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.

Earlier tonight, a score of people—mostly Gallaudet students and alumni—gathered at a house in DC to watch deaf Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter Matt Hamill’s 6th bout. The 3-time Division III wrestling champion was facing a hyped opponent, Michael “The Count” Bisping—who was undefeated with a record of 13-0. The TV talking heads murmured excitedly about the British opponent’s formidable kickboxing skills.

They both started their MMA careers in earnest in a UFC-promoted reality TV show featuring wannabes being trained by grizzled pros (Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock) and fighting each other in a tournament, vying to be noticed by UFC. Bisping was the champion but Hamill never had a chance to fight him. Matt won his first two matches handily, but he had to leave the tournament due to an injury. In his mind, he’d have beaten Bisping in the championship match. For a year after the show ended, Hamill repeatedly called on him for a match. Bisping ignored him. Although Hamill’s MMA skills were considered “raw”, he was so completely sure of his abilities he taunted Bisping for being afraid of him. Eventually it hit a nerve in The Count and he finally agreed on a fight to “shut him up”. The media took it lightly, assuming that the more polished, experienced Bisping would win easily.

But once the bell rang to commence the match, it was all Hamill. To our elated disbelief, he simply manhandled Bisping. It was incredible how much he had improved much since the last time I saw him play. We hollered, high-fived, chest-bumped, toasted and hugged each other as he repeatedly took down or cornered Bisping. The Brit looked as if he didn’t want to fight.

We as a whole didn’t care that Hamill maybe could kind of speak. No one brought it up except for one guy. Matt knew some signs and went through the life as an underdog like us and that was good enough. The spirit in the room was probably much like the Irish and African Americans cheering for their brother on the ring in the late 19th and early 20th century.

It was the loudest room in a private residence that I had been in my whole life. I had lapses where I felt kind of sorry for the neighbors. I’ve watched many exciting football, basketball and boxing games with crowds in rooms. The thing is, they were always divided, one party cheering for one side and so forth.

But not there. Our entire energy and goodwill channeled into Hamill, our cheers rising with every good move he made.

After about 2 minutes into the 3rd (and last) round, excitement was in the air. By God, Matt’s gonna pull it off! We thought if he simply avoided being knocked out or forced into a submission, he would win, period—by a huge margin. Bisping looked as impotent as a panda without viagra throughout the match, although he gamily threw a solid punch or 2 as the match neared the end.

The two fighters stood next to the referee waiting for the winner to be announced. I entertained the thought of just walking away from the TV. It wasn’t just 100% certain that Hamill won—it was like 100-plus-infinite-%. I’m stretching things a bit, but not by much. It was one of the most one-sided UFC matches I had ever seen that didn’t end in a submission. The arm-raising “this dude’s the winner, yo” part was a mere formality.

From that point to on, I thought I was hallucinating. The captions rolled in. “30-27″…”29-28″…”29-28″…”split decision”…the referee raised the arm of…MICHAEL BISPING.

The crowd in the room broke in confused cascades of reactions. Wide-mouthed disbelief, hollers, jeers, and, in a few cases, jabbing middle fingers and “bullshit” signs within a few inches of the TV screen. No one was able to sit still.

To make it worse, Bisping trashtalked and carried himself in the swagger of somebody who just kicked somebody’s rear end. Hamill looked shocked and subdued. On the bright side, he probably won over a few fans with his classy and gracious behavior.

A few of the more mild-mannered spectators in the room blankly said, “I don’t understand,” over and over. There was not one area in which Bisping outdid Hamill.

Some of us wondered if we didn’t know the UFC rules as well as we thought. Maybe the takedowns just didn’t count in points? But even if it was true, it seemed like Hamill connected way more punches than his opponent did anyway. Maybe Bisping’s feeble jabs counted for points, even when they landed on Hamill’s elbows? We were lost.

One of them, clearly in height of reality dissonance, said something which I find hilarious now, “Maybe we were so biased we didn’t notice Hamill was losing?”

I found myself wondering about when black fighters first started prizefighting with Caucasian champions in the ring—I wouldn’t be surprised that fighters with the lighter pigment won more than their share of suspicious decisions. I wondered how the African American fans responded at those times.

We also wondered how the UFC fans as a whole responded. Did they see what we saw? Were they as outraged?

I went home and quickly browsed the internet to find out about their sentiments. It turned out we weren’t living in a parallel reality.

All sports fans know that in any given discussion, in real life or otherwise, there are always disputes. That’s a law. Fans bickering over the supremacy of their beloved teams, players, bullpen coaches and their mad fantasy league drafting skillz.

Not in this case.

I didn’t check out every link on the google search results page. All I know is that in every comment I’ve read so far at AOL and ESPN, people expressed shock at the judges’ decision—they were every bit as outraged as we were, some even calling to boycott UFC. I had never seen such an unanimous consensus on something—as of Sunday, 3 am anyway.

“What a joke that decision was. The UFC needs to hold itself to a higher standard. If I want boxing or professional wrestling, I will watch that. Reminds me of Roy Jones in Korea, although that was more lopsided. Dana White, you need to look into this for the integrity of the UFC. Two judges 29-28 Bisping??”

“Are you kidding me!!!!!!! Hamil had this all the way. Bisping was running away like a little boy most of the time. Give me a break..”

“Were the Judges looking at the same fight I was?”

“UN-FREAKING-BELIEVEABLE!!!!!! This is by far the worst referee’s decision that I have ever seen in the UFC. I have disagreed with a few, but none have ever had me screaming at the TV before.”

“I plan to boycott the next UFC pay per view event in protest to this clearly rigged fight. Anyone with me?”

“i know it would never happen–but it would be nice if every honest fight fan in the world would boycott the ufc until that fight is overturned and given to the rightful winner–i know i’ll never watch again until dana white and michael bisping and two of those three judges give written and publicly addressed apologies to hammil. bisping didn’t win more than thirty seconds of that fight, and i agree w/ the last comment–he knows it. i used to be a fan of the guy–but i’ll never watch him again after that. what a waste of an excellent effort by a decent guy.”

“Definitely agree with everyone here. Hamill is known for wrestling yet he beat him in his own house on stand-up. Even Rogan was saying that Bisping better get down to 185 quick. Hamill was robbed but he is too good of a guy to stand up for himself.”

“I totally agree.. absolute disgrace.. UFC must think we are idiots.. It was only b/c it was in England and they need the guy that they market in the UK to remain undefeated… EVEN THE LONDON CROWD WAS BOOING THE DECISION..”

“bisping is a big piece of (bleep) because he knows he got his (bleep) kicked and then still had the (bleep) hole to talk (bleep) about the guy that just whooped him soundly. hammill knows he won that fight and still had the class to congratulate bisping”

“The UFC ,which I had previously sworn by, has now entered the realm of professional wrestling.”

“I suggest any true fans boycott further events until they reverse that decision.”

“I have been a long time UFC watcher. I have watched it since the very first UFC, and from what I have just seen. I know that Matt Hamill was cheated. What did Bisbing pay to win that fight against Matt Hamill. I thought that the UFC was the best thing to happen to sports, and know I think it is just as crolked as boxing I will never order a pay-per-view again”

“Bisping a POS for talking (bleep) after he got his tail handed to him. That was complete Bull(bleep).”

“I agree with everybody. What made the decision even worse was Bisping talking smack afterwards.”

“How in the world did they give Bisping the fight. After he felt Hamill’s power in the first 10 seconds he ran the rest of the fight.”

“I thought the instant replay they showed for Bisping’s post-fight interview was hilarious. All they had for a highlight was him avoiding a takedown.”

Yup, I saved the best for last.

Technology to turn text into speech already exists. But what about the way around?

A new product just caught my eye. For hearing people, using SpinVox would be like having a personal secretary transcribing your speech. It can convert spoken words into a blog, e-mail and the such.

It means that the technology to instantly caption everything from obscure DVDs to podcasts to CNN.com video clips is here.

Should it migrate to portable devices, its ramifications for deaf people are great. We’ll be giving directions to lost hearing people in no time.

When I lugged my scuba gear to Field House at Gallaudet late last fall, had you popped up from a bush to ask me what I thought of Irving King Jordan, soon-to-be President Emeritus, I’d have snorted in disgust.

He had every right to disagree with the protest. However, he never bothered to at least understand the underlying causes, instead choosing to stamp lowest-denominator motives on the restless natives. Granted, the causes weren’t easy to understand. But he was president, not a sideline spectator. Closing his eyes resulted in comments and actions that made things worse.

But since you didn’t pop up on me like that, he remained far in the back of my mind. I took scuba diving in Spring of last year but didn’t get certified because I couldn’t make it to the certification trip which consumed a whole weekend in late April, when the finals and term papers were looming on the horizons. The instructor told me I could join her class on the trip in the fall to get certified. Come fall, it slipped from my mind until somebody taking the class mentioned the trip during late November.

I showed up for what was the last weekly session. Since the students were taking the final exam, I was the first person to arrive at the pool. I entered the locker room and, lo and behold, stood Dr. Jordan in swimwear.

I was surprised to see him there for a couple of reasons. I forgot that he was an assistant scuba instructor. But more significantly, that he was still assisting the class. I had subconsciously assumed that he’d shun any further interaction with students after what happened.

I greeted him politely, changed, jumped into the pool and did some warm-up laps. The instructor and her students eventually came.

The instructor wasn’t happy. She said I should’ve come two or three weeks earlier to shake off my rust. She was right. I wished I made a better use of my Sidekick by, like, using its reminder feature or something. She said if I didn’t go through the procedures flawlessly, I couldn’t go on the trip. I had already rented a wetsuit for $80.

Not only did I have to smoothly reenact what I had not even mentally rehearsed for months, I had to do something new. It was the first time I donned an actual wetsuit. I thought it was no big deal. But with a 7mm suit (the thickest available because we’d be diving in a frigid quarry), diving turned out to be a completely different experience.

It was brutal just squeezing myself into the suit. I sweated like a hog and when I was done, the very last thing I needed was to be covered head-to-toe with a suffocating skintight suit. A sauna seemed almost arctic in comparsion. It was also thick enough to give me the flexibility of a penguin. Watching war prisoners doing aerobics in 7mm wetsuits would make a poet out of Donald Rumsfeld. Wait, he already is.

Then it turned out that I could remember the exact procedure to hook up the scuba equipment…very vaguely. I was panting, lightheaded, dazed. The instructor made faces at me–frowning, rolling her eyes, shaking her head, and, I think, sighing loudly. Patience was never her strongest suit. The chances of going on the trip were sinking fast.

I was already boiling inside that suit. But when a heavy oxygen tank was placed on my back,  my body labored to stay balanced while my mind continued to grope for the lost lessons, my misery had reached a new level. Diving into the 75-degree pool water didn’t cool me down one bit. I felt like a heat stroke-stricken whale flopping about. I wondered how the hell I got to that point. Without a doubt, it was my worst moment in the entire year of 2006.

And there stood Dr. Jordan on the poolside, doing everything in his power to help me, his eyes glistening earnestly for my success. He gave me his utmost personal attention, generously urging and encouraging me while giving instructions. He was persistent. He never lost patience nor did he become exasperated. His actions showed that, by God, he wanted to see me succeed, get certified. He was my only beacon of hope at Field House that night. At that point, I had come to believe that if I was unconscious in a burning building, he’d charge in and carry me out in his arms and even come back to save a litter of newborn kittens, if I had any.

I wish this story had a happy ending. But my attempt to “flawlessly” execute procedures without any prior refreshing lessons was futile.

The instructor unplugged the life support. “Come back this spring. And come for at least three classes like I told you!” She walked away huffing. IKJ offered some sympathetic support, saying I’d do better next time.

At least I got the $80 back.

I got out of the dastardly suit and was getting ready to leave. IKJ was underwater, doing laps with the scuba equipment. Somebody asked where he was. I pointed to the shadow slipping through the pool water. And I chuckled, “Yup, that’s our president.”

Then he wrote that utterly pointless, bitter Op-ed slamming a marginalized minority and an endangered university that he had earned millions of dollars presiding.

Who said people were simple?

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.

By Ben Moore

Throw me a bone. Pretend for a minute that you passionately believe that the presidential search process at Gallaudet University is flawed and it’s absolutely non-negotiable that it be redone, since this blog isn’t about the protest’s rationale per se but rather tactics a large of group of students recently resorted to: seize a major academic building before eventually locking down the campus.

Since Tent City first folded last spring and until last Thursday, when students disrupted building naming ceremonies, the protest had been civil. You continued to voice your opinions through various avenues, such as writing editorials for the Buff and Blue school newspaper and letters to the administration and the Board of Trustees.

If you kept this up, you’d lose.

100% guaranteed.

Do you really honestly think it’s possible to win simply by politely expressing your displeasure to the administration and the Board of Trustees?

I remember reading an interesting article written by somebody who had experienced scores of protests during his lifetime. He had been involved with successful and unsuccessful protests and he noted differences between them.

What kind of protests consistently fail, according to him? Picketing, letter-writing, chanting, and the such. The Powers That Be tune them out. Eventually the demonstrators get bored and leave, satisfied with the cathartic experience.

What about media attention? Actually, when people read or hear about demonstrations, they feel good because it affirms that they’re living in a wonderful country with freedom of speech. They say, “Look at the wheels of democracy churning along merrily.” Then they get on with their lives. Nothing is really accomplished.

What’s effective? You probably can guess where this is going. Actions that directly throw a wrench into the machinery of status quo.

What if Americans in 1776 simply complained about the English monarchy? What if the northerners simply whined in 1861 about slavery? What if African Americans simply grumbled and moaned in 1955 about Jim Crow laws?

Imagine how the Deaf President Now movement would have turned out if the campus stayed open and students simply picketed on Florida Avenue? All in probability, the media would have solemnly reported some students were disappointed with the selection of a hearing president. Then they would’ve been eventually forgotten and faded from the public consciousness.

If we’re to win without compromising our objective, we’re absolutely required to escalate. That’s reality.

Obviously the lockdown is causing inconvenience for a lot of people. Unfortunately, fights for change are almost universally messy.

I don’t know what proportion of students support the building takeover and the lockdown, but it’s clear that an overwhelming majority of the faculty and students are opposed to Dr. Fernandes’ appointment.

Consider some facts:

• 83% of the undergraduates deemed her unacceptable in a poll last spring
• the faculty voted to express no confidence in her by a ratio of about 2 to 1 (I learned that the ballot was secret so there was no undue influence from the peers)
• the student congress all but unanimously passed a motion to not recognize Dr. Fernandes as the 9th president (this congress is quite diverse, representating every organization, from Rainbow Society to Black Deaf Students Union)

Essentially, they are flexing their power by numbers right now.

So is the cause legitimate? That is worth another blog.

Ben Moore is a senior at Gallaudet University.