Truncated Social Justice at Gallaudet: Why the COSC is Making Noise
By Guest Blogger on Mon 5 Mar 2007 |
Email This Post
By Kristi Merriweather
On Friday, March 2, the Coalition of Students of Color (COSC) staged a peaceful demonstration called, “Diversity is Dead at Gallaudet” against an active and systematic racism on Gallaudet campus. About 15 individuals participated, with three make-shift coffins bearing anti-racism slogans. They answered questions and had a meeting with current Interim President Robert R. Davila and the chair of the Board of Trustees. Prior to the demonstration, the COSC and its allies were warned that it would threaten MSA accreditation, so why risk Gallaudet’s future? They asked us to give Interim President Davila time.
The short answer: Gallaudet’s future depends heavily on distributive, not truncated, social justice. In distributive social justice, no one specific group can become direct beneficiaries of the Interim President Davila administration. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSA) stressed shared governance. Moreover, audism should not remain the sole focus of the deaf community at the expense of racism.

There is a history between COSC and FSSA (a misnomer called Faculty, Students, Staffers, and Alumni). Both groups had the common goal of re-opening the Gallaudet presidential search process for various reasons, but strongly disagreed with the means and the focus. The COSC observed that several FSSA members were not really interested in distributive social justice and diversity.
We have looked to Interim President Davila to start the healing process because it is clear that neither the COSC nor the FSSA can lead the effort. His speech and first vlog gave us hope. That would later turn into false hope for several people of color. Here is why.
1. Four FSSA Appointments
On January 31, a message was posted on the Gally-L listserv by “Rainbow” with then unverified information that Interim President Davila was appointing four individuals - Dr. Jay Innes (Special Assistant), Dr. Richard Lytle (Special Assistant), Darian Burwell (Presidential Assistant, Diversity Relations) and Bernie Palmer (Ombudsman). The first three appointments were later confirmed via the Gallaudet website. Mr. Palmer’s situation will be addressed later in this blog.
Generally speaking, appointments can be a good thing. Never mind that one the loudest complaints of the recent protest concerned Dr. Jordan’s appointment of Dr. Fernandes as Provost. When Interim President Davila does it four times in 60 days, the same protestors are silent. All of the appointments were members of FSSA.* These four* impeding appointments set off the first of many warning signals for the COSC and its allies that FSSA may be attempting to gain widespread control of Gallaudet University.
Perception is everything. Is Gallaudet for FSSA or is Gallaudet for everybody? For those who want to make the poor comparison with the White House, this is not an elected office. This is Gallaudet, a non-partisan educational institution serving all people, FSSA and non-FSSA. I expected Interim President Davila to be able to work with different people, regardless of their loyalties. That’s a better way of getting objectives done with less resistance from either side.
Are such actions by Interim President Davila conducive to an environment without Management by Intimidation (MBI), one of the fervent arguments against Dr. Fernandes by the UFG protesters? FSSA control of Gallaudet is a direct violation of MSA’s shared governance mandate.
When that fact was pointed out to Interim President Davila via emails, a meeting with the COSC, and a phone call during a radio interview he responded with this type of answer:
Caller: Since you started working at university, I understand that you’ve hired several protesters to work in your office so it seems as though you may have been part of the protest.
Robert: To tell you the truth, I don’t know who was a protestor and I don’t want to know.
Caller: Oh, please! Everyone knows.
Robert: I’m sorry to tell you, but I don’t. I do not know that.
It signaled Interim President Davila’s intention to deliberately ignore facts; especially if it is part of the core reason for several people of color’s discontent. There is a big difference between trying to treat people fairly regardless of their stances and allowing one group to dominate the University’s governance. Now, Interim President Davila is aware of the FSSA, he penned a letter posted on FSSA website asking Dr. Fernandes to resign. It is quite possible that he didn’t know his appointments were FSSA members. But he knows now, because we told him. That’s when Interim President Davila shifted gears and withheld the appointment of Mr. Palmer.
In any case, as one of the core FSSA members, Mr. Palmer is hardly a neutral person which is a necessary requirement for an Ombudsman. I personally have no problem with him. I’ve known him via the National Black Deaf Advocates (NBDA), he’s one smart cookie. But an appointment based on qualifications, alone, is not enough. We ought to consider whether enough students of color feel comfortable enough to go to him with their concerns, since an Ombudsman’s job is to mediate conflicts.
Is it mere coincidence that all of Interim President Davila’s appointees are FSSA members? Doubtful. Remember he implied he is new, so he has to get his information and recommendations from somebody. That’s what a good President does; you don’t pick a name out of a jar. Where he is getting his information from? I believe it is the FSSA via Dr. Innes* and Dr. Lytle.
I was at Gallaudet University last month for the V/Blogging Conference held by the Coalition for Critical Inquiry. When I saw Dr. Lytle there, I told him my concerns about the four FSSA appointees setting up a certain perception. He kept emphasizing that we have to “leave the past behind and move forward.” Excuse me? The FSSA kept harping about Dr. Fernandes’ past as Provost and Vice President for the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, and he’s telling me to acquire amnesia about the recent past and move on. Move on with whose agenda? The agenda of Team Gallaudet a.k.a. “FSSA University”?
I responded that he cannot expect the COSC to lower their defenses if they haven’t seen anything to suggest that the administration is committed to diversity. Looks like he didn’t take my advice seriously, because exactly one month later, things deteriorated so fast that the COSC did a public demonstration and the Organization for Equity for African Americans (OEAA, made up of Black faculty and staff) was resurrected. The OEAA’s February 28 invitation of Willie L. Brown, President of University of Maryland Black Faculty and Staff Association to give the presentation “Why Black Faculty and Staff at Predominately White Institutions Need to Organize” was no fluke.
2. MBI Part II?
Did we just finish a protest only to allow MBI Part II happen? The majority of people’s responses before Dr. Fernandes’ selection are almost a replica of people’s reactions to the COSC demonstration now- passive, hands off and accepting whatever the President does. That is until something that does not jive with their world — issues like the Oregon School for the Deaf or the recent Gallaudet Sorenson Language and Communication Center (SLCC) postcard and floor plan — then people are suddenly animated.
We knew something was off kilter when Lindsay Dunn was demoted three levels down from Special Assistant to the Gallaudet President to Education Manager, while his white counterpart, Fred Weiner went only one rung down. First the Glenn Anderson/Ron Stern fiasco and now this, within a one-year span? And people are asking us to be patient. Give Interim President Davila more time. No. We have given Gallaudet 100 years. Time’s up, it’s show time. We want fairness now. Promotions and demotions should not rest on people‘s stances on protests, but upon performance. “Too bad, should have joined that group?” What kind of rationale is that? Is that conducive to creating a non-MBI environment?
3. Latest Victim of Systematic Racism?
During the month of January, Dunn didn’t know what was going to happen to his position until he ran into Eileen Matthews, Director of Center for Academic Programs and Student Services (CAPSS) at Gallaudet University, who informed Dunn that he was being reassigned under her. What a surprise it was indeed. No official letter, no calls, no meeting, no word from Interim President Davila, Dr. Innes or Dr. Lytle. But like a trooper, Dunn moved from College Hall to a tiny office with a five-year old ancient computer. At least he still has the same six-figure salary. Then came the new position description. The following passage is copied from an email I received and was also posted on Gally-L. I was asked to not reveal the source who saw Dunn’s position description.
There are about 33 “principal responsibilities” in the position description. (Kristi’s note: normally it’s 7 to 15.) I am not counting the last one that said “Performs other related duties as assigned.” As is the norm, Mr. Dunn is expected to meet ALL his performance requirements each academic year. Several responsibilities represent a significant portion of the mandates of entire organizational units within Gallaudet. To the best of my knowledge, none of the affected units are aware that their responsibilities have been “reassigned” to Lindsay. There is a mention of a budget but there is no evidence that Lindsay will get ANY personnel support. So, he gets to do everything by himself except when he applies for and receive [sic] grants that enable him hire assistants. There is no evidence that Lindsay’ new unit is not slated to receive additional resource [sic] necessary to deal with his added responsibilities either. Since Lindsay has been working for the President the last 10 years or so, I am guessing his salary is relatively high compared to others in his current unit. As such his salary will bust his new boss’ budget. When this happens, something has to give. Guess who will need to leave? Guess who will have the dubious honor of FORMALLY firing Lindsay? A black person like him [Eileen Mathews], that’s who! Is this a mistake? Hardly, no one is this incompetent. I am convinced that what we are seeing is a pre-mediated and cynical effort to set impossible performance goals AND to sow discord between Lindsay and the heads of units where the responsibilities currently lie. Can you imagine the directors of these programs giving up their responsibilities [and paychecks] without a fight? I can’t either. To paraphrase the Rolaids ads, how do you spell “setup-to-fail”? What is scary is that the authors of this position description are the same people assisting Dr. Davila in promoting healing within an entity fractured by an acrimonious protest. These people will also influence the new directions of GU. What is really at stake is Dr. Davila’s job, reputation, and, of course, the future of GU. Someone needs to alert Dr. Davila before any more harm is done….
Well, Interim President Davila has been alerted. Will he heed it? We’ll see.
I’ve heard people say that this movement is really all about Lindsay Dunn and his job. This is the same old strategy used to discredit black concerns — “oh, this is about Dr. Glenn Anderson”, “oh, this is about so-and so.” And yet, I don’t recall see anybody saying “oh, this is about Dr. Jane Mulholland.” Whoever thinks that we would be petty enough to risk MSA accreditation to do a demonstration for one man is gravely mistaken. Dunn is not the alpha and the omega of the problem, he just happens to be the latest victim of systematic racist machinations that have affected several deaf people of color over the years.
4. Silence Regarding Diversity Strategic Plan and Office of Minority Affairs Proposal
Some of you may be aware of the Diversity Strategic Plan developed by the Diversity Fellows and Dr. Fernandes. Lindsay Dunn developed a separate proposal for Office of Minority Affairs under the Provost’s Office. That proposal has received favorable feedback from a cross section of the University community. Yet to this day, Interim President Davila, the Chief Diversity Officer, has not mentioned it. When the COSC inquired about this during its meeting with him, he sidestepped the question.
Contrary to popular belief, it’s not about moving Dunn into that office, should it be established. It does not matter who leads the proposal because it ultimately addresses the critical issue of low persistence and high attrition rates for students of color. The Diversity Plan and its clear action plan have not even been addressed to date. And I understand that Burwell is now asking various people like the Diversity Fellows and Dunn about what diversity issues need to be addressed. This is rather telling of her depth of knowledge about diversity, which will be addressed later in this blog. The Diversity Strategic Plan and its Action Plan is a blue print, and the Campus Climate Process Report has all the data needed to gauge the campus climate in regards to diversity. All she has to do is read it.
The Interim President appears to be showing little interest in actually addressing the critical issues cited in that proposal. They have shown no recognition that it could serve as a valuable resource for Burwell and therefore afford Interim President Davila the data he needs to assess its progress. Instead, he wants to yet reinvent the wheel by calling for an Advisory committee. For what? Advisory committees have no teeth to enforce anything. The information needed is already there in these two documents. How many more years of “data gathering” and no direct changes are we going to have to put up with?
5. Darian Burwell’s Inexperience = Low Priority for Diversity?
The third appointment was Darian Burwell, who works at the office of Enrollment Management. Darian is a fine young woman. But this is a Special Assistant for Diversity position.
Logically you should at least already have done something for the cause of diversity. Recruiting Unity for Gallaudet protestors isn’t exactly my idea of diversity. Having written an article about it, interned at the Multicultural Affairs, just something, you know, where you can say, “oh, yeah, that does makes sense that she got it.” My thesis was on black deaf identity, during my research, I have never seen Burwell written anything publicly. As a former President of DC Area BDA, I don’t recall ever seeing her involved in a local or national BDA committee. If you went to all these deaf people of color conferences tomorrow- NBDA, WFD, IDC, NADC, and ask them if they know of Darian Burwell, will you get at least 1/3 of the membership saying yes? Based on my various conversations with diverse people, I am inclined to believe the answer is no. So, I am lost on the logic of this selection…unless the reason for the selection is FSSA favoritism.
Just exactly what did she do to earn that kind of appointment? How is she going to heal current rifts, she was the unofficial protest recruiter targeting black students so that the overall picture would look more “multicolored” than “lily-white.” Burwell does not have the trust of several students of color other than those supportive of the protest. They are still flocking to Dunn’s tiny office for assistance and advice. There was already strong disagreement about the appointments before Burwell stepped into her new position. Hmm, what disagreement did that remind me of? Oh, yeah, the Dr. Fernandes selection.
Some people have said, “Well she has to start somewhere, I’m sure Dunn was like her 15 years ago, with no experience.” That’s not accurate. Dunn of 15 years ago competed for that position, already having experience with diversity issues — he had several articles published (check out the Buff and Blue archives 1980 to 1985, the 1989 DeafWay I edited by Dirksen Bauman, and this). Dunn is also a former President of NY City Black Deaf Advocates (BDA). So with that in mind, I ask you — if the position was open for competition, instead of appointment, would they have selected Burwell?
I can think of more qualified individuals like Thuan Nguyen (who worked several years with diversity issues), Franklin Torres, Cheryl Wu, Karen Tong, Ann Lynn Smith, Judy Stout, and so on. Appointing a novice with scant understanding of an important issue says something about the administration’s attitude toward diversity. Let’s say no to “Team FSSA University” and say yes to a better Gallaudet.
6. A Boo-Boo
One of the boo-boos made several people of color wonder about whether Interim President Davila’s appointed team of assistants are serving him well. During his stay at the Deaflympics at Salt Lake City, Davila made a vlog on a mountain alongside with Sam Sonnenstrahl, director of alumni relations, and Andy Lange, President of the GUAA (Gallaudet University Alumni Association). Andy Lange made some remarks about the importance of diversity.
This turned off several people of color because it was coming from the same man who, as President of NAD, made negative remarks about black deaf people. The point here is not to demonize former NAD President and current GUAA President Lange, but to highlight the fact that Interim President Davila was, and is still, not surrounded by people sensitive to diversity. Even his special assistant for diversity, Burwell, did not help Interim President Davila identify this potential gaffe.
Please don’t insult our intelligence by saying Interim President Davila is a person of color. It’s like saying, “He’s a deaf person, so he understands our issues.” If I replace that pronoun with the name, Dr. Jane Fernandes, would you agree? People’s ethnicity makes no difference if their actions are anything but supportive of diversity, get it?
Today, a cursory look at the deaf blogosphere tells me where deaf people’s focus is at. The hottest item is the SLCC postcard and floor plan. It seems that in the deaf world, audism is the only hot button waking deaf people up. As long as that mentality continues to exist, some deaf people of color will continue speaking out about real problems at Gallaudet, even if it means risking the University’s accreditation.
Because we all deserve a better Gallaudet, and nothing less.
Kristi Merriweather is a deaf high school teacher for the deaf in Atlanta. She is a former President of the DC area BDA and former Vice President of Atlanta BDA. Kristi’s Master’s thesis was on black deaf identity. A visitor to my abode will find a friendly tabby cat, an outdated Sorenson VP-100, antique hearing aids from the early 1980s, and too many books and shoes. She loves traveling when the moola is right.
DeafDC.com Note: The content of Gally-L emails cannot be verified as true or facts. As with every blog on DeafDC.com, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
* Update: DeafDC has learned that the involvement of Dr. Jay Innes in the FSSA is disputed. We cannot confirm or deny his involvement in the FSSA.
© 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.

You express your opinion very well. However, you made several comments that are without merits. I was the one, for example, who asked the FSSA to publish Dr. Davila letter on their website. Dr. Davila had nothing to do with that decision. And believe it or not, Dr. Davila really has no idea who was involved in the protest. I was very much involved-yet when I approached him, he had no idea who I was and what I did during the protest. Please check your facts before you make comments -it would be helpful to the community that is trying to heal itself.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
Raphael,
Thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention. I encourage all readers to vigorously scrutinize this blog and bring facts to light.
The same opportunity was not afforded to many people (who were neutral or against the protest) hurt by inaccurate information during the Unity for Gallaudet protest.
Thank you, Shane for your comments. I am always hestitant to say anything that might be veiw as critical-becuase I don’t want to seemed like I am “picking a fight”. I really try hard to be respectful of the other person’s point-of -view. Sometimes I failed at that. And I apolozied if I have offended anyone. And you are 100% correct- there were many people who did not support us that were hurt by the protest. I wish to express my apologies to them.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
Writing a letter *demanding* for someone to resign then grabbed his job is dirty. I understood that many protesters complained about how Dr. Fernandes was with ASL and I do not hear one hoot about how he is with ASL with some wrong signs, just because he involved in a protest, is GU alumnae, etc? Yet he is a hero for mistreating these who were not involved in the protest, huh? Any mistake he made would be quickly swept under a rug to save the protesters’ faces? The media and world are watching and they KNOW!
I GUARANTEE you that there would be a big and noisy fight along with some ugly vlogs and mocking blogs against Jane Fernandes if she was the president about SLCC cards that Gallaudet may be set on a fire along with all windows smashed in. With him, just a slap on his wrist. It was him who approved the mailing the cards. There are few brave people like Kristi Merriweather who want to save Gallaudet. Gallaudet is starting to crumble from a very bad crack in its leg from the dirty protest and FSSA.
SChevy:
I canot make it clearer: I was the one who asked the FSSA to publish Dr. Davilia leter. He had nothing to do with it. And the BoT asked him to be the President- he never sought the job.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
Davila was seen at a meeting sponsored by the FCC about 2 weeks before the interim president interviews. He may be very cushy with Pam Holmes, Ben soukup, Cheryl Heppner and Nancy Bloch.
Observers of that meeting concluded he had already been asked to serve as interim president and had accepted the job….the interviews held later were only a pretense to satisfy the community’s desire for a semblance of a fair process.
You said that he was asked to be interim prsident. You just made my point: he never sought the position. He was asked to be the president.
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G00
oh and one more thing: my sources on the BoT informed me that they were in deep discuesions about all three candiates until that Saturday morning before the BoT made up it mind. There really was no pre-selection of Davilia.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
He was asked to be the President? I thought this was an open campaign, anybody qualified would apply and interview for this. You made it sound like BOT asked him to be the president without competition.
If you read my comments- I said that my sources on the BoT informed me that there were no pre-selcetion of Davilia.
That said, I was responding to the earilier statement that Davilia was dirty- that he worte this letter and had it publish in the hopes of getting the Presidnet job. Please re-read my responses again. He(davilia) had no idea about this job until he was contacted to apply for it. The other candiates aslo were invited to apply for this position.
Raphael J. St.Johns C-87, G-00
So you are saying that Dr. Davila did not agree to have his letter posted? Are you saying that FSSA posted his letter without his permission? Once it was up, did he ask to have it taken down and FSSA refused? C’mon. The letter was sent to the Board. They did not distribute letters sent to them to the FSSA, which means Davila himself provided the letter to the FSSA. If he was as unaware of the issues surrounding the protest as he claims (didn’t he ever pick up a newspaper??) then why did he feel compelled to write a letter to the Board asking Dr. Fernandes to resign? (and demanding a response in 5 days?) Give me a break. We weren’t born yesterday. Maybe he didn’t know YOU — what was YOUR important role in the protest?? but he certainly knows which faculty members were the leaders. Lytle was the PR person for FSSA. Are you telling me he really didn’t know that? Just how stupid do you think we are? Davila might not have been hanging around campus during the protest, but if you really believe he wasn’t involved, and wasn’t kept informed of everything that was going on, you are very naive.
If you read his letter it was to Dr. Brggerman (spell?). It said that the letter was going to be publish after 5 days. I got a copy of it BEFORE it was made public. I waited for the five dyas to be finished-then I went to Gallaudet campus and asked the FSSA people to have it published.
He does not know many of the protesters. He really does not.
I am not naive. As a major donor to Gallaudet U., I know the people that were involved- and I also know the facts. I was there everyday- on weekends also. I do know that Davilia only knew of the main issues from afar. He was in retirement, living happiliy in New Market, Md. when the BoT called him and asked if he would considered to be a canidate.
There are the fatcs. Please respect the facts.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
Are you telling me Davila had no idea what you were going to do with the letter? That he was wholly unaware of the FSSA website?
Again, I said in this blog it was possible that he did not know who was in FSSA, but he knows now because we’re telling him. He has chosen to ignore it.
Again- Dr. Davilia was not responsible for the publishing of his letter-I was. You stated that (and questioned his motives and his ideals) his was reponsible for getting his letter published. I am told, qiute frankly, that he was surprised when he saw his letter on the FSSA web site.
As far as the other issues,i.e, knowing who was involved in the protest, he reallly has no idea. You say he you have inform him, perhaps he is “ignoring” you becuase he has other pressing issues, i.e.,the MSA issue to worry about. I don’t know.
The few people you and other bloggers have mentioned (i.e. Lylte and Immes) are exeptionally highly skilled people.
Any president has the right to bring in his own people. I do not understnad your point here.
He(Davilia)has hried(as has been pointed out) several minority to positions of policy/authority. He has not fired anyone. He has moved people (Weiner, Dunn) around to other positions as any other new president would have done.
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G-00
PS-
You stated that both Ed and jsa “missed my point entirely, I don’t feel it’s worth my time discussing this matter with you.”
I disagree with you on that. It is your job to engage in a dialoge. It is your job to explain to your readers what you mean, and try to convince us the merits of your article.
If we are not worth your time, then you should not have written your article. I am trying to understand where you are coming from -to understand your concerns and see if I can help the situation. If I or any of your readers are not worth your time-then I will not be able to assist you.
Nobody said he fired anybody. I said he demoted a white man one rung down and a black man three rungs down.
My point was if he wants a great Gallaudet, he cannot surround himself with entirely FSSA people to the exclusion of other diverse views.
You may need to ask Lindsay Dunn to explain why he was demoted. How well do you know this whole true event? Are you a good story teller? Ask him to reply in this DeafDC instead of his good brother’s Internet forum.
Of course, I have asked him! Sorry, until I have permission to state what he said, I cannot tell anybody what he said.
That is the problem here. Lindsay Dunn has a reputation of “talking the talk”. I know he is excellent mentor to many students but what did he really do in his position as the Special Assistant to the President on Diversity? I was at Gallaudet during that time — I don’t see anything much — in fact, I see more activities out of Multicultural Students Program (Sp?) more than Dunn himself!
R-
mr. palmer is black. ms. burwell is black. what more do you want? stop whining. diversity exists under Dr. Davila’s administration. simply put, you’re a racist because you quickly complained that drs. innes and lytle were chosen as special assistants. you’re not the judge on qualifications and whatnot for that matter. let dr. davila lead team gallaudet and keep your mouth shut.
Davilla is a change agent, he has to make tough decisions, some will like it, some won’t. He can’t please everybody. As you can see the hottest potato he has to handle right now is the SLCC issue.
many have called for IKJ’s regime to step down. Just like the U.S. cleaing out Saddam Husseins top people.
I’m sorry if he hired Pro-FSSA people, but that doesn’t mean squat now. You were bitter with FSSAs, and you are still bitter. Quit that and move on, Davilla has already made more efforts to listen to everybody, unlike Jordan/JKF.
Be happy right now, I’m a white male and if I applied for a top level jobs, Davilla would pick person of color over me no matter what. Should I scream reversal discrimination???? nah, I’ll accept that because I know that is what Gallaudet needs.
grow up and stop be bitter about FSSA, they are not even a recoginzed organization, but COSC is, sheesh what do you want? an entire university run by all colored people? go to Howard then!
Gallaudet is a diversited universtiy and it is trying to show it is.
Both you and js missed my point entirely, I don’t feel it’s worth my time discussing this matter with you.
By the way, Ed, got my masters from Howard, and you need to educate yourself about how Howard is run and on how to address people of color. Hint: it’s not “colored people”.
While we were working at the restaurant in DC, I asked my good friend why she went to the Howard University. She told me that she got the full scholarship since she is the minority.
That explained why she is white….
And your point being? Yes she is a minority at Howard. So?
Kristi,
I could not find percent of white female at Howard University for student demographics. That’s pretty odd why I could not find the strategy info from the 2004-2005 Howard University Annual Report.
http://www.howard.edu/presiden.....4-2005.pdf
She as the white female student was in the small percent of student demographics for the large black student majority.
It been fifteen years ago that she finally graduated at Howard University.
You are full of half truths. All your information is from false rumors on Gally-Net. The Provost is a shared governance position. The President picks his own staff. No one else can decide who goes in that office.
Plus, can you print a list of FSSA people? It will show over 90% of the campus and Deaf world. Evervone except a tiny few were against Jane Fernandes. But you lost. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
“The Provost is a shared goverance position.” Is that what MSA was referring to, were they talking about one position, or were they referring to the community as a whole?
If the President picks his own staff, then why did Fred Weiner, Lindsay Dunn, et al have to interview for their Assistant to the President position? Hmm?
90% of the campus and Deaf world? Come on now, don’t make me laugh! 300 students protestors out of 1000+ students- is that 90%?
You must be laughing! because from what I saw on campus-and I was there everyday, often long hours(including nights and weekends)-it was much more than 300 students (around 1500 plus- alot of them in the dorms and other places). If you remmeber, over 82 percent of the faculty also voted against IKJ and BoT. Worldwide Deaf leaders such as Andersson, Scroggin, Lunge, Garreston, Mcfadden, Ramos etc.etc. spoke in favor of the protest. Do I really need to go on?
The MSA was refering to the way IKJ picked JKF as provost. The position of Provost is suppose to be one of shared goverence-meaning it is suppose to be advertized, getting input from the faculty,etc,etc, before the position is filled.
That is what Davilia is doing now.
IKJ never followed the correct procedure- and he was censured by both the Senate Faculty and MSA Commission.
Every new president (in government or in private business) gets to choose his own staff. If you recall- whenever there is a new US President, that incoming administration asked everyone to re-aply for thier old jobs. Some get hired again-some do not.
What Davilia is doing is standard procedure. Nothing racist, and nothing new…he is doing what every new resident does. Look at every new president at every collge/university.
Raphael J. St.Johns C-87, G-00
This is not the White House or the Congress. This is not a elected office. It is expected that a Republican President would rather hire his own staff, mainly most of Republicans. This is an higher education institutions, people should not be demoted just because their stances on the protest was not in line with the President’s stance or that of the two advisors feeding him information. Do you want to be demoted or promoted based on your work contributions or based on whether you agreed or disagreed or said nothing about a controversial protest?
again- you seemed to not undersatnd the proper role that is going on here.
I remember when IKJ frist was granted the job back in 1988. I was there. He did the exact things that is happening now. Merv Garreston and a couple of other people (i.e. Jack Gannon) were moved around. It was not about rasism then-and it is not about race now. If you look at every ( political, educational, business even non-profits)institution-they do the same thing.
Also- you are confusion me. You said that no one is talking about firings- yet you keep saying things like:
“demoted or promoted based on your work contributions or based on whether you agreed or disagreed or said nothing about a controversial protest?”
So which one is it? are you talking about firings(demotions)? or not?
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G-00
Firings are not demotions. These are two very different things. Firings are terminations. Demotions are being dropped down in ranks from your most recent job positions.
Krisit, everyone including Raphael know the definitions. I think that you are confused yourself.
Dunn still works at Gally not fired. Right?
I think you are stil upset for your beloved Africa brother for his demoted position.
I don’t give damn about any white hearing people crying over the spilled milk. That goes to any disabled individual with color, too…
Time is to move on….
no- demotion is a form of firing. if you are demoted from a job- you are fired from that job. They may put you in another job- but it is still considered a form of firing. That is why the courts are so filled with cases of demotion-because a lot of people are demoted everyday.
Please do not misunderstand me. I really want to help you and your organ. do well. Please educate me as to what specifically you want Gallaudet to do? Maybe I can or anyone eles at Gallaudet can help.
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G-00
Raphael,
Demotions does not mean to terminate in any job. You may need to take Human Resource course. Any person who had already demoted can promote the same position again.
Sorry, Kristi…
If you read my response- I said that it is a form of firing. A demotion is , in fact, a form of firing from the persons old job. And more than likely, a permament move. I know that there will be always an exception but I have rarely seen a person (who once demoted) back to the same job. When a person is demoted, that means a likely cut in pay, promotion opportunity, etc. It means “bad mark” in his/hers employment record (most likely).
I neevr said that it was the same as a firing. But the effects can be as devastrating as a firing.
Also, Human resource is very little help in these cases. That is why every year, courts are jammed with demotion cases.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
From http://www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: de·mote
Pronunciation: di-’mOt, “dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·mot·ed; de·mot·ing
Etymology: de- + -mote (as in promote)
1 : to reduce to a lower grade or rank
2 : to relegate to a less important position
Main Entry: 2fire
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s):
fired; fir·ing
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
b: to dismiss from a position
Even if you say “it’s a form of firing” it’s still not the same thing, regardless. Firing is firing. Demotion is demotion. Kristi made it clear in the first place.
Again- you have not carefully read my responses. I never said that it is the same as a firng. I said that a demotion is a form of a firing. Please re-read my responses. If you think about it- when a person is demoted, he/she is taken away from the old job…and placed into a new(lower)position. That act itself is a type of firing from the persons old job. It is the same as afiring-but the effects can be the same. That is what I have been saying all along.
I know that there is a different between an outright firing and a demotion.
That is all I been saying.
And I am still waiting for Ms. Merriweather to inform me what,if any , stepes I can do to assist her in this situation?
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
So sorry-
“It is the same as afiring-but the effects can be the same.”
I meant:
“It is NOT the same as a firing-but the effects can be the same.”
My mind does not wake up until my first cup of coffee- and I have not had it yet.
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00
82%? Where did that come from? Was it from the October 16, 2006 vote? If so, then you’re talking about where only 76% of total faculty members were present for the vote for JKF only.
While for the “vote of no confidence” for IKJ only 66% of the total faculty were present for the vote where 54% of them voted “no confidence” in IKJ.
For the BOT vote of “no confidence” only 52% of the faculty were present while 91% of them voted “no confidence” against the BOT.
Please stop with this 82% vote nonsense for all three (IKJ, JKF, and BOT) as if it is a fact. It is NOT.
http://www.elisawrites.com/?p=254
It is just that you need to show how many people were there to explain the percentages. Saying “82%” doesn’t cut it here.
If you wanted to use all 221 faculty members as the number to use to determine how many of them voted against JKF, IKJ, and BOT regardless whether they showed up or not the numbers would be 62%, 36%, and 48% respectively.
82 %is the actuarial representation of the faculty who voted not in favor of the JKF and the BoT. It’s a statical percentage. Anyone who has taken a basic statistic (and I am sure you have) course will you that. That’s why Dr. Ammon and others on the faculty used that number during the faculty march and another occasion.
Raphael J. St.Johns C-87, G-00
Mike,
Following your reasoning, President Bush wasn’t voted in by the majority of Americans. So, if the faculty vote wasn’t “legit”, then either was the recent Presidental election.
The fact is, your vote counts only when you DO vote. That’s how the game is played. The other faculty didn’t show up to vote for or against.
You can’t complain that the faculty isn’t accurately represented when they chose not to represent themselves.
Yes, the fact that not all of them showed at the meeting is an important point.
Or I could bring up the counter arguement is that the faculty meeting was one of the largest in history, which is another important point.
However, by not voting, they chose not to take part in the decision making.
Your argument that the vote was any less important or invalid in any way holds no water. The vote was 82%. Period.
I’m not going around saying, 50% percent (the nonvoting population) of Americans didn’t vote for Bush, so he’s not really our President”.
I’m going around, saying “50% of the Americans are not doing their civic duties. They didn’t vote, and they weren’t counted, and we got stuck with President Bush. We gotta get them to vote.”
So if you REALLY want to pursue the arguement that the faculty vote wasn’t accurate, then will you concede that President Bush’s victory was illegimate?
I didn’t think so. You can’t have it one way or the another.
Actually, I see the votes in terms of Senators or Representatives present to vote on a bill and see if there are enough hands to see the bill through. A bill here could be seen as an “issue” to be voted on where the majority has the voice. In Congress, in order for a bill (“issue”) to pass in the Senate and become a law (“consensus”) all members need to be present to vote.
I see faculty members as being the “elected officials” who have “voting powers” on any issues brought before them in order to get a “group consensus” whether it’s about a vote on “no confidence” or some other issue before proceeding to the next step.
I’ll say it again, the faculty votes weren’t exactly reflective of what all of the faculty members (that’s 221 of them) may have felt. We’re talking about a set number of people here and that’s the 221 faculty members.
Bringing up the Bush vote is really getting old nor is it accurate in this case when used as an example here.
Suppose you had only 36% (80 members) of the faculty members (out of 221) who showed up to vote on JKF and all of them voted for the removal of JKF which would be a 100% vote. But that would not be reflective of what the rest (64% or 141) of the faculty members’ feelings would be on JKF. This would be an attempt at projecting. You cannot extrapolate the voting results to the rest of the absent members.
And the next time you say “82%” be sure to inform people that only 76% of the faculty were present to vote on the JKF matter and nothing about the BOT or IKJ. Not doing so implies that all faculty members voted and got the 82% consensus vote. Not so. That’s my point here.
Not only that, but people phrase it differently. In the presidential elections they say something like, 41% of the voters voted for Blah blah.
So in this case, it should be 82% of the voting faculty were against JKF.
Semantics in this case matter.
Raphael,
No. 82% is a statistical fact that pertains to those 168 faculty members present that voted against JKF for her ouster in Motion B. The 82% voting result has nothing to do with BOT. None. That would be the 91% voting result on the “no confidence” vote against BOT when only 116 faculty members (not 168) were present to vote on Motion F. Nothing I have said earlier is any different what I’m saying now. You cannot make a broad claim about the 82% vote for both JKF and BOT. That would be intellectually dishonest and, at the same time, providing disinformation to those who don’t know better. The 82% is about the vote on JKF only and nothing else. That alone ought to be patently obvious to you.
And lastly, “actuarial representation” pertains to actuary. Or in other words work involving the mathematics of risk such as those who do risk calculations for insurance companies. What you said doesn’t make sense but I know where you’re getting at. And yes, I know statistics since I majored in mathematics and did my graduate work in geophysics/hydrogeology which was heavy in math and geostatistics. And I continue to do similar statistics work as a professional scientist.
Suppose you had only 36% (80 members) of the faculty members (out of 221) who showed up to vote on JKF and all of them voted for the removal of JKF which would be a 100% vote. But that would not be reflective of what the rest (64% or 141) of the faculty members’ feelings would be on JKF.
A relevant point, to be sure, but that doesn’t change the result. The non voters scarified the opportunity to voice their opinion. So it’s not in any sense illegitimate or invalid.
“This would be an attempt at projecting. You cannot extrapolate the voting results to the rest of the absent members.”
Lovely. When do you plan to stop using it as a talking point in your “UFG was illegitimate” arsenal?
I look forward to it.
UFG?
It is projecting whenever people say “82% voted” and include BOT and/or IKJ. Nothing is being said about those votes being illegitimate. I have not even said that, nor implied that. The whole premise to my argument has always been this. Provide factual and accurate information to the readers about the numbers (percentages) behind the vote and don’t assume just because there’s a vote behind it means it’s reflective of all 221 faculty members involved. Saying it’s “not reflective” is NOT the same thing as calling it illegitimate. There is a difference here.
it’d also be deceiving to say only 62% of the faculty voted against JKF.
using ur example: let’s say there were 100 constitutes but only 36 showed up for a meeting and 100% of them voted for something. it’d be misleading to say “only 36% of the constitutes voted for this”, because one’d get the impression that the other 64% voted against “it”.
the probability is extremely low that every member of the faculty who didn’t showed up that night would have voted for JKF. yet that’s what “62%” implies. one unfamiliar with the situation would get this impression if he/she heard only your version.
if we wanted to be super-precise to the point of being anal, we’d say something like “82% of the faculty members in a meeting, in which 76% out of the entire faculty body showed up, voted against JKF.”
It’s not about being anal here. It’s about providing proper info for people who don’t even know the whole story about the 82% vote.
Members do not have to show up in order to vote. There is this thing called “email” where one can vote in absentia. Heck, there is the video phone, too.
“Members do not have to show up in order to vote. There is this thing called “email” where one can vote in absentia. Heck, there is the video phone, too. ”
But they didn’t.
I like what Ben said -
“82% of the faculty members in a meeting, in which 76% out of the entire faculty body showed up, voted against JKF.” ”
There it is.
Mike:
I apolized for mis-stating the facts. You are correct. But I like Ben’s ideal better: do’nt you think it shows a more accurate picture?
I’ve already implicity agreed that Ben’s example is a correct one which is why I said it’s not trying to be anal here but accurate for the readers out there. If you really want to be anal, what the percentage of the 76% that showed up are deaf versus hearing faculty members.
“90% of the campus and Deaf world? Come on now, don’t make me laugh! 300 students protestors out of 1000+ students- is that 90%?”
If that’s making you laugh, what about the 15 people out of 1000+ students? That was a rather futile attempt and your numbers have been revealed.
Perhaps, the audit director from the devil’s advocate likes to play with fire on his own Internet forum so that he and his buddies would earn the full respects from the white folks…
It is time to move on and the deafies with color skins are on the right roads for their successes in bright future…
I don’t think I agree with some of Kristi’s opinions but she is allowed to express them.
One thing that got my attention while reading this blog was that the FSSA appeared to be cast as a “Gallaudet watchdog” organization during the protest. However; since the conclusion of the protest, the FSSA website (http://news.gufssa.com/) has only been re-posting Gallaudet-related announcements.
You are correct, Shane. The FSSA web site has only been used very little for job postings and annoucemnts from Bot, Davillia, etc. It has pretty much dis-banded (not officailly-but the effects are the same).
Raphael J. St. Johns C-87, G-00