We continue to support the FSSA in their protest; we believe injustice has been done, both before and after the announcement of the BoT’s selection of the 9th president. As we have said before, we believe the selection process was flawed, and the result of either rigging or an inadvertent cumulation of factors that led to an unfair advantage on the part of Jane K. Fernandes, or both.

We, also, however, continue to be dismayed at the war of words and the divisive atmosphere on campus. We believe, through their actions, both sides of the issue are hurting the Gallaudet community as a whole.

• An emotionally-violent protest:

Despite the FSSA urging its followers to be tolerant on campus, the atmosphere on campus is hostile and divisive between those who disagree. People walk around silent or carefully forming words that seem neutral for fear of attracting attention.

Operation Blockade last Thursday was NOT at all peaceful.

Staff members with handicaps or disabilities suffered as they were forced to walk onto campus.

People were afraid for their safety. Arrests were threatened and met with enthusiastic throngs of people waiting to be carted off.

Children at Kendall, no matter how much FSSA denies it, had their normal morning routine disrupted (they did, however, move their blockades back to allow Kendall buses through later in the day).

One student stood stranded at Benson Hall circle waiting to go to her internship — and then couldn’t go at all.

One student packed up her bags and tried to go home for the summer. Because she couldn’t get off campus, she missed her flight and had to pay an unreasonable amount of money to go home. When a faculty member and a student leader with the FSSA were appealed to, they smiled, shrugged, and said “Oh, well.”

We, personally, struggled to get our sick daughter off campus to see a doctor. We happened to be leaving just as the 3 pm deadline that Dr. Jordan had imposed on the protesters approached. It was very stressful trying to get away while we thought cops were on their way to arrest our fellow students and faculty members.

Just as everyone concerned seems to be in agreement that protesters have the right to speak out against a decision they hate, noncombatants have the right to be left alone. This is absolutely not happening.

Students have gone to the Fernandes’ household in Maryland, forcing JK to stay on campus out of fear for the safety of her family.

Ridorlive.com today attacked Jane Norman, one of Dr. Fernandes’ supporters. In the past, Ridor has also attacked Adam Stone, a fellow DeafDC.com blogger (calling him a borg because he happens to have a cochlear implant, among other things), and Ben Lewis, a prominent and well-liked student leader who was also voted Homecoming King and is our graduation speaker this week (labeled an Uncle Tom), only to praise them when they changed their minds and became protest supporters (We have, however, spoken or corresponded to both men and believe their about-faces to be the result of introspection and investigation, not pressure).

Another blog popular among protest supporters has also put the spotlight on those who have their own opinion. Elisa Abenchuchan’s Xanga blog, well-liked because she frequently updates on protest happenings, has published pictures of Fernandes supporters, exposing them to further scrutiny. They do not deserve this. No one deserves to be singled out on an issue that should, instead, be uniting us all. But, instead, these postings are met with enthusiastic support.

We personally have witnessed such happenings on campus that serve as examples of how divisive this is becoming. We’ve seen a deaf graduate student catch a freshman on his way across campus, and ask him, point-blank, his view on the protest. When the freshman hesitated, and then admitted, “I think JK deserves a second chance,” the graduate student practically pounced with a forceful lecture and demanded the freshman go immediately to tent city for his indoctrination.

The forum with Celia Baldwin and Tom Humphries available to answer questions from the community ended up not being a true question-and-answer session. From videos of the forum we’ve been able to watch, the highlight of the event was Dr. Lynn Jacobowitz’s now-famous “We don’t trust you” retort, to which Baldwin and Humphries were not allowed a chance to respond. Audience members erupted in cheers and hollers and soon thereafter walked out. Their anger is understandable, but their actions led to naught.

There are rumors, as well, that we’ve been unable to substantiate, that staff and faculty members are being pressured by the administration to quash the protest, many times against their wishes.

The Mental Health Center has sent out a campus-wide e-mail offering services to those affected by the protest. Far from being a peaceful effort, this is a traumatic event for many on both sides of the issue.

• True Motivations:

Let’s be honest. Many of the protesters do, in fact, dislike JK. Some of these people have genuine, valid reasons for not liking her, based on events that disrupted a healthy professional relationship.

Many others, however, cite her not-deaf-enough-ness, or other silly things as reason. Bridgetta Bourne-Firl is on record on the now-famous Joey Baer video as saying we need someone to lead us who is more deaf-centered. Many protesters will today tell you the reasons for the protest are not about JK, but then refer back to why JK is the wrong leader.

While we support the FSSA’s reasons and their demands, many (not all) of the protesters are still out of touch with the reasoning behind these, and they still spend hours explicating the influence Dr. Fernandes’ cultural identity has on her ability to lead. And of course, this just gives Dr. Fernandes reason to continue giving the media the sob-story about this being a cultural-identity war, although many of us will adamantly deny it. As long as motivation for the protest is unclear, so, too, will the strength and integrity of the protest.

On the other side of the issue, the genuineness of the Gallaudet For All counter-movement is also in question. Allison attended a GFA meeting before deciding to support the FSSA’s protest. She was impressed, yes, with the students’ desire to defend Dr. Fernandes from what seemed like a smear campaign. But she was also disconcerted by the University’s support of this group. $500 was magically allocated for T-shirts. University laptops were made available to these students. While the University’s desire to work with this group is understandable, Allison wondered whether the University support would interfere with the students’ ability to show their support as individuals showing their support independently of administration influence.

The “Myth and Fact” e-mails now being sent out by the Public Relations Office (which is also a divided department — we talked with one Gallaudet PR officer who was absolutely convinced the selection was rigged in Dr. Fernandes’ favor) were a brainchild of the GFA group. Although the e-mails attempt to correct perceived misunderstandings, they do not address the true issue here: that the Gallaudet community now suffers from a serious lack of trust and unity.

The same goes for the Gallaudet For All video apparently produced for the purpose of being counter-propaganda. Students, faculty, alumni, and staff in this video simply state that they come from different backgrounds. What issue this confronts and how it claims to solve them, I don’t know, but again, it inadequately addresses the lack of trust and the need to re-build faith in Gallaudet.

• The Tent City Farce:

Students, alumni, children, cats and dogs are gathering on the front lawn of Gallaudet in an impromptu protester community. Are they protesting? No. They’re playing video games, cooking out, dancing, chatting, checking the internet on laptops hooked up to University facilities. There’s even an entertainment committee. Adrean McCann has just published a cartoon (www.signupcomics.com) that depicts Tent City as a fun vacation destination. “Meet courageous people, collapse empires,” it exclaims. The circus atmosphere at Tent City totally undermines the seriousness of the protest.

And now, on a rainy and chilly day in DC, Tent City is practically abandoned. Yet another reason to question the Tent City community’s real reasons for camping out.

If protesters are serious about their demands, why are they flocking to the front lawn to have fun? And leaving when it’s inconvenient?

Elisa Abenchuchan broadcast on her blog a couple days ago a rumor that Gallaudet would cut off the electricity to Tent City. There were also complaints that GIS would not be allowed to provide interpreters for the protesters. Well, of course. Do you really expect Gallaudet administration to support a movement that wants to oust it? Tom Humphries said at a meeting that if he had to protest, he’d provide his own resources.

He has a point, as much as we want to support tent city citizens. If you really want to change the system at Gallaudet, why are you using the current Gallaudet administration’s resources to do it?

This is not the only hypocritical aspect of Tent City. So far, it seems to only be the most radical citizens staying there. Where are the faculty member tent citizens? Those who have provided the strongest arguments for the protests aren’t the ones playing X-Box, that’s for sure.

• FSSA as puppetteers:

The irony of the FSSA’s protest will forever be that if not for JK being selected as president, a spontaneous demonstration on the part of the students would not have erupted into shouts of “not deaf enough,” fizzled, and then later been replaced by a more coherent infrastructure provided by the FSSA and its comprehensible reasons. The current protest would not have been as strong without this initial protest, however unwarranted it was.

If Ron Stern had been selected, for example, students most likely would have been thrilled, but faculty concerns about the lack of qualifications (namely, a doctoral degree and lack of higher-education experience) would have soon emerged. It would have nowhere near the dimensions or strength that the current protest has, complete with its investigation into the present administration’s corruption.

Do students and other protesters realize this?

• And perhaps the biggest weakness:

In making re-opening the search process their demand, the FSSA has asked for the almost impossible. The Board of Trustees cannot do anything about this demand. Meeting with them to ask them to re-open the search will be fruitless. The only way it can come about is if Jane Fernandes resigns of her own volition (and no, staking out her family’s house is not an appropriate persuasion tactic!). So, in truth, our hopes for this protest as it stands right now lie solely on the will of one person who has been thrust into that position involuntarily. So far, she shows no indication of letting that happen.

Yes, the demand for resignation in 1988 was similar, but the person in question had a much easier time understanding why the reason for her own resignation was valid. That protest was about showing the world deaf people can. This one is much more intimate; it’s about ousting corruption, and Jane Fernandes is embroiled herself in that very same corruption. Making her understand the depth and strength of the FSSA’s genuineness has already proven to be a difficult task.

Meanwhile, what has the FSSA suggested to remedy the corruption that is now being discussed? For example, has anyone suggested eliminating the liaison to the Board of Trustees? This would help them be more in touch with the community. The GUAA office has suggested making it mandatory for certain members of the Board to be alumni members. Has the FSSA supported this suggestion?

In any event, We strongly believe that there are things at Gallaudet that need to be remedied. The FSSA protest is one way of doing this.

However, cumulatively, the actions of many people on campus (and in the blogosphere) are hurting the community as a whole, and we are increasingly anticipating the day the current crisis will be resolved and learned from.