By Ben Moore
To outsiders, if Deaf President Now (DPN) was like a 1950s Disney movie with clear-cut heroes and bad guys, the current protest at Gallaudet University must be unfolding like the flick that won numerous Oscars in 2006 — Crash.
When President-designate Jane K. Fernandes claimed that we’re protesting her appointment just because she didn’t sign while growing up, she effectively pressed the red button and nuked the credibility and reputation of the very constituents she was selected to lead.
She conveniently left out that the mostly hearing faculty have repeatedly expressed no confidence in her in the past and a majority of the current student body graduated from mainstream high schools. I don’t think many outsiders realize how diverse we are now.
However, I’m disappointed to say that there are indeed some people fixated on Dr. Fernandes’ background and signing skills. I have to agree with her when she said there’s more than one way to be deaf. After all, nobody gets to choose their upbringing.
Besides I don’t see any evidence that Dr. Fernandes is “anti-ASL”. When she agreed to implement the Audism Mandates and failed to, and then claimed to have several meetings with the committee who established those mandates when she didn’t, she’s guilty of being dishonest, not of being an audist.
Does that make the movement a fiasco? The scenario is akin to a completely inept leader who happens to be a (insert a minority)—would bigots making inflammatory remarks about his ethnicity discredit reasonable people’s call for his resignation? Not necessarily.
Besides, if it was all about ASL, how can one explain that the current favorite among students is Dr. Glenn Anderson who didn’t grow up in the deaf world. And the fact we had embraced Dr. I. King Jordan until recently?
A vast majority of us are fighting for a change and a leader with fresh ideas to take Gallaudet to the next level, because the status quo obviously isn’t working.
Dr. Jordan said he, for practical purposes, had handed Dr. Fernandes the reins for the past six years while he focused on fundraising and networking. Since all the indications are that she would be a hands-on chancellor, we could look at those years as an audition for presidency. Records of her leadership on campus go back to 1995. A lot of folks here know her pretty well.
She has exhibited a demoralizing leadership style. Everywhere she went, she had left a trail of deteriorating climate and alienated subordinates—both deaf and hearing—with a possible exception of a small school in Hawaii.
However, a priest who knew her from her Hawaiian days said in a letter:
….I was not in favor of Dr. Fernandes’ aspiration for the Office of the President because I have come to know her personally when I lived in Honolulu in the late 1980s.
I notice almost an overwhelming correlation: the less people experienced her leadership, the more sympathetic and supportive they are towards her.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think she is evil—she might simply have blind spots and just isn’t receptive enough to correct them. Had she stuck to being an academician, she might’ve been appreciated today. Instead she has gone on a path where her inability to relate to people has been exposed.
As recent as last spring, I wasn’t sure what to make of her. I had heard things about her. For instance, last year 12 students embarrassed the Gallaudet community by wreaking havoc during the night of Homecoming Ball in a hotel. During a town hall style meeting she ran which discussed that night among other things, students came in angry at those 12 young hooligans. They came out angry at only one person: Jane. That’s a special kind of bad leadership.
Nevertheless, when campus-wide disgust with her had reached a fever pitch even way before she was announced as one of the final three candidates, I was personally skeptical. After all, sometimes young people can be hotheaded and rash. I did wonder perhaps it was only because she was put into tough situations.
Back then, I was lucky to be taking courses under four great professors. I look up to all of them as people. They exude wisdom and are not petty. I may also mention they were all hearing. It’s unfortunate that to some people’s eyes, their credibility would be shot if they were deaf.
I asked them about Dr. Fernandes. None of them found her acceptable. One thing they all mentioned was that she rarely listened to anyone. She had almost no regard for anyone’s opinion if they didn’t agree with hers. I found that to be a serious allegation for somebody who could be our next president. More input you receive, better decisions you will make.
As time went on, I learned more things.
Condescending is one of the most oft used words to describe her. You can’t respect people and be mistaken as condescending. Can somebody who holds the people below her in contempt or low regard be an effective leader?
Understandably, skeptics are clamoring for “hard evidence.” They want numbers. They want something in black and white. However, the most powerful arguments are based on the disturbing patterns that emerge from interactions between her and the faculty, staff and students. We can’t put them on paper. We can’t follow her around with a video camera 24/7.
And even when we present numbers, such as a failing score given by the government’s PART report, the enrollment at KDES/MSSD that sharply fell while she was in charge only to rise after she left, dismal graduation rates that didn’t improve at all, employment rates after graduation falling from 81% to 69% at the end of her tenure, and declining admissions standards as evident by skyrocketing percentage of freshmen taking remedial English courses, they say, “It wasn’t her fault.”
Excuse me, isn’t a leader accountable for results? Indeed, I have never heard of her taking responsibility for anything. When she made decisions with bad outcomes, she would blame it on something else. It was always something or somebody else, never her. She would have earned some of my respect if she, just for once, owned up to something. How can someone so evasive be president of the only deaf university in the world?
She says one thing but does the other thing so often, her words don’t mean anything to me anymore. For instance, she talks incessantly about how much she practices “shared governance,” while reports from those who worked with her indicate exactly 180-degree opposite. More recently, she claimed in the Washington Post that she had negotiated with students until 3 a.m. one night—when none of us saw her at all for almost two weeks until she showed up to accuse us of closing KDES and MSSD, when it was the administration who ordered those schools to be closed.
The faculty and staff at Clerc Center had come together to write a fairly detailed letter of her conduct. They didn’t want to risk their livelihood by signing it, but one of the Deafdc.com Bloggers who works at Clerc Center vouches for it.
Her lack of empathy is also quite legendary. Here’s an example, a widely circulated email written by Kitty Fischer, former MSSD librarian:
Back in 1999 when Jane Fernandes took over Pre-College Programs I was given a “pink slip” from her. At that time I had 29 years, 11 months, and three weeks of federal service and I needed just one more week of service to make it 30 years. With 30 years I would be eligible for retirement with immediate annuity. Without 30 years I would not qualify for annuity until I reach the age of 62. I went to see Jane Fernandes and I asked if I could work one more week. Her response was that the last day of my employment as stated on the letter remains the same. She will not give me an additional week that I desperately needed. She was very rude….
Perhaps if she had a trace of empathy, she would have known what not to say during those tense times. Instead, every time she speaks to the media, her arrogant, self-serving statements only fueled the protesters’ resolve and widened the rift between her and them, while nudging previously neutral faculty members and students to their side. Little wonder the percentage of the faculty who voted to oppose her grew from 68% last spring to 82% last Monday.
Apparently she finds wisdom in the idea of winning the media war in expense of her relationship with us. Her image is more important than those of thousands of people she represents.
If I were chosen to be a leader of a large group of people who didn’t want me and I was stubborn enough not to resign, I’d have at least taken the high road and avoid portraying them as a bunch of yahoos to the mass media, especially if they were a minority group.
Obviously I can’t give a laundry list here of every incident that is indicative of a disturbing leadership style. Those you’ve just read about are pretty consistent to what many people who worked with her told me. If they weren’t, I wouldn’t be protesting.
How can a “quiet leader” who likes to “lead from behind”, as she described herself, create so much fear and intimidation? Was it all just a figment of a bunch of seemingly sane people’s imagination? A mass hysteria? It’s certainly interesting to see how eagerly some people take one person’s words over those of scores of people who actually dealt with her.
And do oralists honestly want somebody like her representing them?
As there is no such as a perfect person, it isn’t possible for somebody to be completely flawed either. She had her moments. I do once in a while hear good things about her. But overall, her liabilities as a leader outweigh whatever she has to offer.
What makes her more qualified than anyone “on earth” anyway? Why did the Board of Trustees choose her? During a public meeting last May, Tom Humphries, one of the Trustees and representing the Board, after being confronted about her history, said they didn’t look at her job performance but simply her “qualifications.” They disregarded job performance, not to mention character, and simply looked at positions and degrees?
As Alison Kaftan put it in her Blog “Worlds Apart: Divergences in Perspectives on the Protest“:
“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.”
This is also where African American students smell racism. LaToya Plummer said in a Vlog:
If they simply looked at resumes, as Tom Humphries said, why was Mr. Ron Stern among the final three candidates instead of Dr. Glenn Anderson?
Another problem is that the Board of Trustees, as well as Dr. Jordan who had heavily endorsed her, have no idea what it’s like to work under her. Jim Macfadden, founder of Macfadden & Associates, recently wrote to Irving:
As a President, you never see people as they really are. People are always on their best behavior in your presence. This is a lesson that every President learns. You must rely on the reports of others to obtain the truth, not from your own observations. That is an ugly truth.
Simply being a provost gave her a huge advantage over the other candidates. How did she become one in the first place? Dr. Jordan, without a search process, promoted her to that hallowed position when she was the vice president of the Clerc Center where she didn’t exactly distinguish herself. Furthermore, she had never taught a single bona fide university level class, yet she somehow leapfrogged over many great members of the faculty and deans.
What’s overlooked by outsiders is the fact that it’s very hard to start a protest here. As any student or alumnus will attest, many things have happened since 1988 that were worth confronting, resulting only in a few mini-protests that quickly fizzled away. The student body is diverse…and very fragmented. The fact that all those cliques from various backgrounds—deaf schools, mainstream schools and oral schools—managed to come together to stage the longest student protest in American history speaks volumes.
It’s truly inconvenient that in the last two presidential selections, the Board of Trustees didn’t examine issues thoroughly and picked by far the most polarizing candidate, putting the community in difficult positions. This year, out of the 21 candidates, they happened to pick the only person we’d absolutely refuse to give a chance.
Over time most white students have come to accept that Dr. Anderson is probably the strongest candidate. And Mr. Stern, as brilliant and visionary he is, shouldn’t been in the final three, at least not this year.
(Although Stern doesn’t have a Ph.D. right now, he may have been the only candidate, at least out of the final three, who really seemed to have a plan to bring up the caliber of Gallaudet’s student body to a respectable level.)
More and more deaf female students are getting Ph.D.s, so we should see a stronger pool of female candidates the next time around. With Dr. Jordan gone, maybe Dr. Rosyln Rosen would even get an interview.
One unspoken igniter of the protest is Dr. Jordan being president for so long. Most university presidents serve about four to seven years, just long enough to realize their vision, before giving way to their successor. This encourages continuing infusion of fresh ideas and outlooks.
King has been president for almost 20 years. Jane is young. It’s conceivable that she would stick around for that long. So we are fighting not for the present, but for possibly the next 20 years and beyond since a president has an impact that lasts beyond their tenure.
“But it isn’t how it’s done. Everyone’s supposed to shut up and accept the Board of Trustees’ decision, no matter what. That’s always how it’s been done.” Well, if everyone always did it the way it was done, there’d be no such thing as progress. Presidents of local universities’ student governments have visited us to vigorously support us, saying we just may set a nationwide precedence for more student rights.
Everywhere Jane went, morale plunged and people felt stifled. And she’s our next president? We demand somebody better. As Thoreau said:
to practice civil disobedience in the presence of injustice is our duty as human beings.
And, as you can now see, all hell breaks loose when you look at candidates as a list of credentials and not living, breathing human beings.
© 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.
Excellent article, Ben! I read it with great interest and will probably reread it several more times.
Now, my only concern is– we simply do not know the administration’s perspective surrounding the timing of Kitty Fischer’s dismissal. We are taking only Kitty Fischer’s word for what happened- and although she is likely credible, I frankly cannot (and refuse to) pass judgement until I hear *both* sides of the story. That’s an important part of critical thinking, and it pains me to see numerous blogs universally citing this as THE example of JKF’s past misgivings. The administration, in this case, should be innocent until proven guilty- and there is no smoking gun in Kitty Fischer’s testimony.
Absolutely gorgeous effort. I especially liked how you acknowledged the intangibility of the reasons for opposing Dr. Fernandes, but then shored that up by examining skeptics’ demand for hard evidence, of which there is indeed some. I also liked how you picked apart the fallacy of only looking at qualifications during the selection process. I could go on and on about the strengths of this piece, but I won’t. And I, like JT, have to read it again and again.
One thing that’s evident is that there’s a plethora of issues all balled up and thrown from side to side, and you — and we — have only just started to pick that ball apart. Thanks for writing this. Again, great job (oh, and the analogy to Crash! is a good one).
I was AGAINST the protest and the whole thing until I read this blog…shes a bitch..hope she resigns
A great blog, Ben. Very well put…
See you tomorrow!
Stories repeated ad nauseam about how evil Fernandes are little more than rumors and we all know how deafies just love to pass rumors as fact. In fact, I think the whole hysterical protest is being spurred on by malicious rumors spread hither and yon by folks like Draco Malfoy.
Not to disparage any actual concrete arguments you might have to back up your comment, but how is your comment any different than the rumors you say we all know we love to pass as fact, and how do we take your comment seriously?
While I have no concrete knowledge of the situation with Fernandes, not having experienced her myself, I am going by the “stories” that I see on this and other blogs.
For example, Fernandes is alleged to have refused a person’s request to have extra time — a few days or weeks — after being laid off to qualify for retirement benefits. Let’s think about this situation. There has been no independent confirmation from this person at all. Now, the story is making its rounds as an example of Fernandes being an evil person. Let’s do a little thought experiment, shall we? Can you imagine what a hearing boss might have said to that request? I think that the hypothetical hearing boss would probably (very likely, I think) have done as Fernandes did. Somewhere, there seems to be an automatic assumption that Gallaudet exists as a family and that all deaf employees should receive consideration that they would not otherwise outside the campus. Now, this story doesn’t give Fernandes’ perspective as Provost and as a manager. I can very easily see that she would be required to lay people off, which, of course, would make her unpopular. Correct me on this, but wasn’t Gallaudet running in the red a few years back? Layoffs tend to be done in those instances, as unpopular as they are. That’s what managers with balls do, and there seems to be an assumption that downsizing, reforms, or any kind of change should not be done because “it’s just not the way it’s done” or because it goes against the ASL deafies.
As I’ve said, there’s generally two (or even three) sides to a story and right now, all we’re hearing is one side and that’s the full-throated screams of a groupthink protest.
Allison, yet another one of your excellent questions!
Move On, excellent response. Unfortunately, under these circumstances, the administration just CANNOT give their perspective on many events (such as Kitty Fischer’s dismissal, as such decisions are understandably highly confidential in nature- Gallaudet would be breaking the law if they did divulge the details).
One thing I have never been able to forget is Celia Baldwin’s plea (on stage last May): “You do not know why we had to eliminate the other candidates.” Ethical and legal reasons obviously hold the BOT from releasing this kind of information.
So, that’s another example of how we cannot pass fair judgement on the BOT’s selection of JKF; we just don’t (and never will) know their full rationale.
You brought up an excellent point about the BoT’s perspective. We do not know why the other candidates were not selected. The selection could have suffered because of, say, allegations of sexual harassment on the part of one candidate, or academic malfeasance on the part of another. These things will never be revealed and are, usually, in these cases, under iron-clad non-disclosure agreements.
I was also thinking about the entire thing from the BoT’s perspective. From that, they cannot give in to the student and faculty protests because there are legitimate fears that doing so would start years of anarchy and instability. Hey, what’s going to prevent the next student from protesting the cafeteria food? Also, protests like these make it hard to attract qualified teachers because, well, no one wants to teach at an institution where they conceivably would not be welcome due to charges of “audism.” Also, giving the BoT the benefit of the doubt, I think that they are aware that the current state of affairs cannot continue, i.e., the frustrating graduation rates and the difficulties of maintaining a college level education in the face of a student body that needs remedial education. So they’re groping about for a vision and Fernandes appears to be offering them one, unlike some other people.
Excellent response to JT. I think as we look back on this protest in the future, we’ll find many examples of what you’re talking about here. But I’m not entirely convinced that there is no substance whatsoever to this protest. Ben’s blog is in part a critique of skeptics. Perhaps that’s why your comment and the subsequent discussion are so relevant.
I am positive there is some substance to the protestors’ grievances (their tactics may be a different story altogether); you surely cannot deny the voices of so many, especially if they are as eloquently articulated as this piece by Ben.
It’s just that I wouldn’t necessarily define the desire to hear both sides of the story before deciding as “being skeptic”. I think that caution and skepticism are two different things; what do you think? Yes, repeated patterns should definitely be a red flag– but we still do not have all the perspectives needed.
Now, I’ve been vicitimized by the cafeterias at Gallaudet; I definitely would start a protest right there!
I still have nightmares of the cafteria foods at Gallaudet and I was last there in ‘90!
I would like to give Ben a huge round of applause for a wonderful letter, but…
If the BOT is convinced by people like Ben, and reverse their actions –
Guess what the rest of the protesters will do? Take ALL of the credits for their own ill-gotten gains. I strongly believe that is the reason why JKF have not resigned at this point.
I am someone who opposes this protest, mostly because the energy around it is so negative. Hatred and victimizing just don’t cut it for me.
That said, there are serious and important issues that have been raised that must be addressed. These will not be addressed by a simple change of leadership but by a commitment by the entire Gallaudet community, and maybe the entire deaf community. Until that happens, there will be more of the same.
My brother got laid off from his job four day later after our beloved mother died unexpectedly of a heart attack. Eventually he got a job with a different company. Businesses are no longer afraid of holiday layoffs. Each of us has to go through difficult time.
You know what infuriates me regarding the Kitty Fischer story? One of her friends told me that Kitty then went to someone in the personnel office and she got her one week somehow. So she was NOT deprived of her 30 years.(Besides, I believe she was staff and if she had any annual leave or sick leave, that could have been added on to her length of service.)
JKF refused to give her one week. the fact that kitty had to go to somebody else is beside the point, don’t u agree?
If JKF wielded all the power that people are saying she had, I don’t think the personnel office would have gone against her for fear of losing their heads. I think too much has conveniently been left out of the story.
Good point there, Newbie.
I also want to add that in response to the increasing annoyance on various blogs, including this one, regarding my and others’ requests for evidence:
You seem to forget that one of fundamental aspect of the American legal system is ‘Innocent until proven guilty.’
Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the protestors to show why JKF is unfit to lead Gallaudet. And that proof must be able to sustain scrunity.
~ Deaf Pundit
Correct. Instead of protesting and shutting down Gallaudet, the students and faculty should be putting together documentation regarding Fernandes’ ability (or inability) to lead Gallaudet instead of flinging about ad hominem attacks like an ape flinging **** at his opponents and passing around nasty and unproven rumors. As others have said, document everything. And hand over the evidence to the Board of Trustees. This should have been done months ago instead of an ex post facto event.
Deaf Pundit,
I’ll take your American legal system analogy. When somebody takes the witness stand and relates what he/she saw, is it regarded as just hearsay?
When somebody is tried for a crime, if 15 witnesses from different walks of life indicate that the accused is guilty and only 1, guilty, the jury WILL factor in that 15 to 1 ratio .
Anyway, disregard Kitty’s story if you wish. At least take the other matters into consideration. Such as JKF’s public statements. During a recent meeting with the faculty, she insisted that she was the only person who could lead Gallaudet. The incident is believable since she has said the same thing to the media before.
A supremely confident person’d say, “I’m the best person to lead Gallaudet.” But the ONLY one? That’s being delusional. And insulting to every other talented deaf leader. How could you support somebody like that?
I didn’t enjoy writing this blog. But examination of a potential leader’s character is necessary, as long as one doesn’t resort to irrelevant info.
2nd paragraph: obviously I meant to say vs. one whose account indicate that the accused is innocent.
Simply insisting that you are the only person qualified to lead the university doesn’t disqualify you (or Fernandes for that matter). It is often a matter of opinion. The current occupant in the White House has successfully insisted in 2000 and 2004 that he is the only person qualified to run the country.
Simple statements like that are not automatic disqualifiers. It’s the nature of the beast to puff yourself in front of your audience.
Ah ha. So now it’s disregard the Kitty Fischer story because the flaws were pointed out? How many other stories can be discounted as well?
I have said it else where - so many of the stories are so old. Kitty Fischer retired what - 7 years ago? JKF was involved with MSSD how many years ago - 10+? So many stories are ’sour grapes’ because someone did not get what he or she wanted. Because something was reorganized or changed - and change is apparently bad????? It is so easy to sit here today and say - you know - that reorganization at MSSD was a bad idea, a bad move. It may have been - but who would have known that when it was actually implemented? I do not for one minute believe that any action taken - be it a reorganization, lay off, denial of tenure , new requirements - was done with the intent to harm Gallaudet in any shape or form.
I’m not an attorney, so I can’t answer all of the aspects of your question Ben, but I can say when you’re testifying on the stand, you have to be extremely careful what you say, since the defendant or prosecutor/plantiff can argue that certain components of your testimony is hearsay. It’s extremely technical, and I don’t understand all of it, since I never went to law school. An attorney would be better suited to answer this question than me.
But I do know that it’s always best to have witness testimony be corroborated with physical evidence.
If it’s just testimony, then the case is circumstantial, and any prosecutor will tell you that they HATE to proscute a case that’s purely circumstantial, because it will be very likely that they’ll lose the case.
In this situation, dated e-mails, dated internal memos, policy handbooks, certified mail documentation of conversations that took place, and even *unedited* videotapes, is what us ’skeptics’ would consider to be hard evidence.
~ Deaf Pundit
I never said Kitty’s story was flawed. It was obvious that you refuse to accept any account from witnesses (the criminal court analogy), so I suggested you to consider the other points I brought up.
It isn’t just MSSD. Look at the university faculty who, unlike the BoT, had actually dealt with her. Do you know her better than they do?
It seems that you’re hellbent on supporting JKF. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Good day :)
I forgot to add the reason why the anonymous letters were met with such derision, and basically labeled as hearsay is because again, it goes against one of the principles of our country - the Sixth Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; *to be confronted with the witnesses against him*; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Wikipedia explains extremely well on the 6th amendment part on regarding confrontation better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....nstitution
~ Deaf Pundit
Also Wikipedia explains the concept of Hearsay in the American Legal System well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....States_law
Ben M -
As far as I know, JKF hasn’t been charged with any crimes. So criminal law stuff doesn’t apply. I don’t see any reason for any kind of civil action either. You’d have to sue Gallaudet, not Jane, if it was work related. It is the employer that is responsible for the actions of its employees and which ends up footing the bill.
Yeah, all of my professors lied to me. 90% of everyone who worked with her are liars.
So you’re taking uncritically the word of your professors? Interesting.
I am thinking this.. if there are no “good cadidates in the pool why not spread the word and ask for more applications? Why did the BOT just pick somebody who purposedly distances herself from the community in the light that no one else seemed to qualify, esp since they said they HAD to eliminate the others? The rationale just seems on the far side of quirky.
Because it seems that there aren’t enough qualified deaf individuals out there. The current protests aren’t going to help, either. If Fernandes goes because of this protest, lot of good candidates will be gun shy about taking the position because, well, you just never know what you might do to piss off the students and faculty. It’s like treading eggshells with loud children these days. :sigh:
“Laughing”,
Good point. Like I said, it’s really difficult to start a protest at Gally, but I understand that it doesn’t look that way because the last 2 selections were protested. I know that’ll make prospective candidates uneasy. Nervous candidates vs. possibly 20 years of JKF? *weighing*.. Everyone can draw their own conclusion on this ha.
I must say there ARE good candidates out there. They either didn’t apply or got eliminated for unknown reasons (i.e. Dr. Anderson). 20 alums recently had a convo with Dick Kinney, a Trustee. Although he was against the protest, he did say he thought there were better candidates out there than JKF, but she was simply the best out of the 3. The BoT didn’t have much room to maneuver.
So exactly what happened within the President Search Committee which chose those finalists? That’s the biggest question.
deaf pundit… you’re silly! if you didn’t go to law school dont say any more!
I doubt Draco has much substance as some critics.
Perceptive, clear-headed and sensitive, you rock! This analysis should be included in every submission to Congress and to the BOT. FSSA can use this to refer to in structuring their position papers. And more.
Keep it coming!
DPG
Echoing others, great piece. And, yes, I’ll be re-reading this numerous times.
Excellent writeup. With JKF, many of the issues and criticisms are nebulous and hard to peg as fact. She’s got the resume and is deaf, but how do you pin bad leadership on her? How do you prove things being said about her. I think one of the problems with the BOT selections is they couldn’t or wouldn’t observe her in action for a sustained period of time. A person can give a great interview, do a great presentation, and get the job and still do horrible. I’m not at all confident that she will be able to lead here at Gally. She’s gonna have a tough time getting things done, beacuse I don’t think the opposition to her is gonna go away until she is no longer on the radar. I think she’s damaged goods and would be wise for her to resign. There’s a fine line between courage and craziness, and she’s certainly toeing the line right now.
this is why all the faculty testimony - now from Gallaudet, MSSD/Kendall AND Hawaii - is so important. A majority of faculty at all locations have concerns about her. This is not coming out of left field.
beautifully written, as usual. :)
last Friday Oct 13th, we were arrested and processed in a old school building. while being held in a large classroom, we watched CRASH with subtitles :)
LOL! Ben, did you know about it before you wrote this long but interesting blog? I am just curious.
Ben,
Your piece deserves the widest circulation possible.
Successful and confident leaders wouldn’t resort to excuses or lies.
I have to disagree on the length of presidency to be something to look at. Dr. Simone did many remarkable things for RIT and Rochester for 15 years. He kept bring in fresh ideas. RIT is fortunate to have a bright man being around for a long time.
That’s true. Although we can look at terms as a way of ensuring consistent change, it is possible for a longtime president to be effective at bringing in new ideas and people. What about renewable terms? Or a way for periodical checkups? I would imagine there would already be some in place, though — I don’t know.
Your point’s well taken. I googled and saw a few examples. Thank you for educating me.
Well gathered information, I am going to link your article to my friends without any reservation..
Good blog, Ben, even though I don’t agree with all of the points you’ve written. :)
As for the ‘hard evidence’ part, people need to understand that to prove JKF’s a bad leader, you need to put your grievances in writing. Verbal conversations do not cut it, because then independent confirmation isn’t possible.
What that MSSD librarian should’ve done was after having that conversation, walk out, and write a letter to JKF confirming that conversation. Then send that letter through certified mail to JKF, and keep a copy of that letter for herself.
That IS hard evidence. Memos are hard evidence. Even printed out e-mails can be hard evidence. But all I’m hearing is that people are too afraid to do that. If you’re so afraid, then why the heck did you say something in the first place?
I also have to wonder if anyone has investigated the OMB’s reports on Gallaudet PRIOR to JKF’s becoming Provost of Gallaudet. Does anyone know if they’re accessible to us?
~ Deaf Pundit
As far as I know the grievances are screened via IJK’s office.
If people did file grievances, they should have a copy of their own grievances. Also I *think*, not completely sure, but I think that those individuals can FOIA information relating to their grievances, and see what IKJ did in regards to them. That’s evidence right there, if IKJ ignored people’s complaints.
(FOIA means Freedom of Information Act requests, by the way)
~ Deaf Pundit
I enjoyed reading your article. Well written and it is so easy for me to believe that whatever happened were true without any ‘hard’ evidence…Especially with the board how that they signd to an agreement not to divulge what happened during the meeting. But you know how they always tell you to follow your instinct- and when I do, it never was a good feeling regarding Jane’s appointment as a President-designate. I can’t and don’t think I will ever understand Jane- what she has been doing to herself and to the University. That is where I come in. Trying to understand why she is so determined and persistent. What is it that she doesn’t see or something that we don’t know about… I just hope for the things to end well!
Well-written. The point about always putting grievances in writing is a good one. Too many of us often do not record serious issues because we may be too emotional to want to keep such evidence around. I can certainly think of some instances where I SHOULD have kept hate e-mails as proof.
Very often people delibrately use extremely vicious attacks with the goal that the victim will be too shocked to even think about saving the proof.
Also, back up on a copy, preferably on both print and floppy. Computers and e-mail accounts can be tampered with. If by this advice somebody busts a bully, I’m overjoyed no end.
And Deaf Pundit apparently has never been the victim of ultimate female bullying. Good for him.
First, I’m a female. Secondly, yes I have, been the victim of harassment - from school administrators, teachers and interpreters. That is how my mother began her career in advocacy.
My mother documented every single incident of harassment the school system perputated against me, and in the end, the documentation was so overwhelming, the federal courts ordered the school system to settle with us or else basically the federal courts would rule against them.
I’ve been there. Being afraid isn’t an excuse. Don’t tell me it’s hard to stand up. I did when I was tweleve. And I continued to do stand up and document it all until I graduated high school, and I’ve seen my mother go on and do it for countless Deaf Michigan students and their parents.
~ Deaf Pundit
Sigh–after reading most of the blog articles on here after several nights, I am beginning to wonder why Fernandes simply won’t step aside.
I can’t help but wonder if its POWER and the OBSCENE amount of compensation (I hear its well over $600K annually plus the free housing plus the other yadda yadda benefits [faculty and staff get paid peanuts all the while!!!]) she stands to get –and probably wants –once she ascends (sarcastically said here) the throne of Presidency.
I think that is probably why she’s desperately trying to assuade the board of trustees in standing so steadfastly at her side and not fall apart.
Hmmmmmm…food for thought here!
It could simply be that she may not want to back down because of the challenge posed to her by the protesters. Some people don’t like showing weakness like that. Instead, they don’t back down from challenges and instead meet them head on. Perhaps that’s why the BoT selected her — she’s a fireplug that’ll fight certain entrenched interests at Gallaudet. She’s certainly doing that and more.
You know, I was just thinking why Congress allows such a HIGH compensation level for an university President with a student body of 2,000 people??
Look at a state university such as George Mason University–they have 30,000 students who attend there and the president of GMU doesn’t even garnish that much of a salary!!!!
Something is WRONG here!!!
Probably because they dont get much funding from other source and Gally have to relied heavily on federal funding to support deaf school.. there is more staff at GMU than at Gally… and its not true that GMU president dont get paid much, they do…. but GMU get funding from federal, state, and private organziation… many organization contribute and donations from benefactor… But gally university president also runs MSSD and Kendall too which is included in their salary, if Im correct….
Here is the salary information for Dr. Merten, President of GMU, and this is definitely public information since its a state university.
MERTEN,ALAN President (President, 1.000) PRESIDENT’S ACTIVITIES $349,479.00
Weblink to find this info is at: http://www.roblink.com/salary_all1_406.txt
Now, Merten has a LOT more faculty and staff to deal with than Dr. King does.
I imagine that Gallaudet is a public university, correct? IF so, then why does the Fed Gov’t need to fund Gallaudet??? Shouldn’t everything be transparent at Gallaudet if its funded by Congress?
NO. Because the college is private. Most college in dc are private. Other colleges do get their funding from government and elsewhere that support the academic department of a major, ie. research in stem cell. GMU is in virginia and it became public over the years. Deaf probably have more needs like getting SSDI from the government. Since Gally’s student protest made a laughingstock of the deaf commnity, who wants to fund Gally???? Got any bright deaf alumni who makes over a billion of dollars per year? Now Im thinking its a place for the mental ill. who wants to fund Gally, a college with no breakthru..
Jane has gone through flack from the old deaf guards and so have I. I survived them and so can Jane.
Pulling Jane off will be like pulling the plug off the deaf world thats as fragile as a giant balloon.
what about the hearing “guards” that are giving her flack?
Excellent article, Ben. (Now I need to rent ‘Crash’!)
Hey Ben -this is probably the best article on the protest I’ve read since the beginning of the events. You can credit yourself with having managed to pull me a little more towards the protesters’ side… I now believe that many of the points raised by the protesters are indeed valid. If only they had you as their spokesperson, it’d lend the protest more credibility. You’re rational, present logic explanations without all the hate messages that have been going around for so long. Congratulations.
Rational, logical explanations without hate? Much of what was posted here is ‘hearsay’ designed to hurt JKF and not credible at all since it cannot be independently confirmed.