The one-year anniversary of the United For Gallaudet movement’s end has come and passed last Monday, Oct. 29. I felt it was a good time to talk with somebody so deeply involved with it. I interviewed Ryan Commerson, one of the 4 FSSA (the coalition that organized the protest) spokespersons, and discussed his outlook on the past, the present and the future.

Before we go on, could you tell us a bit about your background, so people could have a better feel of where you’re coming from? What are your interests and hobbies?

I grew up mainstreamed and come from a hearing family. However, at 4 months old, my mother gave me access to ASL. I went to MSSD and graduated there. I attended Arizona State University before transferring to Gallaudet in 1998. I’m currently in graduate school. My interests and hobbies range from rock climbing, mountain biking, and triathlons to gourmet dining and traveling.

What were things about last year’s protest that you’re proud of, other than attaining its objective? And was there anything that you regret, whether it be your own words and actions or those of the fellow dissenters?

Now that it’s one year anniversary of JKF’s termination, I’ve been reflective on the long cold and rainy month. I can say that I’m proud of the individuals’ determination to stick it out till the end which is something we don’t see everyday. All too often, we see someone giving up or giving in too easily without a thought of consequences that will follow.

Regrets? Yeah…on Oct. 29th when the Board of Trustees finally made the move to terminate Dr. Jane Fernandes, my very first thought was a bittersweet one, “At what cost?” I had a hard time celebrating that night because so much sacrifice were made at the expense of the university. Some people lost their loved ones as a result of break ups, some lost their best friends, some lost their study time, some had to withdraw from the university because of the post-protest trauma…protesting for a cause was anything but fun. I could list things that I regretted happened but at the same time everything happens for a reason which makes it impossible to predict and make the right decisions should another protest occur at another place. Every decision and resulting action are so intertwined to the point where you cannot quite pinpoint where some of the things went wrong.

It’s not like baking a cake where you can determine which ingredient to add into the mix or not…not as clear cut because you have a human factor to consider.

You’ve mentioned to me before that the media often misquoted or quoted out of context you and fellow protesters. What are some examples?

I cannot remember the specifics but I do remember the reporters being persistent on the issue of cochlear implant when the protest had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was irritating when the reporters would lead us into a trap so we had to be mindful of how to respond without seeming defensive. As you all know, a handful of the protesters were cochlear implant users.

Why did the protesters and you burn an effigy of Dr. Fernandes to celebrate her termination, knowing how damaging that was to the movement’s—and maybe even the university’s—image?

Well…I think it’s simple. The folks during the Deaf President Now movement in 1988 did it, so its only natural that the students would emulate and repeat the so-called tradition. During a protest, people usually do what others have done in the past…if it worked in 1988, why not do it again? This logic has caused us some backlashes during the 2006 protest. Even I am guilty of it—when you get caught up in the pandemonium, it’s challenging to keep a clear head.

Anything remarkable that happened during the protest you would like to share with us?

We had an opportunity to meet with student leaders (student body government) from other universities such as University of DC, University of Maryland, Howard University…they’d return with tarps, firewood, etc…stuff to keep the protesters warm and dry during the rainy nights. I’d like to commend the “Mt. Bison” group for their fierce loyalty on their watch of the Brentwood gate [near MSSD] during the whole month. The guys there have never left their post while everyone else congregated to the front gate for some food and social. I think they’re the most remarkable group of the whole protest, along with the hunger strikers. The level of commitment and determination to the cause was amazing.

Has the protest achieved its goals? Is the state of Gallaudet University where the protesters envisioned it would be in one year? Where does it meet FSSA’s vision and where does it fall short of expectations?

Well…we had a goal and that was to restart the President Search process…during the protest, the goal changed to demanding JKF being removed. That objective was met, with a price. The interim President search process was successful and Dr. Davila was appointed. Since I cannot speak for all within FSSA, it seems that a general view was that there are some measure of transparency, equity, and inclusion throughout the entire administrative changes over the past year. Transparency, equity, and inclusion were the principles of which FSSA was built on.

When FSSA coalesced, we were focused on the president search process…since then, we have not had an opportunity to meet again to discuss other changes that has happened as a result of MSCHE’s challenge.

How did or will the ex-protesters respond to increasing claims of racism and preferential treatment?

There were over a thousand protesters so their reactions varied from indifference to active participation in workgroups that were formed over the summer. Some of the “ex-protesters” such as myself continued to work toward social justice. The claims of racism and preferential treatments weren’t claims, they are real and they happen everyday on campus. If a person doesn’t think so then s/he is uneducated on the levels of mistreatments that individuals continue to receive on a daily basis.

One of the requirements of the MSA (#2) is to foster an environment where the faculty, staff, students and administration are respectful of each other. Is this the case on campus, after the past divisions? If so, how? If not, what more needs to be done?

I do believe that something is being done in regard to respect for languages such as ASL and English since the Office of the Provost has been facilitating a series of panels on Bilingualism throughout the semester. Much, much more needs to be done because respect for ideas, human diversity can only be fostered through daily discussion and exposure…one surefire way to do this is through the use of media such as television and internet. Gallaudet is slowly realizing the use of internet as a valuable tool but we are no where near being media-savvy.

It has been rumored that Dr. Fernandes, Dr. I. King Jordan and Dr. Karen Kimmel intend to return to campus to teach. Some have objected to their return citing their disrupting public comments. Others think that the spirit of a college campus must foster open dialogue and discourse without excluding others. Do you think they should be welcomed or banished from Gallaudet?

They should be held accountable for their actions such as harmful comments—IKJ calling the protesters of very diverse backgrounds absolutists and stating that the faculty’s vote was insignificant, JKF’s twisting words around on Gallaudet’s new policies on bilingualism along with terrorist rhetorics made during the protest and Dr. Kimmel’s defamingly baseless lawsuit against the university. Their comments and action were equally as unacceptable as the one made by the former President of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers.

I think the University administrators should determine if their continued tenure at Gallaudet will be detrimental to the university’s integrity and academic standing. The administrators need to take a position rather than allow university constituents to scramble around with anticipation of all kinds of misfortune that might befall us such as creating a negative climate that could affect our chances of losing the accreditation.

What is the general mood on campus? Are students, faculty and staff upbeat? Is it mass confusion amid the changes? Are people fearful of losing their jobs?

From my standpoint, it looks like there’s an air of validity and relief as we become more open about who we (Gallaudet) really are—a bilingual university. We’ve finally come out of the closet, thanks to MSCHE’s “You can’t be all things to all people.” As I understand it, very few people have lost their jobs…more people have moved up in ranks. The standing up for social justice begets greater opportunities.

The FSSA has apparently disbanded. It began with the goal of uniting the different parts of Gallaudet, including alumni by becoming a Gallaudet watchdog group. Now that they are gone, who is watching Gallaudet? Is there an organized movement to ensure that Gallaudet does not slip back to the same mistakes that prompted the protests? If not, how can we be sure that history will not repeat itself in 2010?

FSSA emerged out of necessity and now that the sense of urgency has abated, the less need there is to regroup. I can only hope the Board of Trustees have learned their lesson. The attitude of the Board members from the recent years compared to those of 1988 weren’t that much different—there were a lot of audist sentiments in both groups. I hope the new Board members are much more educated and in tune with the Gallaudet community.

Some have argued that the demographics of the deaf population are changing because of cochlear implant users, and for Gallaudet to stay relevant, they must attract and accommodate deaf people who aren’t fluent in ASL, not “culturally deaf” or even don’t want to learn sign language. What is your stance on this matter?

Like MSCHE said, we can’t be all things to all people…Gallaudet has been and will always be a place where signing happens. If people don’t want to sign, why would they want to come to Gallaudet?

Gallaudet needs to stop promoting the stigmatization that ASL is an accommodation and begin showcasing why and how ASL is highly beneficial to everyone…Even hearing babies are being exposed to it due to claims of increasing IQ, etc.

The Deaf community has been for a long time reactive to the eugenic ideas of eliminating deafness and defending sign language using cultural rhetorics. We need to stop being reactive and begin the proaction by doing researches, producing television shows/movies to shape ideologies and re-define the frameworks on “deafness,” and lead the world on what it means to be human.