In today’s Baltimore Sun, Deaf lawyer Kelby Brick discussed the need for first steps in the “Gallaudet Revolution” that has happened as a results of the protests.
Brick, a former lawyer at NAD’s Law and Advocacy Center, explains the lack of involvement of stakeholders and how deaf individuals at Gallaudet were unable to participate in the governance of their own university. Brick explained how the protest “morphed into a characteristic revolution…with a long list of grievances….”
Brick is also eloquent in explaining how the protest began with the Coalition of Students of Color (COSC)’s complains about the exclusion of Dr. Glenn Anderson from the pool of finalists, into a protest that “attracted supporters who had their own exposure to a governing system that seemed autocratic and unresponsive.”
Pay close attention to the last two paragraphs Brick writes in his editorial, where he calls upon President Jordan to steer the University in the right direction — which would ensure the continuance of his legacy as the first deaf president.
Brick’s editorial, I believe, lays the ground for much work to be done, and dialogue between the various groups on the Gallaudet campus.
The link of Brick’s editorial can be found here.
© 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.
38 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I agree with you, Chris. I think Kelby’s editorial was very well written, and indeed eloquently expresses the situation - not just the protest of the past several months, but the current situation we now face.
Change isn’t going to happen overnight, but the protest was in fact the first step towards that change - the recognition that it needs to take place. Now it’s time for all of the stakeholders to begin discussing and determining just what direction we need to move in to create, communicate, and implement that change.
And yes, this is I. King Jordan’s opportunity to demonstrate to us where he stands in the midst of that process. While considerable damage has been done, it’s not a lost cause. We still need a leader, and there’s still time for Jordan to show us the qualities that will assure that his legacy continues.
Brick’s editorial tops all other Gallaudet related editorial I have read this year. In my opinion, not only President Jordan but also the Board of Trustees does have their opportunity to show us too. I was disappointed in both and they now have the chance to do something. I do have the faith in them.
I especially like that Brick’s focus is on the extensive history of paternalism at Gallaudet.
I wish there were a way for me to articulate the relationship I sense between that paternalism and the negative backlash in mainstream media and blogosphere.
This change isn’t gonna be easy.
This is what was called the Ancient power structure of colonization of the Deaf. It was build on paternalism, indeed. And on oppression, intimidation, terror. Its goal was to cage away the Deaf so that the ‘outside’ world don’t need to care. But we raised our fists and broke that cage into pieces. Ha!
The Jordan-Fernandes administration was, hopefully, the last representatives of this reactionary Ancient worldview before we’ll purge and demolish its power structure, and replace it with a modern, state-of-the-art power sharing system for the 21st century.
While this letter is intellectually incoherent, the gist of it appears to be that Gallaudet is only for Deaf students and faculty and that anyone who desires to attend is either assimilated or can find the highway. What kind of message is that for a federal institution?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....6110103005
Note of clarification: Move on (and the URL s/he posts) is referring to Kathy Wood’s editorial published in today’s Post, not to Kelby Brick’s piece, which is the subject of this blog.
My point was that two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right. Paternalism in the past over racism, audism, deafism, and sexism in the present.
Kudos to Kelby Brick for posting the most articulate explanation of the protests by far. I’m going to make copies of it and present it to anyone (hearing or deaf)who asks me what the Gallaudet turmoil is all about. I admit that while I had mixed feelings about the protest before, this article has cemented my support for the cause.
Kelby wrote a very good editorial; however, I felt that I was left hanging at the end.
I understand that many protesters felt that I. King Jordan was the source of many of the problems on campus. Will they now turn around and trust him to lead the changes that Kelby feels is necessary to improve Gallaudet?
How can the protesters trust I. King Jordan and the Board to implement these changes without the kind of leverage that they had before (such as the lock-down of the campus)?
Point understood.
It all has to do with HOW Jordan implements changes within the next two months. The worst he can do is create a lame duck administration, and by the lack of action this week, I fear he’s planning to do that. Jordan needs to reach out to people and get them to work together. We’re seeing too much animosity and divisive actions through emails, blogs, and personal contact.
I highly doubt that the vicious cycle will ever be broken. Changes will probably NOT happen ever, if at all — because typically, the BOT and President’s office have OTHER more important matters to worry about: funding.
Time and time again has shown us that calls for changes are always “nodded to” — then quickly forgotten. Gallaudet is always going to be under the gun to produce funding dollars as they are WORRIED constantly that the federal government COULD turn off the spigot to federal funding at any time (keep in mind that Gallaudet receives 70% of funding from Congress). Hence, the President is essentially the “rainmaker”. He/She isn’t going to worry about the problems within the institution, but instead focus on how to keep the university’s coffers full.
I also have to question WHY does it fall upon the President’s shoulders to fix this problem?
It’s a community wide problem. The provost and the faculty should be leading in initiating the healing process. IKJ is on his way out, and I think all bridges have been burnt with him. I think people should look to Dr. Moore for the initiation of the healing process, not IKJ.
My 2 cents.
~ Deaf Pundit
While it is true and no guarantee without the leverage, at least Kelby Brick has put it in writing.
With or without IKJ and because many other universities have implemented a shared governance, BoT may be under pressure to apply it in their own university’s system. The lack of shared governance over time contributed to Gallaudet’s protest.
Once Gallaudet has shared governance implemented, it is with hopes that all other issues will get the attention they deserve. A shared governance will encourage check and balance and makes it hard for anyone to try and abuse their power.
In the article, “Signs of Revolution” that my cousin, Leah Hager Cohen, published in OP-ED, the last paragraph she wrote:
“That’s why the decision on Sunday was a courageous one. If the board had insisted on holding fast to its earlier decision, its members might have saved face. Instead, by showing a willingness to examine honestly what brought things to this point, they have hastened the possibility of restoring faith — and they modeled for us an example of leadership far greater than simply upholding one’s authority, no matter the cost.”
I can only hope that BoT will continue to model for everyone at Gallaudet an example of leadership afterward and onward.
P.S. Sorry I’m not computer saavy and do not know how to do quotation or link the way others have managed, but here’s Leah Cohen’s article in its entirety for those who want to know:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10.....ref=slogin
Brick’s, Cohen’s and Wood’s writing are all examples of lazy thinking. They object to the outcome (Jane) and blame the ancient repressive “system.” The BoT is already MAJORITY DEAF. That reform was a result of changes made after DPN. It’s dishonest to not mention that. So the angle becomes, “They’re not the right KIND of deaf. I saw one talking! Another went to the AGB convention!” Picking the right SORT of deaf to ensure the “correct” outcome will be quite a problem, won’t it? Every single trustee has legitimate ties to the deaf community and a legitimate stake in Gallaudet’s mission. That includes the congressional members, who represent the taxpayers funding everything. So the cry becomes, “BoT should be majority ALUMNI”. Says who? Institutions simply aren’t run that way. If the alumni want to fund GU as a private entity, they should ante up. Others are saying the PSC (presidential search committee) should be majority students, staff, faculty and alumni. OOPS: IT already WAS. Jane was still selected. So proposals start flying to revise the BoT even further: 1. make the BoT majority “REAL Deaf” (criteria for authentic Deaf allowed to serve are being developed by our “intellectuals”), or 2. make the BoT majority almuni (I presume that all hearing alumni are excluded? that goes without saying!), or 3. make the BoT majority students, staff, faculty and alumni (excluding hearing members of those groups, of course), and finally 4. abolish all repressive structures of the organization and have direct authority for all decisions from the “bottom up.” This twisting of “shared governance” is the most dishonest approach because it’s really just anarchy. Even the anarchy approach has already run into trouble: discussions are under way on Gallynet to develop an “electoral college” voting system based on race so that minority stakeholders can form a majority! (Shakes head.) These deep thinkers are the professors, lawyers and leaders of this community?
Nathan raised many good points that have been troubling me for a while. Here is a case in point. People have been claiming that the presidential search process was flawed. Ms. Leah Hager Cohen made a bold statement that strong evidence exists for this claim. But, as best as I can, I could not find the evidence. I even asked for the strong evidence at GallyNet-L forum. No one has offered strong evidence. All we see are speculations. Speculation is not equivalent to evidence.
It seems, at least to me, that critical analysis and critical thinking skills are sacrificed to further a group of people’s agenda that is not grounded on facts. This does not abode well for the future of Gallaudet University.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Are you saying that by letting Ron Stern, who hasn’t gotten his Ph.D yet with no university experience, into the final three while eliminating a more qualified African American candidate, Dr. Glenn Anderson, from the final three doesn’t constitute the presidential search process as flawed?
That’s correct. Just because Ron Stern was on the final list does not necessarily mean that the process was flawed. Just because Dr. Glenn Anderson was not on the final list does not necessarily mean that the process was flawed. There is no direct relationship between the person being on or not being on the final list and flaw in the process. It does not have to be Dr. Glenn Anderson. It would be any other candidate that was not on the final list.
We don’t have access to the rating form that the search committee used to assess applicants. (I learned about the rating form from progress report dated March 24, 2006 that was used to be available at http://pr.gallaudet.edu/presidentalsearch/?ID=8412 but it disappeared and I had to use Google to find a cached copy of it.) One possible theory is that Dr. Glenn Anderson did not get a higher score than Ron Stern when the search committee used the rating form to assess them. It is still theory that can’t be proven without any strong evidence.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Without a Ph.D to begin with, how did Ron Stern, not others with Ph.D, manage to get into the final 3? While I have enormous respect for Ron Stern and I am glad NMSD get to still have him as not many deaf schools have a superintendent like Ron Stern, something is up with the whole search process. In my opinion, this alone should merit for the search process to be re-opened with or without protestors’ demand.
Katherine, one of the protestors’ issues that I do tend to agree with is that the process by which the candidates were screened and chosen doesn’t seem to be transparent enough, or else we would all know the answer to that question. My guess is that a PhD was not *required*, so a person who did not have one could still compete with those who did. Again, I’m guessing, but I think candidates earned points depending on what they said in reply to standard questions. It seems hard to believe, but maybe Stern earned more points than Dr. Anderson? Everyone talks about how the selection process must have been biased in Dr. Fernandes’ favor … there must have been some things that favored Stern as well. I would love to know more about exactly how the search process worked. This would be a great topic for a blog.
The language of the qualification in respect to Ph.D. is open to two different possible interpretations both of which are not totally unreasonable. On one hand, the language is interpreted to be a mandatory requirement. On the other hand, the language is interpreted to be a preferred qualification (due to the section title “Preferred Qualifications”). The members of the search committee might have wondered how the language was to be interpreted and might have decided that it was to be a preferred but not required qualification.
We should not lose the sight of the long list of other preferred qualifications. There are 14 abilities that the search committee was looking for in the candidates. It could be that the committee found Mr. Ron Stern possessed better abilities than Dr. Glenn Anderson. I am not saying that this is how it was done. Without any specific evidences from the search committee primarily because of the rule of confidentiality, I am left to explore different possible theories.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
I watched a video of the after termination announcement celebration on campus. I was mesmerized and watched it over and over. The administration wanted to change policy. The students then protested and won big. So what’s the problem?
I just don’t feel the pessimism that some others feel. Gallaudet is changed by the events and final result. There will be some adjustments, sure, but they will never be bigger than the events themselves.
Gallaudet is changed by the events and final result? Are you sure? I think you are deluding yourself here. History has shown us time and time again that Gallaudet hasn’t changed at all. Look at the declining enrollment and graduation rates. Its pretty dismal at best. I would rather send my kids to RIT instead because RIT has a SIGNIFICANTLY higher graduation rate PLUS many employers gravitate towards RIT more than to Gallaudet, which is a LIBERAL ARTS school. In short, Gallaudet’s name on the degree, IMHO, isn’t worth much whereas RIT’s name is worth a lot more!!!!
I don’t think the events really will CHANGE how Gallaudet operates, IMHO.
It’s nice to see a “reasonable” and “moderate” viewpoint presented by Kelby Brick in his mellifluous voice. A self-appointed mediator between the Deaf community and the hearing community, Kelby presents the facts so as to support a “reasonable” compromise.
The facts speak otherwise. I believe that many outside commentators and the hearing blogosphere understand the situation all too well — Identity politics running rampant at Gallaudet with little thought paid to the long-term interests of the institution which does not necessarily dovetail with that of the Deaf community.
This letter, written by a hearing faculty member part of the English Department at Gallaudet, puts paid to the argument that the protesters weren’t saying that Fernandes wasn’t Deaf enough. Indeed, while Fernandes failed to soothe the right stakeholders, or to hold hands of various interest groups at Gallaudet, in other words, she was impolitic enough to say and act like their opinions didn’t matter, something which no university president can fail to do, Fernandes was not Deaf enough for a large and vocal part of the Gallaudet community. No matter how many times Noah Beckman, the SBG, GUFSSA, and all other protesters say otherwise, the not Deaf enough argument was the one thing that united all these various groups together against Fernandes. A common undercurrent of hostility towards the idea that Gallaudet belongs to all deaf people is found in many blogs and vlogs galore.
This letter, as asinine and intellectually flabby as it is, replete with identity politics of a group that is not hers, represents the worst of the protest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....03005.html
While we’re on the subject of deaf lawyers who are self-appointed mediators, I note that Jeff Rosen and Suzy Rosen, both deaf lawyers, advocated the protesters and provided legal advice. The fact that their mother, Roz, is a possible and future candidate for the presidency of Gallaudet, of course, has nothing to do with their determination to thrust Fernandes aside. Double standards are fun when they apply to everybody except you, right?
I’ve been surprised how little of the real motivations of so many faculty members and hangers-on have come out in the MSM. How many of the protesters were themselves unsuccessful competitors for the presidency or a relative or protege of one? They all had their long knives out for Jane. Their selfish motives just didn’t come out. It was particulary disgusting to see one of the sore losers, the new director of NAD who’s now lobbying hard for Jane’s job, riding around on the shoulders of drunk teenagers, gloating. Say what you will about Jane, but she is a professional and a dignified person.
I disagree with Kelby Brick’s editorial on many fronts, and here are just a few of them. And frankly, I’m a little appalled at the rest of you … what happened to the critical thinking skills for which this blog is renowned?
Here are some adjectives Brick used to described Gallaudet: “repressive … 150-year old entrenched bureaucracy of paternalism… institutional audism … autocratic … unresponsive … campuswide policy restricting public assembly and discourse … dangerous brute force.”
Good Lord — is he talking about the Gallaudet University that we all know and love? I think it’s safe to say that for the majority of us “stakeholders,” our times at Gallaudet were some of the best years of our lives. I personally had some of the best instruction I’ve ever received in my life, and met some of the best people I’ve ever known, through Gallaudet. I’ve seen beautiful and articulate ASL spoken on a daily basis, and no repression whatsoever, thank you very much. I assure you, those words Brick used to describe Gallaudet are the very last ones that would ever enter my mind when thinking about that cherished institution of higher learning. Every faculty I ever encountered on campus nurtured me, encouraged me, inspired me, and taught me so much more than academics.
Can we keep it real, folks? I’m not saying GU was a utopia, that there was no crisis, that it doesn’t have its problems, some of which do include racism, sexism, audism, and Deafism, yes. (News flash — those problems are not unique to GU.) Let’s just not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is much that is good and wonderful and yes, maybe even perfect about Gallaudet. I’m flabbergasted that Brick’s words are being accepted so unquestioningly here.
This is exactly because we LOVE Gallaudet University, that we need to expunge, destroy and demolish its Byzantine power structure of the Middle Ages, so that the Deaf community may get rid of the agents of colonization who try to keep its members subjugated.
Get real, CE, your loyalty to the outdated, to the Ancient, to the reactionary and to its fading figureheads makes your viewpoint extremely ‘curious’ for the future to digest.
Comrade Testing the Truth: That’s familiar rhetoric. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Extremes are not persuasive. In fact they make readers doubt the credibility of anything else you say.
The keyword is reform. Try to think of it like that. Your extreme is not viable. Moderation rules.
You are infected with the love of Gallaudet.
:-)
Yes, exactly! And is there something wrong with feeling that way? Most of us seem to have powerful emotions about Gallaudet, and most of that is devotion, I believe. We would not otherwise be endlessly blogging about every infinitesimal detail of the protest.
What annoys me is the statement that Gallaudet is bound by an apparatus of oppression (as per Kathleen Wood’s previous letters). Much of what I see that is called an apparatus of oppression is simply the way the real world works. It’s as if many Deaf folks are simply unmoored from reality.
No honey, the world is right now in 21st century. Gallaudet University is at least 500 years behind. There is a serious interest of keeping this like that. But the protest showed that this is unacceptable. Jane had to go. The 16th century had to go. Now we are ready to move into the 21st century. Should not we deserve the same rights everybody else have? Please, think about this for a minute before you rush to respond.
“Please, think about this for a minute before you rush to respond.”
You really should consider this line before posting here and elsewhere, Zoltan. I’m beginning to see why you were denied tenure at Gallaudet.
You are a very brave nameless and faceless person. I always admire you nameless and faceless individuals who are so brave to come out and post at blogs.
By the way, do you have any point to make or standing to represent?? Just curious…
I just perused the article (Yes, I know I’m still catching up to all these blogs) and even though Mr. Brick had noble intentions, I felt the tone was rather antagonistic. The adjectives he chose was rather bold and it ended up making him sound like an angry demagogue.
But, the claim that the “bureaucracy of paternalism” and the propaganda that Gallaudet has employed to defend its reputation was noteworthy.
I also find the claim that the BoT is out of touch with the campus and deaf community quite unbelievable. Let’s review the cast of characters here, both before and during the protest: Ben Soukoup, Harvey Goodstein, Tom Humphries, Glenn Anderson, Celia May Baldwin, and the administration themselves, some of whom were at Gallaudet every day of the week. These people are “out of touch”? “unresponsive”? It beggars belief.
Right. It was “way outta there” pushing it into the realm of conspiracy theory status that we all can be so proud of. And to add, Mr, Brick’s response was more akin to negative bashing while being that self-appointed “mediator”. It was a bashing letter, no doubt, that was a step below a shrill letter.
The Board made a very wise decision when they did Jane away, and declared with very clear and straightforward language that the immediate termination of the designate was the best interest of the university!