The public relations department has just sent out a campus-wide e-mail describing several “myths” and “facts” regarding the issues related to the student protest on Gallaudet’s campus. This message has us perplexed; our sources are reliable, high-ranking, close to the action, and still maintain that what they’ve told us is true.

One of the “myths” cited reads:

The process by which the Board of Trustees and the Presidential Search Committee evaluated applications and selected semi-finalists and finalists, and then named Dr. Jane K. Fernandes as president did not include diverse candidates, and violated equal opportunity rules and “best practices.”

The answer given:

Fact: The Presidential Search Committee ensured that strict equal opportunity best practices and guidelines were followed throughout the process by utilizing and following the counsel of one of the nation’s leading search firms specializing in higher education, Academic Search Consultation Service, whose services and expertise included guidance on equal opportunity and diversity rules, guidelines, and best practices.

Gallaudet University has its own Equal Opportunity officer on campus. This officer was entirely excluded from the process. Why? We don’t know. Instead, the BoT chose to use the EO officer that came with the consulting firm. But our source tells us that Dr. van der Vorm (a personal acquaintance of the source), when questioned, said that the EO officer with her firm had only cursory involvement and referred to Pam Holmes instead. When questioned by the same source, Holmes knew very little or gave vague answers about any EO training the Presidential Search Committee received and knew nothing of any EO paperwork being signed or processed.

Also, the interim chair of the BoT, Celia Baldwin, sent another message to the campus today. In it, she writes, “I request that those of you who disagree with the decision recognize that the Board has the ultimate authority to appoint the president. Having overseen a fair, open, transparent and just process the Board cannot and will not reverse ourselves in the face of a protest that we do not consider to be justified.”

The fairness of the process has already been called into question. Calling the process transparent is not quite an accurate description. Why then, have those who disagreed with the selection constantly had to ask for more information, prying it out bit by bit?

And while “the ultimate authority” of the Board was never questioned, it is a concern that that authority is being abused when people we trust to represent us make a decision contrary to so many people’s wishes, and when it is called an unanimous decision when we hear that two trustees, in fact, abstained. Of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni, not one group came out in force to support the candidate that was chosen — in fact, it was quite the opposite. If we’re asked to believe that every member of the BoT that represents us thought otherwise, we at least deserve an explanation, especially if it’s a transparent process.

—

© 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.