IKJ Sends Out E-Mail Regarding Search For Interim Provost
By Chris and Allison Kaftan on Sat 20 May 2006 |
Email This Post
This was also sent out via campus e-mail later in the day yesterday.
May 19, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Campus Community
FR: I. King Jordan
RE: Interim Provost
In order to allow for an orderly transition to her presidency, Dr. Jane Fernandes will step down as provost and initiate a national search for a new provost. I intend to appoint an interim provost who can serve until someone is selected for the permanent position. I intend to do so with significant community involvement.
On Monday, May 15, I met with Mr. Mark Weinberg, Chair of the University Faculty, and discussed with him the process and timelines I intend to follow and sought his support and that of the University Faculty. Also on May 15, I communicated in writing to Mr. Weinberg as well as to Mr. Cary Barbin, chair of the Staff Advisory Committee, Mr. Noah Beckman, President of the Student Body Government and Mr. Alexander Zernovoj, President of the Graduate Student Association asking for their help identifying individuals who could serve on an interim provost identification committee.
I will establish a committee of three faculty members, two staff people, one undergraduate student and one graduate student which will be chaired by an administrator. I am seeking nominations of individuals to serve on the committee by June 2 and will convene the first meeting of the committee on June 9. At that meeting, I will share with the committee a job description and discuss with them the process I want for them to follow to identify individuals who are interested in and qualified for the interim provost position.
After the meeting, I will send the campus a call for nominations and expressions of interest asking that interested individuals send a letter and curriculum vita directly to the committee. The committee will then review the materials they receive, interview those individuals they determine to be best qualified for the position and present me with information about the strengths and weaknesses of qualified candidates.
I will then interview candidates and hope to be able to fill the interim provost position by the end of June or early July.
Thank you for your help identifying candidates for the position of interim provost.
© 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.
137 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Many expect current CLAST Dean Karen Kimmel to win for provost, as she did all the dirty work for Jane during her provost years, and she knows enough dirt on both Jane and Irving to get the job. Of course, faculty and students will be despised but, hey, this has been the modus operandi for a couple of years now!! Why would they change now?!
Until these people’s greedy grip on exclusive power won’t loosen up, there won’t be any real change in the Rugrat’s playground of King, Fernandes and Kimmel, ohh sorry I wanted to say Gallaudet University. ;(
This letter is the most appropriate one so far in the most recent incidents and the President is trying to make thing moving forward. Sound good and please try to be realistic and accept what he has to say and move on. Please do not try hard to play favorism because you like a person because of the personality or social affiliations.
The appointment of new provost will happen during summer break when the campus is almost empty. Huhh, have you seen something similar in Summer 2004? Was not Kimmel appointed to Dean just like that?? Folks, the old regime won’t learn new tricks… Too bad!
Testing the Truth:
Where did you hear this? In *NONE* of the announcements from the BOT or King was there a statement about the appointment of the new provost occurring this summer.
King sent an email to the SBG and GSA asking for a student rep to serve on the interim provost search committee. I know because I got that email. The search will occur June 6 to June 30. The permanent provost search will not occur until this fall.
So, where did you hear that?
-ck
“”I will then interview candidates and hope to be able to fill the interim provost position by the end of June or early July.”"
Did not you guys published that? ;)
The key word there is INTERIM.
That is right. The King letter is all about the interim provost.
Indeed zoltan, the letter is about the INTERIM. Now go back and read the thread. Details are important.
You think you know who am I, but you don’t. You are funny aniger!! The summer coup may turn sour, very sour…
Sargon
Apologies. You were very open with who you are on the other blogs, your photo accompanies your entries on elisa’s blog, which links to your page. If you intend your identity to be confidential, I apologize for the breech.
This person may be the same or may be another person. How do you know?
Fernandes complained to the NYT that the protest was encited by someone I know. She said: “She denied tenure to a faculty member (…). She accused the dissenting faculty members of encouraging the protests and exploiting students’ naïveté to settle scores with her.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05.....audet.html
I have good reason to belive that she micromanaged a spyring on Internet sites that criticised her, collected names and information and gave it a group of lawyers paid by Gallaudet $$$. Then she made false accusations in from of the Board of Trustees in order to save her presidency and dig people she did not like. Someone I know was denied tenure because Fernandes played the dirty cards successfully at the BoT.
Okay, whatever. Not interesting in playing spy meets spy about someone’s identity. cheers.
So respect my name, please, and call me the same way I call myself:
testing_the_truth
Deal?? :-)
if the interim provost is selected from the current University faculty i feel it is possible they would become the permanent Provost - otherwise why shift the ranks?
Joseph,
It already been stated in Gallaudet public relations emails that the interim provost won’t be eligible to apply for the permanent provost position. So, there’s a very, very small chance that the interim provost will become the permanent provost.
Ridor and other bloggers have mentioned there is no timetable for the selection. They are correct. If the University wants to come out of this with less battle scars, then they should get moving with the permanent provost search immediately when the school year begins in the fall.
-ck
INTERIM = NO timetable limited.
HELLO?
R-
Read the thread little ricky. see what I’m responding to.
Was I talking to you, Regina?
Of course not.
Move along.
R-
LOL. whatever you say ricky.
Hi Everyone: I finally found a working link to the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) report on Gallaudet University. Here it is. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/......2005.html
This link will take you to the details of the assessment summary. There are several areas considered, with percent scores ranging from 74% for Strategic Planning to 13% (yikes!) for Accountability. It’s very interesting, and pretty readable, for a government report. On the main page of the report (click Assessment Summary) is where you’ll see in black and white that Gallaudet was rated Ineffective. However, there is an improvement plan in place. The year of the assessment was 2005, and I seem to recall seeing somewhere that it was published in February 2006.
It’d be interesting to see where IKJ and President-Select Fernandes go with this. Sounds like they have a lot of work to do.
Here’s another very interesting report by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS).
http://www.ed.gov/about/report.....audet.html
This report contains the retention rates for the university, KDES, and MSSD. Interesting stuff. Finally, some real numbers and hard data. Enjoy!
The PART report has benn well-known since its publication in February. It should have been in the center of the president search. But Jordan and Fernandes managed to duck its findings and accused the government with faulty reporting. Can you imagine that? Talk about arrogance…
I have somehow the feeling that in fact they have been scared by the serious criticism in the PART report and Jordan’s resignation may have been related. During the next year’s budget appropriation ther could be a considerable slash of government funding because of the inefficiency grade in the report.
If you look at the summary table it says inefficient means that the institution is in the bottom 4.00% of the list. Who was reponsible for academics during the last 6 years? Improving academics is the duty of the provost. Great job, provost Fernandes! :((
The second link just proved that MSSD’s enrollment has been indeed declining. I mentioned it before here and somebody screamed for proof. There you have it. Actually that report only goes back to 1998. If it was to go as far back as 1995 or so, you’d see that the enrollment was around 350. I know because I was a student back then.
Many students left MSSD after Fernandes implemented a new policy in which students were NOT grouped in Engllish classes according to their reading levels. In other words, students who read at 2nd grade level were thrown into the same English class as those who read at, say, 9th grade level. That forced teachers to teach down to the lowest common denominator. Fernandes thought it was necessary because black students tended to cluster at the lowest level classes. Her intention, to see more even mixing of races in classes, might’ve been good, but obviously the solution was, to put it mildly, stupid.
It’s just one of many instances that led me to question Fernandes’ judgment and acumen.
“Her intention, to see more even mixing of races in classes, might’ve been good, but obviously the solution was, to put it mildly, stupid.”
Nice analysis!!
I don’t debate the fact that enrollment at MSSD declined during the time JKF was in charge of Clerc Center programs. I do argue with the claim that the decline was solely because of her.
Unfortunately, the tendency to tweak class groupings is all too common in schools for the deaf. It’s not an indicator of ineptitude all by itself, because just about every SD does it, and typically without any basis in empirically validated research.
Probably, the grouping of high- performing readers with low-performing black students made the parents of those black students very happy, thinking that their children would finally get equal access to a high quality curriculum. I agree that it doesn’t make sense, but the intention was good.
1995 was 11 years ago, for Pete’s sake. Meanwhile, other fads have come and gone in the field of deaf education. Now there’s a new fad one called Star Schools, and guess what? Schools for the deaf that have this program are once again grouping high performing deaf students with low performing deaf students. History repeats itself.
Nowadays, it’s looking more and more like deaf students performing at grade level will elect to be mainstreamed so that they can get access to a grade level curriculum. I wonder if the same thing is happening at Gallaudet too?
It’s moot to discuss her past performance anyway, because that was not a factor in the selection process.
The point is that Fernandes used a poor judgment in implementing this policy, period. I don’t care if other deaf schools are doing the same thing- their principals aren’t Gallaudet president candidates.
I understand that there’s a nationwide trend of declining enrollment at deaf schools. However it’s much more gradual than what MSSD experienced- a plummet from 350 to 220 in only 3 years (1995 to 1998). Since so many parents attributed transferring their kids to this particular policy, it’s pretty reasonable to put the blame on Fernandes.
It’s all about good judgment. I don’t have a PhD like she does, but the policy would seem like an obvious disaster to me even before I could see its results.
You are correct, according to Tom Humphries and Cecila May Baldwin (who represented BoT in a meeting with protesters), performance wasn’t factored in at all- instead, they looked at “qualifications”. That puzzled me because, isn’t past performance part of one’s qualifications? Being qualified is more than holding a certain position or degree.
“Even mixing” of races was the goal? Me thinks she was trying to halt the insidious phenomenon I call “involuntary tracking”, where teachers’ expectations of black students are low enough to place them on the vocational, instead of college-prep, track. Nevertheless, I do think placing 2nd grade readers with 9th grade readers was too extreme to be workable without other support like team teaching.
Yeah…I’m all for raising expectations for students of color. But there are better ways to do this! :)
As others have said on more than one occasion, a major beef I’ve had with the protestors is that they have not been able to substantiate their wild claims. Many commentors and bloggers have mentioned the PART report, but until yesterday and today, no one posted a working link to the site on the blogs. Furthermore, I’ve noticed that lots of people quote from the PART report, but badly misconstrue the facts. For example, it’s a giant leap from saying that IKJ/JKF are responsible for the inefficient rating, Gallaudet is in the bottom 4% of the list (where does it say that, anyway? what list?), and “improving academics” is [their] responsibility. Granted that the president and provost have general oversight over the entire university. I’m pointing out that, according to PART, the picture is more complicated than that. Some goals were met, others were not. Gallaudet is doing well in some areas and not so well in others. Let’s keep it real, OK?
Just for comparison, here’s the link to the PART report on NTID, which also gets federal funding from OSERS/Dept. of Education. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/......2005.html
OSERS rates NTID as “adequate.” This rating “describes a program that needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, improve accountability or strengthen its management practices.” It’s one step up on the scale from “ineffective” which was GU’s rating. NTID also has issues related to financial management, and the recruitment, retention and graduation rates of its students.
The findings of this PART, and previous PART reports, are not news. Apparently the report is issued yearly. It isn’t a deep dark secret that the GU admin is trying to hide. I seriously doubt that the current report is what triggered IKJ’s retirement.
Faulty reporting — the 2005 report mentioned that some students were counted twice if they were undergraduates and also taking a professional course, whatever that is. I don’t see anything blatantly underhanded here. It will be addressed in future reports. Then we’ll see if GU is still “ineffective.”
Thank you for finally providing a link to this report! It is muchly appreciated.
Honey don’t be shy, have a serious look at the bottom of this page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.....about.html
then look ot this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/......2005.html
Now pinch your arm and check if you are awake? ;) if not, please awake now!!!
Ever since its publication this February everyone could read these pages and it was widely discussed in Gallaudet. However, the administration launched an attack on the government report calling it faulty and rejecting the outcome based on the fact that Gallaudet “experts” were not invited to the preparation of the report. Funny, huhh? This IS the point of PART that INDEPENDENT investigation, so bribing/faking are excluded.
Now we know that ANY independet assessment of Gallaudet’s academic performance is abysmal.
It might be another surprise for you that the provost position was established to replace the “vice president for academic affairs” that was filled by Roz Rosen before Fernandes. The provost IS reposinble for academic affairs now, and Fernandes IS reponsible for the damaging outcome of the PART report.
Try to live with that, please. Okay?
responsible, etc.
I comics that made me laugh ;))
Click on testing_the_truth above.
Oh I see. the link you gave goes to “About Us” for the PART report, and it shows a distribution chart for how the 793 federal programs were assessed.
You misread the data, however. This is not a percentile ranking chart. It simply shows the percentages of programs that scored effective, moderately effective, adequate, etc. It is incorrect and inaccurate to say that Gallaudet scored in the bottom 4%.
OSERS/Dept of Ed. has been using the PART for only 4 consecutive years. That IKJ/JKF are responsible for running the university and for academic standards is fact. What is not fact is that there has been a decline in academic standards, a steep decline in enrollment directly attributable to some action by JKF, a rise in audism, etc., since they assumed leadership at GU.
Fortunately, I doubt that the Federal Government will throw out the baby with the bath water. Instead, I can live with the reality that there is room for improvement, that there is an improvement plan, has specific goals, and that progress will be monitored annually. This is a step in the right direction.
I copy here the chart as I see you don’t believe your own Inquiring (or Blindfolded???) Eyes. ;)
Distribution of Program Ratings
Number of Programs Assessed 793
Effective 15%
Moderately Effective 29%
Adequate 28%
Ineffective 4%
Results Not Demonstrated 24%
It IS a hierarchy, did you realize it? Effective, moderately effective and adequate, probably also not demonstrated are coming all before the bottom 4.00% which is “ineffective”. Unfortunately, Gallaudet belongs to the latter category! Are you still in doubt? Oh, come on! Believe your own eyes.
As I mentioned the provost IS responsible for academic affairs, therefore for this failure also. The SAME person who happens to be the new president. Ouch!! Could you follow me?
Now, the PART report does not mention “a steep decline in enrollment” and other bullsh@t you talk about. So please DO NOT change the subject, okay?
On the other hand, the PART found missed educational targets, wasteful management, extremely high educational cost, and inefficient use of federal funding. Do you know what THAT will mean at the next year budget appropriation? A considerable slash of government funding!
No wonder King is escaping into undeserved glory and leaving the mess to the next administration. Also there is no surprize that the upcoming BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT could not have been trusted by the BoT with outsiders as Ron Stern the most eloquent and excellent candidate. In order to seal the leaks of the secret cover-up maneuvering, all outsiders had to be shut out and a mediocre insider had to be established as the next president.
The BoT exactly knows what they are doing. But there might be a miscalculation in the well-planned plot, a major backlash they failed to calculate into the equation: this is the insurmountable power of a continued protest movement and the most powerful solidarity of the Deaf communities around the U.S. and the world.
[…] Gallaudet remained a dominant topic for DeafDC.com visitors as Julie brought up the now-apparent splits in the deaf community and the racial conflicts surrounding the presidential selection process. The blogpower team of Chris and Allison Kaftan discussed Dr. Fernandes’s attitude towards her constituents and the media’s declaration that the protest was over. Also, two memos from Gallaudet were released; one from the Board of Trustees declaring no reprisals, and one from Dr. Jordan on the search for an interim provost. DeafDC.com welcomed a new blogger, Swetha Amruthur, and pushed the hot-button issues of cochlear implants, privacy, and English as our national language. Remember, you read it here first! […]
Any ideas who to nominate for interim provost? I want to nominate Dr. Isaac Agboola for permanent provost.
Off my head- for interim- how about Cheryl Wu, Dr. Carol Erting, Eileen Mathhews, Steve Weiner, Donalda Ammons, Yerder Anderssen? Let me know any pros & cons before I email IJK my nominations for interim provost. (and oh, Glenn for permanent provost too, if he’s interested.)
I rather like the idea of Cheryl Wu. Active, passionate. From what I can see from a distance, balanced.
How about nominating some people from RIT/NTID/CSUN/etc.? How about for the interim provost to be also an external job posting, that way Gallaudet can collect fresh ideas/insights? No offense intended to Gallaudet associates.
I don’t have a problem with that personally, the only problem is…I don’t know folks at other institutions to nominate. Even if I knew a name, I don’t know anything about her/his performance at these institutions.
Cheryl Wu is fabulous. FYI, she would surely qualify as “not deaf enough.” Cheryl is hard of hearing, and speaks (yes, SPEAKS) Chinese! For what it’s worth, I would love to see anybody in the FSSA organization take on the interim provost job. Then, might we see a little more sympathy for JKF and what a tough job she’s had for the past 6 years? “Herding cats” doesn’t even begin to cover it… see how long the interim provost can be thought of as nice and well-liked and still be the “bad cop” of Gallaudet.
By the way, KBM, I was flabbergasted when you said that some BDA members actually don’t have a problem with JKF and think she’s okay! I for one would sure like to hear more about (or from) them.
Yes, it’s quite surprising to me as well. One of them told me something about her generous financial support for a BDSU event as one of the reasons they have no beef with her, I didn’t ask more questions to glean specific details, my apologies. Let me see if I can ask one of them to respond.
Okay, got a response from a highly respected Gally staffer, and a long time NBDA member- (still awaiting a response from another person)-
“As a coalition we consist of students from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and from cultures- the idea of bashing a woman in such negative ways is simply not acceptable. JK has helped MANY students of color who were about to withdraw for financial reasons and same for many international students in similiar situations, so there is no desire to attack a person who has not harmed most of them. Students of color KNOW JK is serious about diversity because she championed the effort and they feel she would help make Gallaudet a safer place for students of color faced with a hostile and racist environment where many people prefer to ignore racism and want focus on audism only- students of color feel the same about Stephen Weiner and many also think Ron Stern is also committed to diversity so its really NOT about any individual but rather who would protect them from second class status of Galladuet. Basically, students of color saw the flaw in the process and not necessarily on the individuals or their character.”
KBM, the GallyFSSA website was finally updated today. There is a letter purporting to be from the Atlanta BDA… has your name at the bottom. Dated 5/12/06. Can you verify that you took part in writing this letter? Has ABDA had any further thoughts about the open letter or how/if they will want to work with IKJ/JKf/BoT on the various issues that have arisen since May 1st? There’s been a flurry of memos from the BoT to the FSSA and Gallaudet community since then … I was hoping there would be some rapprochement coming soon. One thing I would definitely like to see is whether any organization will write an Open Letter giving their support to IKJ/JKF/BoT and offering some practical ideas how the two will work together. Any chance that Atlanta BDA will take the lead here? It would be such a magnanimous gesture. How about the other multicultural groups on campus, if you know? Maybe you/BDA can get the lemmings going up the cliff instead of down it? ;-)
Since May 12, no further discussion on the issue has occurred within ABDA thereafter, mainly because we’re occupied with conference planning (www.southernbda2006.com). Yes, that letter is legit, I took part in writing that letter, in soliditary (sp) with National BDA. NBDA made a verbal commitment to Coalition of Students of Color firstmost (FSSA secondly). That fourth demand about restoring honor and respect to JK- we meant it, however ABDA has no immediate plans to act publicly in contrary with the mother organization, National BDA, nor with Coalition of Students of Color. As a matter of respect, we prefer these two organizations to take the first lead, and the local chapter will act in a supportive position accordingly. Now, me as individual, I do what I can- most of the time it means discussing practical ideas with NBDA key people or emailing some people on FSSA and Coalition of Diversity my thoughts. This is the summer of our first regional BDA conferences (four of them), so we will be discussing this issue with a lot of folks there and here, and come up with something.
I agree with you re: Cheryl Wu. She is fabulous and a strong leader for the FSSA.
I asked Dr. Wu and she said no thanks- the inequities in the process are simply unacceptable. I am continually digging in this and the more I dig and ask around, the more I’m thinking that come fall, we will be seeing a serious battle.
hmm… I really, really doubt those “inequities” would apply to Cheryl Wu. She’d be a shoo-in for any administrative job at Gallaudet lucky enough to get her.
By the way, I did read Lindsay Dunn’s article in deafprofessional.net and was blown away. (Interested readers can view it here: http://deafprofessional.net/in.....;Itemid=40)
I wish there were more like him. I especially appreciated the parallels between the two previous U.S. presidential elections and the perception of unfairness there too.
Honestly, the BoT has everything under control. Further protest would be fruitless. I would so much rather that the protest organizations expend their considerable energies and frustrations on things that really matter, such as the many issues listed on the NAD web site.
By inequities, she is referring to how both the PSC and the interim provost search process are not inclusive. We already know what she meant by PSC. Now, in respect to this interim provost, there are only two students representatives- the president of SBG and GSA. Both of them have been caught not being sensitive to students of color with the original PSC. So Dr. Jordan should have also included a student representative from Coalition of Students of Color or from BDSU, APA, etc.
“BoT has everything under control”, well…I don’t know about that…let’s wait and see what happens during the summer and especially in the fall before we come to that kind of conclusion.
Who really want to be an interim provost as a drop in the bucket??
Why the IKJ/JKF adminstration have to rush the search for interim provost??
The best way to resolve the whole Gally fisaco is NOT to have an interim provost!!! What good will be for the university to have an interim provost if someone will be not able to use it as a stepping stone.
How UNFAIR of IKJ used JKF as an example of qualification to be the 9th President while deny the career ladder to the interim provost.
THAT is a pure CONTRADICATION on the part of the Gallaudet Board of Trustees, excluding Dr. Harvey Goodstein (which I have a great respect for him and Astrid)!!
Why waste our precious time on this blog??
We must sharpen ourselves for the long haul against the real cronyism and incomptenency and “blind three mices” analogy!!
LET’s send the STRONG message to the IKJ/JKF adminstration and Gally’s BOT that we will NOT ACCEPT ANY INTERIM PROVOST!
If any of you really careful to read the latest BOT announcement regarding Fernandes’ resignation as the provost and become the acting president.
Fernandes is still offically regin as the dual role of Provost and Acting President, not formally step down as the Provost.
SAME THING with the recent BOT announcement regarding “no reprisals”. Many people still not realize that there WILL be reprisals after the Commencement Day. *chopped head rolling down*
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Dark clouds are gathering in the sky of Gallaudet finances. Republicans will name as pork in the Congress budget. Cuts will be forced. Fernandes was selected to crisis manage. The guillotine will be set up and heads will be rolling.
Just have to share it with everyone:
Joe Dirt
(#4407) | 2006-05-22 05:59:58
Fernandes Resigns as Deaf Mayor, Appoints Blue Ribbon Commission To Replace Her by Joe Dirt
On Saturday, May 22nd over a plate of hasty lasagna at her suburban Washington, DC home, Gallaudet University President-Elect Jane K. Fernandes announced her retirement as mayor of the Deaf World.
“It seems since it was announced that I will be the 9th President of Gallaudet University, homegrown, grasssroots “been on SSDI their whole life” deaf people seem to think I am the Mayor of Deafville. Nothing could be further from the truth”.
When pressed on, it seemed she had more to say.
“These poor unfortunate souls, some of whom have NEVER interacted with a hearing person or held down a full time paying job, confuse the President of Gallaudet University with someone who actually gives a crap about them”.
Fernandes went on to explain about the actual duties and responsibilities of the University Presidential office, nothing of which appeared to have anything to do with international deaf people, or even deaf people from across the United States, aside from being able to offer advanced college degrees to deaf people (of whom very few, less than 4% of the available pool, take advantage of.)
“Why the affinity for Gallaudet University?”, Fernandes volunteered. “It’s very simple: they have no place else to go. They don’t have much of a life to begin with. If they’re not getting drunk, high, or having meaningless sexual one night stands with a complete stranger who has a sexual disease infection, they’re certainly not going to a University classroom.”
To replace her as the Mayor of Deafville, Fernandes announced the appointment of a blue ribbon, all deaf panel/commission to find a new Mayor of Deafville called R.A.P.E.:
Retire
Aged
Personnel
Early
Old **** Gallaudet University professors such as Gina Oliva, MJ Bievnenu, and Elaine Jacobowotiz, all of whom are so old they can only eat applesauce and strained peas, have gleefully endorsed the idea that they now have a purpose in life to find the new Mayor of Deafville and have put off their plans to commit Hari-Kari together.
All 3 issued a joint statement: “We are excited to be RAPE’d and look forward to picking a new Mayor of Deafville! Our first choice would be Gill Eastman, if he is still alive. And if he is dead, we will just hire an embalmer and taxidermist to prop him up and attach some wires to his hands and arms to make it look like he is still using sign language.”
What’s the purpose of re-posting this? Joe Dirt is an idiotic troll. Best way to deal with trolls like him is to IGNORE them!
He’s the most entertaining writer on this site - next to me, of course. Troll or not. Speaking of trolls, you ever notice most deaf people look deformed?
If you’re not a troll, you smell suspiciously like one.
ever notice most trolls look deformed?
I loved what Ben M. once wrote, just go to MVA and see what the average citizen looks like. Makes the rest of us Ogres feel better.
My apologies to the authors of this post; I know these type of comments are rather stagnating.
How would you know what I smell like “sniffs myself” smells like Oscar Meyer to me, cupcake.
All I know is that I wouldn’t light a cigarette in your presence; otherwise we’d both go *FOOOOOMPH*
I think I can do without a blackened face and hair sticking out every which way with smoke circling me.
The smell of sulphur around you is that noxious. Ever consider using the bathroom and/or stopping eating deviled eggs?
Well well well… ooo lalalala. How witty. HOw can you let your talents go to waste trading insults, when you couldn’t even mount an adequate defense for your cute little revolution?
I Joe Dirt supposed to be Deaf?
I you deaf?
LOL. My kingdom for an edit button. The question stands: is Joe Dirt supposed to be Deaf?
FSSA just issued their response to this letter from the BoT- you can read it at gallyfssa.org. Scroll down a bit.
The letter from AADP is pretty interesting.
has anyone visited http://www.gallyprotest.org? interesting stuff here. It is Brian Riley’s web site re the legal aspects of the protest. His schtick is that they are looking for a pro bono lawyer to sue the Federal Government to force a change in the membership of the BoT, the bylaws, and possibly the Gallaudet charter itself. There is a rehash of some stuff, like past press releases, the Education of the Deaf Act, the complete BoT bylaws, and so on and so forth.
I’d be curious to get input on the proposed legal angle from a lawyer-type. Anybody out there who is qualified and able to comment?
Well, I am not a lawyer. My first reactions: I think it will get out of hand. It looks like it will put more unnecessary and unforeseen damages to the whole community. By the way, who is Brian Riley?
no idea… but I bet Ricky and Zoltan will let us know within a few hours. Brian Riley plays for their team.
Gallaudet budget contains items suitable for legal fees. Nobody knows exactly how much money lawyers take from the university, but it might be considerable as lawyers just LOVE to work for Gallaudet. ;-)
The problem is that the legal system might be usurped for the benefit of current administration, and Gallaudet monies might pay for something that is NOT necessarily Gallaudet interest but individual administrator’s interest to stay at the top. These people have thick enough skin to claim that their own demise would be the demise of Gallaudet itself, and use the resources accordingly.
Now, this has to be challenged! If the new WEB-site attracts support, the protest movement won’t be defenseless anymore. This is not directly linked to FSSA.
The gallyprotest.org site also has a blog, and the address is http://www.gallyprotest.org/blog/index.html
Today is its first day of operation. Among the several profound and thought-provoking questions include:
(1) Should we sue the US Federal Government to change the bylaws of the BoT? (2a) Should the BoT be *elected* by the students/faculty/staff/alumni members? (2b) Should the BoT be appointed by the President of the US? (3) Should we file a court injunction to block Fernandes’s appointment as the next President of Gallaudet?
hmmm … I dunno… can’t be sure… but I suspect there is a lack of understanding of how universities operate.
(Yes, that’s me being sardonic again.)
*whistles* Wow. Yeah. They sure have a serious lack of knowledge over legal matters and on how universities operate. Sheesh!
I agree.
Regardless of my opinions on JKF and the BoT, I’d have to say I agree. :-(
Brian Riley is my dear friend for more than 18 years. I personally know him. We get reunited at the Gally protest. I used to hang with his former deaf Gally girlfriend (Canadian).
I am with Brian 150 percent and give him my total support for what he is currently doing. Brian is a good guy!
I must say that the Gally protestors are out of their leagues or not really know how to enact the succesful manueuvers and strategies to outfox and outsmart the corruptible IKJ and JKF adminstration and the “ostrich in the sand’ Gally BOT except Harvey Goodstein. Harvey is a good guy in the BOT.
RLM
“Harvey is a good guy…” Harvey Goodstein, Tom Humphries, et al have stated their unanimous support for Fernandes. You don’t get to pick and choose good guys vs. bad guys on the BoT just because you like some people and not others. It makes no difference what the closed-door vote actually was, as every member has publicly stated their support for JF, and will not state otherwise.
I’m here, if anyone has any questions.
Why isn’t FSSA involved in this? It does not make sense to reinvent the wheel.
Brian Riley is not affiliated with the FSSA. He is posting stuff on his website without consulting with the FSSA. Brian should clarify that he is acting on his own, otherwise what he is doing, even though he is trying to help or has good intentions, will hurt the FSSA.
Has the FSSA talked to this guy face to face?
This guy is in Fresno now. He did fly to DC and offered his help to the FSSA. I don’t know the details, but I believe the FSSA asked him to leave when he started to do things without the consent of the FSSA. I believe Brian has good intentions at heart and may not realize the damage he could do. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
That’s not accurate, but we’ll talk about it later after the protest is completed.
Hi Deaf Pundit,
I appreciate your concern. Everything is fine and under control.
Please reread the gallyprotest.org web site. It is clearly stated that gallyprotest.org has a different area of concern than FSSA and there should be no conflict. FSSA is focused on removing Fernandes, gallyprotest.org is focused on long-term status of Gallaudet and the status of the power of the Board of Trustees.
If there is a conflict, we can discuss it and I will consider making changes. So far, everything is fine.
Brian
gallyprotest.org is using the Gallaudet issue as a stepping-stone for a lawsuit against the U.S. government. It’s also seeking legal help on behalf of the protestors, in order to make this happen. (Never mind that nobody connected with the protest has requested this aid or suggested this type of lawsuit.) This will accomplish exactly WHAT for Gallaudet??? Let’s hope it disappears quickly, for the FSSA’s sake.
Hello Battle-Axe,
Thank you for your input. It will be taken into careful consideration. We will certainly change our message and methods if it is found to be necessary.
Just to clarify, I myself am an 1987 alumnus of Gallaudet and have been participating in the protest since May 5 on a full-time basis. I am myself a stakeholder in the outcome of the protests.
FSSA’s mission is concerned with Jane Fernandes and the effort to block her appointment before she assumes office in January 2007. There are other, more long-range issues related to the protest, which are not being covered by FSSA, including questions of the legal status of Gallaudet and whether members of the Board of Trustees should be elected by Gallaudet’s stakeholders and also subject to recall/removal processes when called for.
Accomplishing changes of this nature will require action on the part of either Congress or the federal courts. Succeeding in this effort will mean that the Gallaudet community will be able to avoid conflicts of this sort in the future. The Board will become more accountable for their activities and will make choices that better reflect what is in the best interests of Gallaudet University.
FSSA has never represented itself as an organization that represents *every* issue under the umbrella of the protests. There are many protesters, including those that support our efforts, who have been speaking out on the larger issues involved. At same point, action must be taken on these long-range issues, and for the best interests of Gallaudet, it is incumbent upon us to take such issues seriously and take action, each of us according to our consciences and our best judgment. That is the democratic process and that is what will be required for the future health of Gallaudet University as regards its relationship with and benefit to society as a whole.
“Unity for Gallaudet”? Mask of hypocrisy abounds? Digging a deeper hole with this “lawsuit”?
Hi McConnell,
We share your concerns.
Gallyprotest.org is an eductional outreach program designed to gather information on possible courses of action and also bring relevant issues to the table in the public debate about the future of Gallaudet.
Certainly, a lawsuit against the Federal Government is a very serious matter and must be carefully considered from every angle. The issue should be put before the community of Gallaudet’s stakeholders so that the community can engage itself in debate and the come to a consensus on the appropriate course of action.
Doing such is in the democratic spirit and is in fact the necessary and proper course of action that *should* be taken for the sake of the unity of the movement. The movement cannot be unified if it does not engage itself in public debate. It is a public, not a private movement.
At the heart of the movement is the idea that the democratic process of debate is necessary for the healthy functioning of Gallaudet. Members of the Board of Trustees made decisions which did not reflect the concerns of the stakeholders of Gallaudet University. The protest movement, in order to follow its own goals of inclusion, discussion and debate, should therefore see the wisdom in inviting all views from all protesters in the free and open forum of American society.
Huh??? Reality check here, Brian. I have not researched this thoroughly, but it seems to me that the GU BoT operates just like the BoTs do for any other university in America. Board membership isn’t a political appointment. Members don’t get voted in by the “stakeholders.” Presidents of universities don’t get hired by a popular vote of students, faculty, staff, or alumni. They are appointed by the BoT which is made up of people who have high-level experiences in education, government, and corporations. Just because GU is federally funded, and just because GU is a university for deaf people, does not make its BoT any different from any other BoT. It seems to me that what you are proposing for GU in terms of changing the bylaws, composition of the board, and etc., is to make GU into an entirely different entity than a university. I sincerely doubt that is what anyone wants. I can see that the NEXT search process might use a different criteria or scoring matrix — but surely not an election as you suggested.
Gallaudet is a unique institution, as remarked by President Ronald Reagan when he signed the Education of the Deaf Act in 1986.
Reagan pointed out that the Act contains provisions which are likely to be unconstitutional, relating to the Incompatibility Clause and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Reagan’s comments indicate that it was his view and the view of his legal advisers that, although Gallaudet is a private college in name, Gallaudet University is actually a federal agency which is subject to the control of the U.S. Department of Education and oversight by the United States Congress.
See: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/a.....80486c.htm
Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees is legally mandated to follow U.S. Policy, as outlined in the Education of the Deaf Act. The purpose of the Act, as clearly stated, is to educate the deaf.
The culture of political corruption that currently exists on the Gallaudet campus and within the Board is a clear violation of U.S. Policy and U.S. Federal Law. Many pertinent facts of Fernandes’s background were either ignored by the Board or covered up, including Fernandes’s unethical acceptance of tenure outside the normal review process, her acceptance of her autocratic installation of Provost of Gallaudet, and her failure, as a former administrator at the Model Secondary School for the Deaf, to properly discipline a student who committed petty crimes, then graduated high school, enrolled himself in Gallaudet and then murdered a classmate.
Any one of those three issues above would be far more than enough to disqualify Fernandes’s candidacy in a proper search process which was in accord with U.S. Policy and Federal Law, not to mention the issue of allegations of pressuring professors to issue passing grades to students who were failing their math classes, or the issue of Gallaudet’s sinking academic standards which have resulted from Fernandes’s tenure as Provost of Gallaudet for the past six years.
Since Gallaudet is likely to be a federal agency, a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Government would cause the court to order changes in the U.S. Department of Education and changes in the day-to-day governance of Gallaudet so that the actions of the Board are subject to review and not allowed to violate U.S. Policy and Federal Law. If the court would decide that Gallaudet is not a federal agency, but is quasi-public, then the court can be convinced that an unconstitutional delegation of power has occurred on the part of Congress toward the Gallaudet Board of Trustees.
Currently, Board members are not subject to any proper oversight (short of Congressional intervention accomplished by writing new law). This is an unconstitutional state of affairs.
Board members currently elect themselves to office without any proper oversight from any constituency. At a truly private university, Board members *could* legally and ethically elect themselves, however in that situation there would be great influence brought to bear from the ranks of the alumni, many of whom donate large amounts of money and without whose support the Board could not function, in the practical political sense. Unpopular decisions by the Board could result in the parents of students (and the independent students) immediately suspending their tuition payments to the school.
At Gallaudet, however, the Board’s actions are only lightly monitored by Congressional members of the Board, and those Congressional members rarely attend meetings. Expecting Congress to involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of Gallaudet is impractical and unreasonable. If Gallaudet’s Board makes decisions which are not in the best interests of Gallaudet, it is highly unlikely that Congress would intervene and suspend appropriations to the university.
Compare the situation with the Federal Reserve, whose members are directly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve then, is subject to direct control of the federal government, since the officers are appointed by the government and are subject to proper removal mechanisms. As mentioned however, Gallaudet’s Board members elect themselves–an unprecedented state of affairs in terms of federal or quasi-public bodies.
Changing the law so that Gallaudet’s Board members are appointed by the President of the U.S. and confirmed by the Senate would be one solution to bring Gallaudet in compliance with federal law. Another option would be having Gallaudet’s stakeholders elect the Board members directly in free elections conducted by mail and in person on the Gallaudet campus. That would not be such an unprecedented policy, since it is common for many private corporations to be controlled by a vote of stockholders. Gallaudet, then, would become a pioneer institution for the new millennium, showing a process of governance which is responsive and molded in the democratic spirit, and modeled after the successful model of private corporations.
Brian, on your website, it says “Protesters at Gallaudet University and their supporters are urgently seeking pro bono legal assistance.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. No one in the FSSA or the Gallaudet Community is seeking legal assistance with the intention of suing Gallaudet University. If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, then you should clarify this on your website. Also, when you send a letter to the Chairperson of the BoT, you should make it clear that you are not acting on FSSA’s behalf. There are many of us who would hate to see the rapport developed between the BoT and FSSA ruined by a misunderstanding. Thanks in advance.
It is not meant to cause confusion. I think it is very clear that “protesters” means “some of the protesters” and is does not mean that these requests are coming from official or unofficial FSSA decisions.
The FSSA is only one group which represents protesters and it has limited itself to the issue of Fernandes and her selection as president. There are many other groups involved, such as the Faculty Senate, the Student Body Government, the Graduate Students, etc.
“”No one in the FSSA or the Gallaudet Community is seeking legal assistance with the intention of suing Gallaudet University.”"
How do you know? International employees working for Gallaudet were prevented for years from obtaining appropriate labor certification. Hey, they were NOT illegal immigrants! They were highly educated professionals hired legally by Gallaudet but were refused to be furnished with paperwork.
For internationals it is hard to figure out law. This does not mean the situation was not against the law. Experts should have a look!
The Faculty Guideline contains regulation to this day (!!!) that might casue a situation which is against the law. These are REAL issues even though FSSA refused to deal with them.
True, but that lawsuit has nothing to do with the protest and the presidential search process.
I probably should clarify my recent post. If what you said is true about international faculty, then you have grounds for a lawsuit. This lawsuit should happen regardless of what happened at Gallaudet in recent weeks.
The statue of limitation would prevent the legal challenge of practices between 2001 and 2003. At least this is my understanding with my limited experiences with law.
That part of Faculty Guideline that may create legally problematic situation might be challenged in the court. Experts should have to look at it, and decide. I am only a whisle-blower here…
Huh? I think you do not understand mcconnell’s point. Second of all, you jump the gun on your project. The project requires a lot of researches first and based on what I read in your blog/posts, I think you haven’t started it yet the proper way. Last of all, get real!
There might be a pool of lawyers who want to join and analyze the situation. They migh come up with brilliant ideas. I would say it might be too early to bury this approach.
Brian, I applaud your efforts to find a resolution to this problem. But a lawsuit? I think if there are going to be any lawsuits,it should be initatied by specific individuals like Bernald Holt for being unfairly terminated or for financial mismanagment/corruption, or Dr. Glenn Anderson for (age?race?) discrimination. But a lawsuit just because BoT didn’t listen to us? I’m not co-signing on this very risky plan.
Hi KBM,
I don’t think it is so risky. The Federal Courts in the United States are very responsive to the ideals upon which this country was founded. I think that if we do reach a consensus and do bring a proper lawsuit, then we will achieve good results.
There is a great deal of goodwill that exists in American society towards Gallaudet, and I think that the judges would be extremely careful to make the proper decisions that are in the best interests of Gallaudet and also American society as a whole.
We have to wait and see what the attorneys recommend for the exact nature of the proposed lawsuit, before we can really make a proper evaluation.
Let me repost my response, so that it will be easier to read:
Gallaudet is a unique institution, as remarked by President Ronald Reagan when he signed the Education of the Deaf Act in 1986.
Reagan pointed out that the Act contains provisions which are likely to be unconstitutional, relating to the Incompatibility Clause and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Reagan’s comments indicate that it was his view and the view of his legal advisers that, although Gallaudet is a private college in name, Gallaudet University is actually a federal agency which is subject to the control of the U.S. Department of Education and oversight by the United States Congress.
See: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/a.....80486c.htm
Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees is legally mandated to follow U.S. Policy, as outlined in the Education of the Deaf Act. The purpose of the Act, as clearly stated, is to educate the deaf.
The culture of political corruption that currently exists on the Gallaudet campus and within the Board is a clear violation of U.S. Policy and U.S. Federal Law. Many pertinent facts of Fernandes’s background were either ignored by the Board or covered up, including Fernandes’s unethical acceptance of tenure outside the normal review process, her acceptance of her autocratic installation of Provost of Gallaudet, and her failure, as a former administrator at the Model Secondary School for the Deaf, to properly discipline a student who committed petty crimes, then graduated high school, enrolled himself in Gallaudet and then murdered a classmate.
Any one of those three issues above would be far more than enough to disqualify Fernandes’s candidacy in a proper search process which was in accord with U.S. Policy and Federal Law, not to mention the issue of allegations of pressuring professors to issue passing grades to students who were failing their math classes, or the issue of Gallaudet’s sinking academic standards which have resulted from Fernandes’s tenure as Provost of Gallaudet for the past six years.
Since Gallaudet is likely to be a federal agency, a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Government would cause the court to order changes in the U.S. Department of Education and changes in the day-to-day governance of Gallaudet so that the actions of the Board are subject to review and not allowed to violate U.S. Policy and Federal Law. If the court would decide that Gallaudet is not a federal agency, but is quasi-public, then the court can be convinced that an unconstitutional delegation of power has occurred on the part of Congress toward the Gallaudet Board of Trustees.
Currently, Board members are not subject to any proper oversight (short of Congressional intervention accomplished by writing new law). This is an unconstitutional state of affairs.
Board members currently elect themselves to office without any proper oversight from any constituency. At a truly private university, Board members *could* legally and ethically elect themselves, however in that situation there would be great influence brought to bear from the ranks of the alumni, many of whom donate large amounts of money and without whose support the Board could not function, in the practical political sense. Unpopular decisions by the Board could result in the parents of students (and the independent students) immediately suspending their tuition payments to the school.
At Gallaudet, however, the Board’s actions are only lightly monitored by Congressional members of the Board, and those Congressional members rarely attend meetings. Expecting Congress to involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of Gallaudet is impractical and unreasonable. If Gallaudet’s Board makes decisions which are not in the best interests of Gallaudet, it is highly unlikely that Congress would intervene and suspend appropriations to the university.
Compare the situation with the Federal Reserve, whose members are directly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve then, is subject to direct control of the federal government, since the officers are appointed by the government and are subject to proper removal mechanisms. As mentioned however, Gallaudet’s Board members elect themselves–an unprecedented state of affairs in terms of federal or quasi-public bodies.
Changing the law so that Gallaudet’s Board members are appointed by the President of the U.S. and confirmed by the Senate would be one solution to bring Gallaudet in compliance with federal law. Another option would be having Gallaudet’s stakeholders elect the Board members directly in free elections conducted by mail and in person on the Gallaudet campus. That would not be such an unprecedented policy, since it is common for many private corporations to be controlled by a vote of stockholders. Gallaudet, then, would become a pioneer institution for the new millennium, showing a process of governance which is responsive and molded in the democratic spirit, and modeled after the successful model of private corporations.
Brian, your post is unresponsive to the original questions and comments. You make allegations about the BoT, JKF, and IJK (e.g., “culture of corruption”) that are simply not supported by any known facts in evidence.
“Many pertinent facts of Fernandes’s background were either ignored by the Board or covered up”: once again, none of the candidates’ job performance was a factor considered by the PSC and the BoT.
JKF failed to “properly discipline a student who committed petty crimes, then graduated high school, enrolled himself in Gallaudet and then murdered a classmate.” Jeez! the murder of a student was JKF’s direct responsibility? Get real.
I could go on, but don’t have time to waste on this baloney. GU is a university, not a private corporation. It has a BoT, and no, my dear, the members do NOT elect themselves. They are chosen by other BoT members. The congressional members are NOT responsible for “monitoring” the BoT for the government. Alumni donate “large sums of money”? I don’t think so; corporations do, though. GU is subject to reviews by the federal Department of Education and OSERS. GU is not perfect. This we know.
One thing I’d like to make perfectly clear — George W. Bush will appoint Board of Trustee members over my dead effing body!!!
Now I’m even more curious whether your arguments have merit. Any lawyers out there who can respond? I’ll ask around.
I’d still like to hear from lawyers who might have a perspective on this.
Thank you for your comments.
If none of the candidates prior job performances were considered, then clearly the hiring process was not proper and it violated US Policy. They are supposed to uphold the US Policy included in the Education of the Deaf Act. If they don’t, then the Federal Government is responsible for remedying the situation. The Board is not the final authority.
Just read the resolutions of the Gallaudet Faculty Senate where they mention that Fernandes accepted tenure as a professor without deserving it. Are you saying that the Faculty Senate has no evidence for that? Is it not true? Of course it’s true that she accepted tenure improperly, and that one piece of evidence, coupled with the widely known fact that Fernandes did not go through a proper hiring process to become Provost–those two facts are *more than enough* to show a culture of corruption. The evidence from Bernard Bolt adds more proof.
You misunderstood when I said “themselves,” I meant that members choose other members. If Gallaudet is not a federal agency, then *that* represents an unconstitutional delegation of power on the part of Congress. Congress is not legally allowed to give people so much delegated power that they are not held responsible in their day-to-day activities. Remember, Gallaudet is not an autonomous legal entity. It is a “child” of Congress. What we don’t know for sure is what kind of “child” it is. (I don’t mean to be demeaning by using the word “child,” but I use it because it’s a clear illustration. Gallaudet is not a free-standing private organization. It is not an independent legal entity like a normal private school.)
I never said that Gallaudet alumni donate large sums to Gallaudet. I think you are not reading my posts carefully enough. I said that at *other* colleges, alumni donate, like Harvard, for example. I don’t know the rules of Harvard, but since it is a real private school, it is legally proper for their Board members to have a lot of decision-making power. They can have the top authority at Harvard and that’s fine. If they make bad decisions, the parents and alumni can withdraw money in response. That’s how most private businesses work. If a business makes a bad product, then the consumers will react.
That won’t happen very easily at Gallaudet. Congressmen will not want to cut the budget, because it looks like they are causing damage to a minority of people (the deaf). So Congressmen will not perform their ethical duty properly.
Brain,
Here’s one example for you to think about.
A customer entered McDonald’s to order food. In other words, the customer helped the business grow and made the employees proud of their service. And the customer bought food for his body’s nourishment needs. All of a sudden, the customer pulled the gun and killed someone next to him. It’s a small world! Fifteen years ago, the killer went to elementary school where the store manager used to be a principal. Should we say the store manager is guilty?
To the point, you presented irrelevant or inadmissible evidences.
Your explanation (all of them)is… *yawn*
Of course she is not responsible for the crime he committed, but she *is* responsible for not properly doing her job and disciplining him as a high school student. That’s malfeasance, and a very high degree of malfeasance that would get anyone disqualified for a job like president of a university. I can’t stress that enough.
Just a short link ona past lawsuit:
http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccou.....V-488+.PDF
Curious as to what you are trying to say by posting this link… are you saying that the court determined Gallaudet/Fernandes to be responsible for the death of Ben Varner?
It seems quite a leap, doesn’t it? Because he had stolen some stuff, JKF should have known that he would later beat people to death.
well, actually, the court determined that Gallaudet wasn’t negligent. I was just trying to see if Zoltan understood the court’s opinion, that’s all.
Who is Zoltan? Who are you talking about? ;))
Using your flawless logic, let’s sue Mesa’s parents as well because they bred and let a ******">****** up kid run loose.
This is simply reductio ad adsurdum.
Dan Brown could write a novel about how Mesa grew up and was mentored by Fernandes in Hawaii. When Fernandes got the job at Clerc Center, she became Mesa’s guardian despite Mesa’s parents’ objections, and brought him over to DC. In DC, Mesa became a child of God and joined a multinational religious cult called the Myung Moonies. If you look closely at Fernandes’ left ankle, you’ll see a tattoo depicting a crescent moon.
Hey, all this could be true…except for the tattoo part.
I think your reductio ad absurdum argument is a non-sequitur. People have free will and you can’t legally hold one person responsible for the crime that another person has committed (assuming that the first person wasn’t involved in any direct way.)
For heaven’s sake, let’s make it absolutely clear that Fernandes had no direct responsibility whatsoever for the Mesa murders. No rational person would accuse her of being directly involved. To even allude to such a thing would be extremely irresponsible and I think would indicate a desire to confuse the issue and stifle appropriate debate.
The crucial question simply involves the question of Fernandes’s *indirect* responsibility in that she was the administrator in charge of pre-college programs at Gallaudet and therefore was the administrator responsible to make sure that appropriate discipline was applied when Mesa committed petty crimes as a high school student at MSSD.
One, or maybe two, petty thefts on the part of a student, I’m guessing, is a common occurrence at many high schools, and shouldn’t in itself raise major alarm bells, but more than that and the question arises: Why was Mesa allowed to remain as an MSSD student? (Especially, why was he allowed to remain at MSSD, seeing as though MSSD is, for many of the students, a *residential* school where students stay in dorms?) Why was Mesa later accepted as a Gallaudet University student?
These are very serious issues. Two innocent people lost their lives! If you read the appeals court case where the court rules in favor of Gallaudet, you’ll see that Gallaudet won the case on what amounts to be legal technicalities. It has to do with the fact that no body or association of colleges has (or had) drawn up specific standards having to do with what should be deemed to be the standard practice for a university in very specific situations (such as: should it be standard practice for universities to issue key cards to residents of dorms? Etc.)
The results of that appeals court case do not let Fernandes off the hook for the question of whether she was malfeasant in her duties as the administrator in charge of pre-college programs while Mesa was an MSSD student. It was incumbent upon the hiring committee (in the Gallaudet presidential search process) to make the appropriate inquiries and pass the appropriate judgment on Fernandes’s abilities as an administrator. The fact that no association of colleges made precise rules about standards to apply in very specific situations does not mean that the hiring committee could ignore such questions.
The duty of the Board and the hiring committee, as prescribed by the general mandates outlined in U.S. Policy (as expressed in the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986) would involve asking exactly those types of questions. If the hiring committee (and/or Board of Trustees proper) ignored such questions or covered up the results of any inquiries along those lines, then the Board has violated U.S. Policy and must be held accountable.
Such violation on the Board’s part is actionable, meaning that it would be quite possible (and even morally incumbent upon some party) to file a lawsuit against the Federal Government in order to hold the Board of Trustees responsible for malfeasance in their duties.
It’s a very simple concept for any attorney to understand, and so far, absolutely no one has conveyed any kind of argument in rebuttal. We can safely assume that the Jordan Administration (including Fernandes) and members of Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees have read the Gallyprotest.org site. So far, they are choosing to not respond. That doesn’t reflect very well upon their leadership abilities.
These are very serious allegations and *no* competent administrator or leader would simply ignore them. This shows probably the extent of their naïveté and inability to manage Gallaudet’s affairs in a proper manner. Nobody accusing the Jordan administration of being crooks. The issue is whether they are managing the university’s affairs properly. The responsibility lies with the Board of Trustees for making sure that happens. It appears clear there has been gross mismanagement of the university’s affairs and that the Board has been malfeasant in not rectifying the situation (separate from the question of whether the hiring committee did its job properly).
Bernard Bolt’s accusations have been out there for some time. The Board has never completed any kind of proper formal inquiry. That’s not the way a university should be run. For them to ignore Bolt’s accusation is outrageous and shows more malfeasance on their (the Board’s) part.
The Board of Trustees at Gallaudet is malfeasant in their duties to a very, very high degree. Any judge at the federal level of our government would most surely agree.
Folks, this is not a close call. If a lawsuit is filed, we can expect that members of the Board of Trustees will be eventually removed. The best that the Board could hope for would be for the court to determine that it is a political issue that can only be resolved by Congress, but if it gets that far (if a lawsuit is filed and it gets that far in the courts), you can assume that enough attention would have been put on the issue to force Congress to take the appropriate actions and remove some or all of the Board members and change the legal structure and functioning of Gallaudet.
In fact, this has gone far enough. Fernandes should have resigned by now in view of all the serious issues that have been raised and in view of the high probably that she *was* indeed malfeasant and the Board *is* and has been malfeasant. That fact that she has not yet resigned and renounced her appointment as the next president of Gallaudet, shows either incompetence and naïveté to an extremely high degree, or it shows that she is being reckless and is putting Gallaudet’s reputation and good name on the line in the court of public opinion.
Does she think that if she holds out a little longer that she’ll be legally entitled to a large monetary settlement? Don’t count on it, Fernandes. Don’t be so reckless with Gallaudet’s good name. Shame on you, if that’s the case. Please, do the right thing and step down immediately. When the American people are finally made aware of the true state of affairs at Gallaudet and they are able to see through the “not deaf enough” smokescreen, there is going to be virtually *no* public support of your position. Why wait for the inevitable? Do the right thing and you might be able to put your career back together (assuming you acknowledge your past mistakes and show that you have learned). If you keep stalling and keep refusing to resign, you are only causing the situation to be ratcheted up, in that Gallaudet’s good name is being questioned in the court of world opinion. That’s extremely irresponsible on your part.
This lawsuit, partly, was about how Gallaudet handled the first murder in Fall 2000, skipping over Mesa who then killed again next Spring.
Although the court couldn’t find direct evidence that Gallaudet was responsible for Mesa’s second action, they did not deny what Detective Greene said including the assertion that the Plunkett murder was handled “grossly below the required, necessary and acceptable standard of care and showed disregard for the safety of the students at Gallaudet.”
Gallaudet was cleared for the following reason: “the investigating officers never informed Gallaudet, prior to Benjamin Varner’s murder, that the Plunkett homicide a few month earlier had involved theft. Under these circumstances, Mesa’s history of theft had no apparent relevance to the investigation of Plunkett’s death.” So not handling over Mesa’s record to investigators could not be challenged legally. Would this mean that all moral responsibility on Gallaudet part was cleared? I don’t know.
Where is the truth?
I was there during the Plunkett murder, and I can believe that the murder investigation was handled with sheer incompetence.
DOSS, that’s what the campus cops were called back then, came in the room and called it in to DC police as suicide. *boggles* Right. A suicidal person can thrash a lot of his blood all over the walls, and break a chair by himself.
Then the investigation was turned over to the DC Police. As all Gally students and alumni know, the DC police suck. They couldn’t investigate their way out of a paper bag. Even the DC police chief said so in the press, which didn’t endear him to the rest of the police department. The DC police chief decided to turn it over to the FBI, since it was such a high-profile case and nobody was getting anywhere.
So if you want to blame someone for the horrible investigations, blame the DC police, not the Gallaudet campus police.
As for security, many students there were morons about it. My freshman year, I had a roommate who *insisted* leaving the door unlocked during the night so her boyfriend could come in and out. Needless to say, she and I stopped being roommates after only a semester. She wasn’t the only one who left her door unlocked constantly. Which is why rapes and theft were rampant. So on that point, it was the students’ fault.
I don’t see how we can blame JK and IKJ for that.
Clearly testing the truth is doing just that…he’s fishing to see what folks will accept as truth on this subject. No, JKF can’t be blamed for those deaths. Theft does not equal murder. Theft is not an indicator that someone IS a murderer. JKF was a provost, not a detective.
Did gally do a bad job of beefing up security? Sure. Did gally do a bad job of handling mesa’s early thieving? sure.
I directly quoted from the report. You may want to read that. The DC police did not do good job, but the quality of information they received from DOSS might not have been that good either. They were told that because Plunkett was handicap and gay that it must have been a HATE CRIME.
Gallaudet admin made a big fuss about this hate crime hype when in fact it was a robbery. They had the wrong focus all along. Just ask Jane Fernandes WHEN did she established those fancy sounding “safe areas” around the campus. It would be too bad if other places would not be safe, wouldn’t it?
Actually the gay and lesbian students thought it was a hate crime due to the extremely homophobic atmosphere on campus, but the rest of the campus and especially the police thought it was a love quarrel gone bad.
Which is why they went after Tommy Minch. And again, the DC police didn’t do a thorough investigation. They didn’t check Plunkett’s credit cards. DOSS couldn’t have done that. The FBI checked, and that’s one big factor in how Mesa was caught. He used Plunkett and Varner’s credit cards after they died. Again, how can you blame Gally for this? :P
I believe it is a challenge for the law enforcement personnel because of communication issues. It is hard to interrogate Deaf people with the interpreter present because the investigator tends to lose connection and it’s a distraction at the most.
The Washington Post wrote on March 4th, 2001:
“Delvin Arnold shared a dorm room with Mesa in 1999 and said that Mesa stole his ATM card and and withdreww $3000 from his account over several days in April.
Mesa was suspended after the case was brought to before a campus judicial board, Arnold and other sources said. He received a one-year suspension and, after paying back Arnold, returned as a freshman in fall 2000.”
After the death of Eric Plunkett “the Lambda Society, a student club for gay men and lesbians, sought assurances from police that Plunkett’s death was being investigated as a possible hate crime. Plunkett was secretary of the club.”
Police “were unaware of Mesa’s record of theft on campus during the investigation of Plunkett’s death. University officials, however, said they had no knowledge that theft was part of the investigation.”
My feeling: Whoa, $3000.00 is a LOT of money. DC police should have definitely known about it! How could Mesa been forgiven with a one-year suspension with this crime after he already had a disturbing record of stealing and other petty offences from his MSSD years? Was this fact related to a view that “poor deaf kids” cannot be held responsible for their criminal action? Was this a “babying down” of caught-on responsibility?
As we saw baby-down criminals may become one day baby-down murderers..
Lambda claimed hate crime and the university leadership went along with them based on unsure allegations. They ignored the sure crime of stealing $3000.00 which they had knowledge of. The university that time was “crisis managed” by the provost.
Indeed, as we’ve said (most of us) they didn’t do a very good job). How in God’s name could you ever, in good conscience work at a place that you hold in such contempt?
My thoughts and prayers go to the families and other people impacted by the unfortunate incidents.
I didn’t know someone can foolproof many different kinds of system or/and process, however I know it can be optimized.
Dude… Now I understand why you were denied tenure! *shakes head in disgust*
Of all the crimes (including rapes etc) that happen on Gally campus every year, they were supposed to know THAT specific crime was linked? Come on!
Murder is still murder. To find a killer all efforts must be made in concert. Some people say the second killing might have been prevented. I have no business in calling on names.
I LOVE Gallaudet, and that is why I want to see an end of babying down Deaf education. Deaf kids should have the same state-of-the art education and the same chance in succeeding in life as anybody else has. Sorry, I am serious about it. Stone me for that.
testing… playing devil’s advocate here, maybe, but what “state of the art education that everyone else has” are you referring to? I read in the newspaper all the time about parents complaining about the education their children receive.
Largely, there seems to be no difference between people who are satisfied with their educational system and those who aren’t, other than the relative wealth of their municipalities. IMO, hearing/deaf status doesn’t seem to make a difference in the number of complaints.
I would be glad to discuss education more. Maybe not under this line of comments… Why don’t you start a good topic on this? I promise I won’t keep quiet.
Just to clarify, what I am saying is that even if she did administer *some* discipline to Mesa when he at MSSD, it obviously wasn’t sufficient. He should have never been allowed to attend Gallaudet. He should have probably been expelled from MSSD before that ever became a possibility.
I was wondering where are the RISK MANAGEMENT team that advises the provosts and presidents office of possible future risks. If there is none and how can they possible measure future risks by student offenders.
That’s exactly it. Provosts, principals etc all have risk management teams to help make these decisions.
Brian, I advise you not to make further comments. Let’s save all your legal issues for the court to hear.
Don’t we want to give the IKJ and JFK people some legal manuevers in ahead of time to rebutt your claims? I wouldn’t be surprised that those people DO read the blogs.
The IKJ adminstration never forgave me for calling IKJ an “apologist” back in 1996. Their people monitored the VAX conversations.
Surprise your opponent in the courtroom is the best legal strategy and keep them from getting their feets back on the floor.
RLM
Brian, please ask the DeafDC to delete all your following comments on the possibility of lawsuit for your own best interests.
Don’t we want the real victory over the IKJ, JKF, BOT and the federal government??
RLM
Robert,
I’m hoping of course that JK and IKJ will see the strong argument and that JK will see the handwriting on the wall and resign immediately and rescind her presidential appointment. That is the only logical thing for her to do and the best strategy that she and IKJ would have for encouraging people to keep the case out of court.
By now they are probably consulting their own lawyers and those lawyers are telling them that we have a very, very strong case.
Just think about Ronald Reagan saying that the Education of the Deaf Act “raises questions” about the Incompatibility Clause and the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. Really, it would be an open and shut case to have at least part of the Education of the Deaf Act declared unconstitutional. The other arguments about malfeasance on the Board’s part are very strong, too. This was indicated to me by an experienced attorney who has appeared before the Supreme Court in the past.
As it is, IKJ uses the trick of saying that Gallaudet is “private” when it is really a federal agency, or maybe a quasi-public agency. He’s got to stop that.
But maybe we have already said enough about the legal strategy for now and should keep the future strategy confidential. The previous posts are probably on Google now, so we should just leave everything the way it is. Everything so far has been fine.
Has the Education of the Deaf Act been revised? I believe it has maybe twice and I could be wrong on this.
Yes, there have been a few amendments since 1986. I believe that the copy I have posted on http://www.gallyprotest.org is accurate and up to date, but if there is a discrepancy, I would appreciate being notified.
One thing we could use some help on is getting the complete transcripts of I. King Jordan’s appearances before Congressional committees and/or subcommittees (as well as any other Gallaudet personnel) including copies of any correspondence– going all the way back to 1988.
If someone wants to help, please e-mail the info to me or fax it to me at (559) 230-1900 (24 hour fax).
Also, copies of any past official records of the Gallaudet Board of Trustees would be appreciated.
Current members of current or past administrations of Gallaudet are invited to get into contact with me, anonymously if desired (as well as past members of the Board of Trustees). All communication will be held in strict confidence.
Thanks,
Brian, brian(at)gallyprotest(dot)org
PS We also need paralegal help, if anyone wants to volunteer.
I was reading a blog somewhere where someone says to boycott Tom Humphries products. I am a little peeved about this because Dr. Humphries was doing what he was supposed to do. Why shoot the messenger?
If suppose MJ Bienvenu was out there saying the same thing as Humphries will the Deaf community boycott her products? I think not.
Cheryl Wu?! NO WAY! Are y’all aware THAT she was a pet student of Roger Beach’s, and he was the ONE who begged Gally to give her a teaching job! She brownosed all the way! GET REAL! There are others way way better than her! DAMN IT! She put many deafies down in SF and spoke badly of them BEHIND their backs! FYI, she can speak Chinese, but can’t even write it! GET REAL, you’all!
Dear gally student: MANY MANY Chinese folks in the U.S. can speak Chinese but not write it. Is this some how germane to the conversation?
How2Sites…
Thanks for offering such valuable info to your visitors. Your blog…