaf school superintendents who are not being honest, cheating their way around and practicing favoritism. I do not see any difference between the Jordan administration and some Deaf school superintendent teams across the country. Why can’t Deaf people protest against that kind of corruption locally and state-wide? Is it because they are more ‘deaf’ than King Jordan? Is it because they are members of Kappa Gamma and King Jordan and Jane Fernandes are not? Does that mean Kappa Gamma and Phi Kappa Zeta members are allowed to abuse power while others are not?
I. King Jordan is an honorary member of the Kappa Gamma Fraternity. He has two Kappa Gamma members working for him (Linsday Dunn and Fred Weiner).
Therefore, the accusation is kind of moot at this point.
Honorary membership means absolutely nothing to the big D world. One of the underlying reasons of the protest is probably about not having a kappa gamma or a phi kappa zeta member holding the reign of the university. Some big D people were hoping Stern would take the place, but when he did not get the post, everyone then said the process was flawed. Now, ask yourself- if Stern actually got the post, nobody would go against the whole screening process.
to be honest, if ANYONE in the top 21 candidates list but dr. fernandes was selected, there’d be no protest. dr. anderson is not big ‘D’ but we wouldn’t protest him. it’s all about dr. fernandes.
Ben,
If your statement is true, then the process would not have been perceived as flawed? The process is flawed because Dr. Jane Fernandes was selected, correct?
Dr. Anderson would make a great president not because he is a person of color it is because of who he is. He is intelligent, humble, and treats everyone equal.
Roz Rosen has an impeccible resume and she worked on the state, national, international levels also she is a woman. Being a woman is an asset but that is not the point. Rosen can deal with anyone and students, alumni, etc. loves working with her.
Ron Stern would make an excellent candidate and the Board may felt that he is too strong on the ASL issue.
Steven Weiner, is a very good man and he is not a presidential material right now but later in time he may be.
many other applicants may be rejected due to age or who knows, too much ASL support makes the BOT uneasy.
Kappa Gamma
Phi Kappa Zeta
Kappa Gamma
Kappa Gamma
Okay, why don’t we kneel down and let them rule the Deaf world? It is what you people want, right?
Or maybe we need to find a Deaf leader with no affiliation. That way everyone will be treated equally and with respect. That way everyone will not experience or face favoritism or cronyism in the Gallaudet community.
Glenn Anderson- Kappa Gamma :) hooray!!
Roz Rosen- phi kappa zeta :) hoorrayy!!
Ron Stern- kappa gamma :) hooray!!!
Steve Weiner- kappa gamma :) hooray!!!
Jane K Fernandes- none of the above (everybody is against her now) :( boo!
I. King Jordan- asi sigma phi (everybody is against him now) :( boo!
I think this is what it is really about. Disgusting, eh?
Gary:
Glenn Anderson is Alpha Sigma Pi
Roz Rosen is Delta Epsilon
JK Fernandes is honorary Phi Kappa Zeta
I. King Jordan is Alpha Sigma Pi
Get your facts straight before posting.
No wonder the Deaf community did not get upset over the elimination of Anderson and Rosen before narrowing down to the final three.
I’m not gonna argue with your comment, as I have a feeling there’s a lot of truth in it.
This protest has taken radical form. Hopefully the deaf community outside of Gallaudet will be able to achieve positive change without having to resort to such drastic measures.
Excellent post Allison,
In it you state “We’re not at all talking about communication in the most basic of terms.”
I just wanted to point out that at least in my most recent observations of the events that are taking place at Gally which include last nights rally at HMB, and this morning’s interviews with several student leaders at the front gate there has been a growing emphasis on communication as one of or a main issuse of the protest. I do not disagree with your analysis of the issues however I do believe that the present perception of ever-changing-main-cause/reason for the protest is in part fueled by the various answers that students give when they are interviewed. That doesnt help clarify things for outsiders (or even insiders) who are trying to understand and/or support them.
Yes, I agree. It’s hard to gain a singular understanding when there’s a plurality of explanations.
Many of the people I’ve talked to who support the protest (although they may not all support the means) also say it took them a long time and much effort to formulate that understanding.
Allison, thanks for doing a fantastic summary.
Many of us understand a lot more than we are given credit for, and have expressed similar thoughts as yours. Take care…
I do not understand why everyone assumes that JKF is going to continue the status quo.
In 1988, before he became president, IKJ was dean at Gallaudet, and yet he pursued radically different policies than than his predecessor (whose name I can’t even remember).
IKJ established the Department of Deaf Studies, instituted sign language proficiency requirements for faculty who want to make tenure, raised tens of millions of dollars for the Gallaudet endowment, renovated HMB, built the conference center and student activities Building, renovated the field house, led Gallaudet through the terrible murders, and improved Gallaudet’s visibility….he in no way simply continued the policies of his predecessor, and I don’t see why everyone thinks JKF will do that.
I do understand the unhappiness with Jordan’s tenure. but in the midst of all the complaints about academic standards going on, remember that he has been the only post-ADA Gallaudet president, who has to compete with hearing universities for the brightest deaf students.
It’s no wonder that some students have chosen to go elsewhere, just as many residential schools for the deaf are losing students to mainstreaming. This challenge goes way beyond Gallaudet; it confronts deaf education in America as a whole.
I do not know Fernandes much at all, but three things about her:
1. As Provost, she dramatically expanded the honors program and showed she’s serious about making Gallaudet a serious academic university. That gets my attention right there.
2. She seems to have a plan for making Gallaudet appeal to the mainstreamed deaf students, including those with cochlear implants, who make up the overwhelming majority of deaf high school students today.
3. If she resigns, where will she go? In 1988, Elizabeth Zisner could just skip off to a hearing college. Can Jane do that? Because she will have to leave Gallaudet; I really don’t see her staying on after all of this vitriol. She’s worked very hard to get where she is, and has a clear vision for what she wants to doin; while at first it may seem surprising she does not resign, on second thought it makes a lot of sense.
I also have not seen anybody propose a viable alternative to Jane that everyone agrees on.
it’s easier to complain about what you don’t like them to propose specific, positive steps for change.
In 2003 Jane Fernandes pushed another Jane, dean of CLAST Dillehay, out of power. Then after the dean tended her resignation, Fernandes sent her back to teach at the biology department. Now it is time for Jane Fernandes to be pushed out of power. After she tends her resignation as president, she will be welcome back at the ASL department to teach.
That is fair and square!
So you’re basing “fair and square” off some peculiar, unrelated administrative tiff? That’s petty and daft… even by academia’s standards.
I thought by now someone else would have attempted a constructive response, but I suppose I’ll try. Your question about why people think JK will continue the status quo is a good one. It should be discussed. But in broad terms, JK has been an integral part of Dr. Jordan’s administration. During her presentation before her selection, she gave people no reassurance whatsoever that she would be changing the things people are complaining about today. Yes, she had strategic missions to lead the university in, but they were evolved very much from the administration of today.
In response to your three points:
1) any University provost would be seriously amiss in ignoring the Honors program. That said, let’s give credit where it’s due. Shirley Shultz-Myers, director of the Honors program, has worked tirelessly to get the honors program where it is today. Dr. Fernandes did secure additional funding for the program, but she did so by taking it away from other equally-deserving programs like the Office for Students with Disabilities. In addition, take a look at Gallaudet classes as a whole. While Honors program offerings have mushroomed in the last several years, so too, have non-credit English and Math classes. As a result, there’s a huge number of students who will take four years just to finish the non-credit work and begin work on the credits that’ll take them towards graduation.
2. The huge majority of Gallaudet students already come from mainstream program backgrounds. You’ll find a dearth of cochlear implant users among protesters, students, faculty, alumni, and staff. Sure, we could be doing more in our recruitment efforts, but the real challenge is getting our educational curriculum competitive enough and our technological resources updated enough to recruit students of all backgrounds. The culturally deaf status of students isn’t the issue, as Dr. Fernandes would have you think, nor is her pandering to a specific group of prospective students the answer.
3. I’ve thought about this as well. But concern for Dr. Fernandes’ future employment cannot and should not be a factor in whether she gets the job. You’re right, it does provide insight into why she isn’t resigning. She’s got nowhere else to go, it seems.
An alternative resolution? Please do posit one. Some people are calling for an outside mediator. I’d love to see that happen. Whether we can find a neutral mediator who is cognizant of the history of deaf culture and the community is a different challenge in and of itself. But whatever the outcome, it’s hard for me to envision moving on with Dr. Fernandes as president when her selection and her past actions have fractured and violated trust within the community to such a huge degree.
Allison — best post ever. I vote this one “Best of DeafDC ever.” You really summed things up and nailed it right on the head. Thanks. I’m referring everyone to your article, deaf or hearing. Some have replied that they finally understand what’s happening, and moreover, feel compelled to express how they feel.
I’m with Bobby. This is the first time I’ve gathered a complete understanding of what is going on. and it was summed up perfectly, especially the last quote. It’s always interesting because whenever I talk with my co workers, roommates, they all can’t even comprehend what is going on because there are too many sides to this. So Thank you for writing this blog. It is the best of DeafDC.
I am with Bobby and Erin. Beautifully said! There are a few people here in Kansas who don’t get the protest. I am goin to share your summary with them and see if they will get it!
Thanks!
Society is evolving and the deaf community is evolving with them and this protest is the work of the resistance to technological advancements in deaf integration into the hearing society.
Rich your techno-babble is uncalled for. You hold unfounded and idealistic views about the advance of technology. None of your overblown expectations about technical breakthrough will come true. You are a machine worshipper mind from the 19th century. Your time is over. The 21th century will advance the right of linguistics minorities, including Deaf culture. So please, stop your nonsense about your take of evolution, okay?
As a Deaf person and a Gallaudet alumna, I have been sharing and discussing information about the protest with my friends, both Deaf and Hearing. One of my friends sent me the following email in response to reading Allison’s excellent article, I would like to share it. Please keep in mind that this is an older man who is hearing, and has no background in the Deaf Community nor has ever set foot on the campus. Nevertheless, I think his comments provide some interesting food for thought:
“I am not sure of what is happening at Gallaudet, though the article is quite well written. As you may be aware, I grew up in a time of Cusp, when the social norm changed from that of total acceptance of authority to that of civil and student protest. I do know that there have been some gains from the civil protest of the sixties, but I can also see where we have lost quite a bit along the way. Whether that is due to the nature of the happenings, or just Kismet, I am in no position to judge. I do know that patience and perseverance has worked for many in the past decades, and has worked in my own personal and professional life. Many of those I have had difficulties with are no longer around, due to the fact I have done like Lazarus Long and just outlived them. Sometimes, that can be all that we can expect, is to live THROUGH situations, and then move along our own personal path. I hope there is a speedy and positive solution for all concerned.”
Well said, my friend.
I see the vigorous discussion and comments here as an integral part of the process of defining the malaise and ultimately seeking for a logical solution. These examinations are of our collective Gallaudet aspirations, the support or sabotage of those aspirations and the resources and/or price that we are willing to devote to such aspirations.
Does JKF have a team? Building a team is a process! And in assessing the process you must examine the performance of the team in its various units. In examining the various units, it appears the results are not what should be! After 6-years, the team should have been in better shape. So the question is, was there was no movement in resolving the critical problems of the team?
Allison, just wanted to say a job well done. :)
I have to agree Allison is very good at what she does and most importantly I learned something.
Tracked over from Express… I’ve been half-following the protest since I moved to DC this past year and up until today I just didn’t “get it” as to what the hubbub was all about. Thank you for such a clear, concise, well-written post that states the matter much more clearly than what I’m reading elsewhere. It is very much appreciated and now I have a much better understanding (and compassion) for the student body at Gallaudet. Thank you.
BTW, my favorite commuter paper has dropped a few notches: there’s a poll over at readexpress.com on whether Gallaudet students should stop protesting. Says this blog calls the crisis one of identity politics. Darn, I was pretty sure I said it wasn’t.