By Tom Willard
I have been observing and writing about deaf issues for some 25 years and I would like to share a few ideas in regard to the Gallaudet University protest. Each of the last two presidential selection processes at Gallaudet University has brought chaos to Kendall Green. As a result, I think we need to reconsider the way we choose Gallaudet University presidents.
The protest can be boiled down to a single issue. People want self-determination. I mean, isn’t that what the American Revolution was all about? Isn’t that why we are fighting in the Middle East, to promote democracy around the world? How ironic, there is no democracy in the heart of Washington, D.C. at Gallaudet University.
A big part of the problem is an out-of-touch Gallaudet University Board of Trustees that seems to have no interest in interacting with the Gallaudet community. They simply fly in to Washington, D.C. and sign whatever papers are put in front of them. This group has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with the important decision of selecting the person to lead Gallaudet.
It must be very disheartening for Gallaudet student or staff or faculty or alumni, and be told to accept a leader that they don’t want. Especially when they spent months making it clear that they did not want this person as their leader and everything they said was completely ignored.
What I’m going to suggest may seem radical, but we need to consider all ideas to end the stalemate.
I would like to see all major constituents at Gallaudet have a chance to participate in the selection of the next president, not just the Board of Trustees. The Board deserves to have this responsibility taken away after the chaos that it has caused with its last two decisions.
There could be a committee of 15 members – three each from Board, faculty, staff, students and alumni. Each group would decide how to select its three representatives. Each member would review every application and assign points to each candidate using a clear evaluation system. The top 5-10 candidates could be brought in for an interview, after which a smaller number of finalists could be selected. After another round of interviews and debate, the members would then vote for their choice for president and the choice would be binding.
I don’t see how anyone could complain about the results when everyone had a fair chance to be involved. The present standoff results from the protesters’ beliefs that they were not involved at all.
My second suggestion is that there should be term limits for the Gallaudet presidency. I would suggest a limit of four years, with the possibility of re-election for one or two more terms.
Gallaudet is unlike any other university where the presidents can hop around from school to school and refresh themselves and their communities. A Gallaudet president chosen in his or her 40s could conceivably be at the helm for 30 years, and that’s just not good for any school. It also shuts out many other promising deaf leaders who are not given the opportunity to be president at other colleges. It also deprives the university of the benefits a fresh new president could bring to campus.
It is a common belief that “power corrupts.” For evidence of what happens when one person is in power for too long and does not have to answer to anyone, just look at the I. King Jordan Administration at Gallaudet. With term limits, if the University is stuck with a poor president, they can look ahead to the next opportunity to choose someone better (much as the U.S.A. is doing right now). A Gallaudet president who has a limited time in office would surely have incentive to do a better job than a “president for life” who hand-picks and controls Board members and answers to no one.
My suggestion for a resolution to the current crisis is for Dr. Jane Fernandes to show true leadership and step down as president-elect, and then allow the search process to re-open following the guidelines suggested above.
The protesters have to give a little, too, and I think they should allow Fernandes to remain at Gallaudet and run the $800,000 initiative we’ve been hearing about. I don’t think she should be a candidate for president again, and I think she should run the initiative under a two-year contract. The next president can decide if Fernandes has a place on campus or not. If not, at least she gets two years to figure out the rest of her life.
The protesters who want to run her out may be disappointed with this compromise, but they would get their two main demands and would not have to destroy Dr. Jane Fernandes in the process. You have to give a little in negotiations. If you don’t, you run the risk of appearing petulant, and the public may turn against you.
As for King Jordan, it wouldn’t hurt for him to move up his retirement date a couple of months. Despite what he may believe, Gallaudet University will get along just fine without him. October 31 seems the perfect date to end his spooky reign at Gallaudet.
Tom Willard is the Editor of Deafweekly and former Editor of Silent News and Newswaves.
© 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.
40 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m confused. If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting:
1) a modification to the Board of Trustees
2) That Dr. Fernandes step down, but remain on campus (in what capacity) to administer an $800,000 initiative that we know very little about (and by the way, 800K is very little to stay on campus for), and
3) for Dr. Jordam to step down earlier than planned.
I’m not sure just how this will end the “stalemate.” First, the BOT reconstruction is a long-term resolution and will have no immediate impact. Secondly, it has become more clear in recent weeks that Dr. Fernandes has burnt many of her bridges on campus. How plausible is it that she will be able to stay on campus in a currently non-existent role (remember, she’s not Provost anymore)? And thirdly, Dr. Jordan is certainly welcome to step down earlier if he desires, but I’m not sure how that will be a constructive motion towards ending the stalemate and transitioning to our next form of leadership.
It sounds as if you’ve thought this through, but I’m not getting the ways and means of your suggestion. Perhaps it’s a start - I just want to know WHAT NEXT?
Larry Summers resigned from Harvard but remains a full professor and receives his salary there so there is precedent for this.
I disagree with the proposed changes.
Gallaudet (or any university) isn’t a full democracy. The Student Body Government’s Student Congress, the Graduate Student Association, and the Faculty Senate are all wonderful creations. And they should be utilized to the best of their ability. And yet… it’s not a democracy. The administration and the Board of Trustees make hundreds of decisions a day without student involvement that directly impact the lives of students and faculty. So my question is, what types of decisions should students be involved in? Selecting a future President? Selecting a replacement Provost? Fine. How should it be done? It’s not enough to say, “We want…” A group should say, “We want… and this is how we suggest it be accomplished.”
Finally, Gallaudet was created by Congress for the deaf. I do not find an intent that Gallaudet be by and for only ASL deaf folks.
Where in the blog do you see an explicit call for Gallaudet to be open to only “ASL deaf folks?”
I thought it was Model Secondary School for the Deaf that was created by Congress and that Gally was founded by Edward M. Gallaudet?
NO, it was first the Columbia Insitution for the Deaf-Mutes, then Congress got involved and it became National Deaf-Mute College, later renamed Gallaudet College, then Gallaudet University along with its precollege programs. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
I have more suggestions:
1. The BoT needs to resign en masse. They have proven they are unable to carry out the trust we have put in them to steer the university.
2. The BoT should be comprised of a 51% alumni majority and ensure that most of the remaining seats are entrusted to deaf people with varying backgrounds, thus including everyone while making it more of a “sure thing” that the BoT is one that has a personal stake in Gallaudet’s success.
3. King needs to go. Sooner rather than later. I was prepared to wait until he retired, but after last Friday night, I want him fired. (that may just be me, though.)
Um, King’s hand was forced to call in the DC police because the campus needed to open so students (MSSD, Kendall, the college itself) could continue with their education. He waited patiently, twice!, in May and again in October in letting protesters close down the campus. But this can only go so far for so long. This isn’t DPN when nearly 98% of the people inside Gallaudet supported the protest but this one is different. There is no such thing as a 98% support on this campus. You have a large number of minorty supporters (BoT/JKF) and closing down HMB and the campus only served to lose more anti-JKF/BoT supporters in the process. The outside world looking in doesn’t look at this favorably at all. And why should they seeing that a 1st deaf woman president selected by a mostly deaf BoTs at Gallaudet University serving deaf and hard of hearing students.
Be accountable for your own actions.
Unless you know something I don’t, it has been said the protesters always intended to allow MSSD/Kendall to continue running via their gates. Despite this, it was the administration that announced the entire campus was closed. So please do not further any misinformation here about the protesters messing up MSSD/Kendall if this is the case.
“Be accountable for your own actions”?
Thats the problem with the BOT, IKJ and JKF!
They are NOT accountable to the Gallaudet community. If they were, they would have to open themselves up to us for serious debate. They would actually have a shred of a sense of, “Maybe I could be wrong, so I will always keep myself open to discourse with you.”
Since the May protests, I did not want JKF made into a scapegoat if she did not deserve it, so I was on the fence throughout the summer.
It was not the protesters but the BOT/IKJ/JKF that turned me against them [against BOT/IKJ/JKF]. The reason has to do with how they dealt with this crisis, as if they were parents scolding children.
It is NOT enough to say that you are right and expect us to swallow this as if you know what’s best. You actually have to convince us why you are right. You actually have to debate this. You actually have to stand up and take what the community throws at you, so if your integrity is a rock you will stand and if your integrity is corrupt you shall fall.
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..”
This protest has also grabbed the attention of many SBG presidents across the nation who also are dealing with their issues of an untouchable board/administration not “accountable for their own actions”.
Gee, Why did King decide to arrest these students on Friday night? There are no classes for MSSD and Kendall on Saturday and Sunday. What a joke!
He could have done that on Sunday night instead. He truly has displayed the scapegoat. He ruined his reputation. Tsk tsk tsk, way to go King!
The shutting down of Gallaudet University by students demanding that its next president sanction the exclusive use of sign language, at the university and in deaf culture, is strange. Indeed, this latest pitched battle between campus members favoring the primacy of sign language, and those receptive to the use of voice and sign language simultaneously, is puzzling to outsiders.
But whatever the origins and merits of this dispute, it should not be allowed to obscure the fact that this campus takeover by students, allegedly at the instigation of faculty members, constitutes (in the words of the departing president I. King Jordan) “illegal and unlawful behavior.”
The president designate, Jane K. Fernandes, accused by the “sign only” faction of not sufficiently valuing sign language, seems to have been duly vetted and appointed by Gallaudet’s governing board
Former president Jordan is right to have forewarned students that they could be faced with arrest and suspension. The board is right to declare that its decision to hire Fernandes was “fair and final” and to forewarn that it will not reopen the search for a new president. And students and faculty who support Fernandes’s appointment are right in objecting that the protesters are depriving their fellow students of an education.
Due process and rule by law must carry the day. The protesters must desist and, if discussion fails, be forcibly stopped from (as Fernandes says) “holding the campus hostage.” In addition, if punishment is meted out to protesting students, it should be determined if and which faculty members instigated this latest bout of campus anarchy – and they too should face penalties. Professors should not have immunity when they use students as proxies in campus takeovers or any other unlawful actions.
I thought DeafDC had a policy on foul language?
Why has Gallaudet failed to teach its students how to sufficiently marshall language, facts, and logic in order to make a principled case for themselves? Why exactly is the fact that JKF both signs and reads lips some sort of disqualifying characteristic with respect to the presidency?
The kids’ sputtering outrage only degrades them and reveals **massive educational failure** at Gallaudet.
You stated “I don’t see how anyone could complain about the results when everyone had a fair chance to be involved. The present standoff results from the protesters’ beliefs that they were not involved at all.”
Well let me give you an example how, Last Spring the SBG overwhelmingly supported one of the three finalist. They just KNEW he was a shoe in and ignored all the complaints about the flawed process because they didnt care because the man they wanted was in the running.
Sure enough that man didnt get elected and today we have a mess on our hands. The students, faculty and staff ALL had ample time and opportunities to have their voices heard while the selection was on going. But very few complained at least none of the students we see today complained, they were all happy.
Until the man they wanted didnt win… Now its all about the process, so although your idea sounds wonderful its not sound!
The students proved that with the current protest!
Bobby, Bobby, you are pushing this BS despite the fact that the faculty just voted again en masse to ask the BoT to get rid of Jane. Faculty are not switching stand back and forth as you and David King does. What are you talking about man???
I tell you a great secret: many faculty did not want Stern to be the pres, because he did not have a Ph.D. Ha. Your reasoning is down the loo.
I have not switched back and forth on my stance. In fact I doubt you even know my stance on this protest? If you do id like to hear it because I have kept my personal opinions on this protest out of it.
and this was posted BEFORE the Faculty vote and it focuses on the students action not the Faculty.
Tom Willard is hiding behind the fact he’s part of the reason why the deaf society missed out on preventing Jane from beoming Provost and then President. He was used by Jordan to cover up the drift away from the interest of the deaf society.
Come on Tom. ADMIT IT!
Arugmentive points here. Besides Jane and King, Gally only has the basic education. Who say deaf can not be a nurse or a lawyer or a doctor? I could never attend gally because courses will not be credited at other institution. This mean I will have to repeat a course! I dare not!
Courses are not credited at other institution? that is a lie. I went to Gallaudet, graduated, and with my college degree, I went to a prestigious hearing graduate program.
Yes, there are non credit classes at Gally but they are mainly for thos students who need rememdial help in math and english. those classes do not count towards a degree.
Tom, to say that the BoT is out of touch with the Gallaudet community is debatable. Some of them are alumni, or deaf. Some of them are professors or administrators at other universities. Some of them are businesspeople. To say that all they do is fly in, sign whatever papers they are given, and fly out again minimizes the work that they actually do. And then you say their responsibility should be taken away because of the chaos that has ensued since May 1. Excuse me? It was the protestors that initiated the chaos, not the BoT, and the protestors are still at it today. I also take issue with your suggestion to limit the term of GU’s president. As others have said here before, it’s not a popularity contest. The BoT can remove the president if he or she is not doing the job. That’s one of their serious responsibilities. Until recently, no one ever even whispered that Dr. Jordan was doing a bad job for Gallaudet. He was universally loved and admired. In her role as Provost, Dr. Fernandes had to make some unpopular and difficult decisions. Yes, some people lost their jobs. I am very sorry for that, truly. But we only know their side of it, we don’t know her side of it, and never will because those matters are confidential. I really like Dr. Jill Bradbury’s article about what the Gallaudet community should discuss. We can all benefit from learning what a Board of Trustees does, and what students’ roles in a presidential selection process should be. Going by what I’ve seen of their behavior this month, I think most students lack the maturity to know what constitutes effective leadership.
Tom, your effort is applauded. You tried to strike an elaborated balance. I am sure, many of your suggestions will live on. However the events, as they apparently are, went beyond the time of compromises. Anything seems possible after Jane resigned. Nothing seems possible before.
If having a term limit for the President is supposed to encourage him/her to do a better job as is suggested, why not abolish tenure? Wouldn’t the faculty do a far better job is they couldn’t hide behind the cload of tenure?
And to college student - excuse me. I went to Gallaudet. I got more than a basic education. I had no problems getting my BA recognized so that I could go on to a professional field. There are lawyers out there who went to Gallaudet - Kelby Brick, Greg Hilbok, etc. Plenty of PHds as well. So back off on that point.
None of this matters Gallaudet is not a real university, never has been and never will be
Well, gosh. I guess I should burn my degree that says, “Bacher of Arts in Psychology, Gallaudet University” and call my graduate school and tell them the MA degree they gave me was invalid because I didn’t go to a “real university”
PLEASE.
[…] For the fourth time in nineteen days, the Express (published by The Washington Post) quoted or linked to a DeafDC.com Blog! This morning’s excerpt was from Tom Willard’s Guest Blog, “A Few Ideas to End the Stalemate” suggesting term limits for Gallaudet Presidents. He also proposes that the selection of the next Gallaudet President include the participation of faculty, staff, students, and alumni along with Gallaudet Board of Trustee representatives. […]
Thank you for all the comments. I wrote this essay about a week ago and since then I have changed my mind about allowing Jane Fernandes to remain on campus in any role. I am fed up with her comments that the protest is not about her and that she doesn’t understand the reasons for the protest. These kind of comments make her look like a nincompoop and make it plain that she has no business being a college president at Gallaudet or anywhere else for that matter.
I continue to believe that all segments of the community should be involved in the presidential selection and not just the board. People say, oh it’s not done that way, and I say, the way it IS done is not working and so we need to explore other alternatives.
People also tell me that there were representatives of these segments involved, but I think they were just there for show. It is obvious that the fix was in from the start, especially when stronger candidates were eliminated early on and Jane was put up against two weaker candidates as finalists.
I really hope this mess is resolved soon and it’s apparent that the only possible solution is JKF’s resignation. The fact that she is unable or unwilling to read the handwriting on the wall is merely more proof that she doesn’t have what it takes to be a leader.
Has anyone looked at Jane Fernandes’ resume yet?
I was appalled to find that she has no Masters or even a Ph.D. in Education at ALL!!! How can someone with a B.A. degree in French and comparative literature, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in comparative literature be duly qualified to run an educational institution???
Also, how could she get a job as chair of the Department of Sign Communication at Gallaudet based on these two three degrees unrelated to Sign Communication as well as the Interpreter Education Program Kapi’olani Community College where she established this program???
This is beyond me how someone with NO Ph.D. or even a M.A. in education can run this institution!!!!
Aquafina, to my knowledge, being a college administrator or professor isn’t equivalent to being a teacher of the deaf in a K-12 school. They earn their doctorates in their field of specialization. Once they get jobs at colleges or universities, they can earn tenure after a certain number of years. Those with masochistic tendences, a talent for herding cats, and an endless appetite for tedium can become department chairs. (yes, that was a joke.) Along the way, they learn how to administer on the job. That’s what JKF did through her career in Hawaii, Clerc Center, and as Provost. No one has ever responded to my question about how the heck she became Chair of the ASL Department at Gallaudet, and was nominated for tenure by none other than Dr. MJ Bienvenu. Not only that, the entire department voted unanimously that JKF should receive tenure. Judging by the stony silence of ASL department faculty on this matter, which I’ve raised many times in the blogosphere, it’s a secret they will carry to their graves.
Tenure…GOD…Its a villified term among students today for a lot of reasons.
First of all, I have had a Finance professor tell my class that he can do anything he wants and get away with it because he was “tenured”. That really pissed me off because he was the WORST professor (well make that the 2nd worst ever) I ever had in my academic career.
I wonder if giving tenure to professors is a very smart thing to do because once they get it, professors can slack off and still never get “fired”. They are a protected species and you can’t even get that in the business world by any chance!!!
I heard the only way they can be removed from the academic environment is if they commit a crime.
In my opinion, tenure should never be awarded or be a benefit because once its given, professors can slack off and exhibit poor performance with no fear of reprisals from administration.
Care to digress anyone?
Aquafina,
I agree with you. “Tenure” needs to be revisited in all academic institutions. If you can’t measure a person’s job performance, they will stagnate.
I decided to find the justification for tenure, the best thing I could find is:
http://www.usc.edu/academe/acs.....enure.html
Their main argument is that tenure ensures “academic freedom”. What about the student’s right to a quality education?
The white paper also argues that there are only a “few” who give tenure a bad name. I suspect that there are more than a “few”.
The “acacemic freedom” argument is quite relevant in the current situation. Without tenure, any faculty member who participated in the current protest could be dismissed with little recourse. Academic freedom means being able to say what you really think without fear of extreme reprisal (getting fired).
While there should be (and are) ongoing evaluations of tenured faculty, removing tenure ensures that the vast majority of the faculty will simply tow the administration’s line. Is that what you really want?
If you have a professor who abuses tenure COMPLAIN! The department chair, dean, etc. will work to “educate” the person involved. I have seen this happen, and there were improvements. If the level of complaint doesn’t get results, continue to complain at higher levels. There is no excuse for statements such as those you quote from that professor, but the department chair and dean, etc. can’t read your minds. AND, they need written feedback. Without documentation, their hands may be tied. You have more power than you think related to faculty behavior, but you must use it.
Another perspective,
You are correct, however, that would probably to apply to any place of employment. If people had tenure at private companies or the government, our economy would suffer.
Perhaps you can help me understand why academic institutions are unique in this regard. Why do professors need protection from reprisals? Why do professors need this protection and not high school teachers?
As for “complaining” that is quite difficult to do when you are focused on getting a good grade and finishing your homework and reading assignments. Not only that, it is only one class and you may not see the professor again. The student can simply opt to enroll in a different professor’s course next semester or quarter.
This has bothered me for some time, but I could be persuaded to support the concept of tenure. The website that I posted made some good arguments in favor of tenure, but there are a number many weaknesses in their argument.
I want to understand how tenure benefits the students.
I’m sorry, Shane, but if you don’t complain to their superiors inadequate teachers will remain on the faculty regardless of the existence of tenure. You can’t say that tenure is bad because inadequate faculty depend on it and then say that it’s too much trouble to complain about poor teachers and you can always take the class from someone else. That kind of neglect of duty by the students with valid complaints is the exact reason why poor faculty are allowed to get tenure in the first place and are not “educated” by their chairs, etc. once they have it. How long does it take to write a one-page email or letter of complaint? If you are so upset about the presence of inadequate faculty, take 5 minutes and complain. Otherwise, your concerns will not be known, the inadequate faculty member will continue as they have, and you will be just as responsible for this as the university.
Another perspective,
You are right. That is why I take the end-of-course teacher evaluations seriously.
Since you appear to be familiar with tenure and the way a University works, what kind of impact does a negative end-of-course evaluation have on a tenured professor?
HAHAHAHAH…End of the course evaluations??!? PULEEEEEZE!!!
I have several friends who work as professors at other universities who tell me those evaluations really are a joke because the adminstration doesn’t really put MUCH weight on them.
For example, if someone is doing very poorly in class–they are going to slam the professor and give him poor ratings. Likewise, if someone is doing awesome (e.g. getting consistently high marks), they are going to give the professor high marks.)
They like to read them but they just shove them in a drawer and forget about them. In fact, some don’t even get to read them until like a year later or more. Some of them tell me they have no time to read them because of the academic schedule they are under pressure with.
Just passing this on as I’m just messenger!
Let me interject with my own opinion–I think the end of the course evaluations are really a waste when professors don’t get to read them immediately.
If someone has tenure, then basically - as stated above - they can’t be removed except for moral turpitude or comitting a crime or some other horrendous reason. Note that poor performance does not come in to the picture?
I thought academic freedom meant you couldn’t face reprisal for what you were teaching. Meaning that if you covered an area which was at odds with that of the administration, they couldn’t fire you for that.
I guess it depends on where you are, but end of semester evaluations are used for merit increase and promotion decisions as well as tenure. One bad evaluation won’t cause problems, but if there is a pattern of negative evaluations, then the person may not get a merit increase or promotion even if they have tenure. If the department chair is half good, they will also get individual feedback on the problems that seem to be occurring and how to improve them. If the problems are serious, the person the chair may work with them regularly or may pair the person with a mentor to help facilitate improvement.
But they won’t be fired. And they know it.
Shane–
I totally agree with you that Tenure definitely needs to be revisited for the exact reason you stated: stagnation and quality degradation. Often times, its the students that suffer as a result of Tenure being awarded.
I wish that there was some sort of Tenure Standards that professors must abide by in order to retain their status after some kind of set term period. Like for example, every two to four years, they must show cause why they should not be denied further tenure.
Any Ph.D. wanna digress with me and Shane over this topic as its a sore point among students in academia…
Tenure is an academic privilege granted to professors and is widespread. The reasons behind tenure often include academic freedom. Theoretically, faculty members have the liberty to pursue various intellectual pursuits that are not connected with teachings. They write, publish, and present articles. These academic pursuits are independent of their duties teaching college students. I have known professors that strongly prefer the research part over the teaching part. The reverse is equally true.
One consideration, although I am not certain that this applies to Gallaudet, is that faculty members can and do frequently act as ambassadors to the outside world and bring in money from rich individuals and corporate donors. There is also the federal government spigot. So universities do not necessarily have to depend solely on students for income.
Academic freedom also includes espousing unpopular viewpoints. The Vietnam war comes to mind as well as campus protests such as investing in South Africa because of apartheid. More recently, professors have come under fire for theories that 9/11 was brought about intentionally by, ahem, shadowy forces like the Bush administration. One such professor, Ward Churchill, came under fire but he was not terminated from his position because of that. The university where he taught simply took a closer scrutiny at his work and decided that he’d committed academic malfeasance and had him dismissed. For more information on this, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ntroversy.
For further arguments both in favor and against tenure, see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure.
Me, I support tenure, but, yes, there are a lot of people who take advantage of that and think that it is a lifetime position. It isn’t.
At any rate, professors can and have been removed from their positions.