Gallaudet University is hosting presentations by three of the finalists for the Provost position. Yesterday, William Marshall outlined his plans for the University. But first, here’s a brief rundown on the Provost position and its recent history at Gallaudet:
The Gallaudet Provost serves as the chief academic officer and provides overall leadership and direction to the division of Academic Affairs, including the College for Liberal Arts, Sciences and Technologies, Graduate School and Professional Programs and Student Affairs. The Provost has been heavily scrutinized in the last year and a half. Dr. Jane K. Fernandes, who was the Provost at the time, was selected as the next president of Gallaudet University. Dr. I. King Jordan then appointed Dr. Michael Moore as interim provost of Gallaudet University as Dr. Fernandes stepped down to prepare for her appointment as president. We all know what happened to Dr. Fernandes. In January 2007 Gallaudet announced that they would begin the search process for a new Provost. The finalists are Dr. William Marshall, Dr. Joseph Innes, and Dr. Steven Weiner. All are current Gallaudet employees. For more details on the presentations and the selection process, visit the official press release.
Presenting to a full audience of faculty, staff and a smattering of students yesterday, Dr. Marshall gave off the aura of a seasoned career administrator – impeccably organized, carefully modulated, and precisely timed – he finished within two minutes of his allotted speaking time. His presentation reflected his long tenures at MSSD and Gallaudet, and of his understanding of the underlying issues. Instead of dwelling on fluff topics like cultural identity or audism, he acknowledged the host of issues that Gallaudet would be facing during the next few years. Most universities do not typically have this breadth of concerns – sure, student dissent might be a problem on one campus, retention on another, flat funding on yet another, but I can’t think of any other schools that have so much to tackle in such a short time.
The priorities of Dr. Marshall fall under three categories – curriculum (”The heart of the University”), mission, vision, values (”The soul of the University”) and structure (”The body of the University”). He spoke of creating an “academic campus culture,” brain trusts, Centers for Excellence. He stressed the moral as well as the practical – leaders, he said, need heart as well as a good head. They need to provide “not only the steak, but also the sizzle.” He asked whether Gallaudet was proud of the incivility, intolerance of opinion, and lack of trust on campus. He turned to Harvard for inspiration, proposing a “general education” philosophy that I’m still trying to understand – but Dr. Marshall says it’ll help retention, so okay. He mentioned plans to reinvigorate the Clerc Center by exchanging ‘best practices’ among grade school educators, addressing a few concerns that were brought up during open questioning about what could be done preemptively to increase the English fluency of incoming freshmen. Is Dr. Marshall up to the task? It seems like it… but I’ll wait to pass judgment until I’ve seen the other two finalists speak.
The absence of a strong showing of students was surprising, considering that the protesters, many of whom were students, were what compelled the Gallaudet Board of Trustees to expel Dr. Jane Fernandes as the next president of Gallaudet. Does the lack of a student presence demonstrate a lack of interest in the process of operating a University? It could be argued that this is nearing finals week, but that didn’t deter protesters from abandoning their studies in the spring and fall of 2006.
Regardless, there is a definite, palpable sense that the next few years are going to make or break the University. I ran into a friend before the presentation – he had just gotten some papers from Cal State Northridge detailing the transfer of his existing credits from Gallaudet. I asked him if he really was going to switch schools. “If Gallaudet loses its accreditation, what else am I supposed to do? I want my degree to be worth something.”
Disclaimer: Josh Allmann is a student at RIT, and has no affiliation with Gallaudet University.
© 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.
72 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A huge thanks for doing this for those of us who couldn’t make it. I especially like how you end your review - not necessarily with a summation of the impression Marshall made, but with a reminder of how… IMPORTANT… this feels.
While presentations and interviews may not be as accurate an indicator of future performance, it’s clear that the choice of provost, whatever it is, will have an indelible impact on the identity and morale of Gallaudet as an academic entity.
I find it interesting and disappointing that the students didn’t participate in large numbers in Marshall’s presentation. The ideas presented were certainly novel and forward thinking, which is exactly what the university needs at this point. A good dose of enthusiasm and professionalism doesn’t hurt Marshall either. And what’s more, he doesn’t have any of JKF’s baggage.
I do agree that it is puzzling and rather disappointing that there wasn’t a better turn-out from the student population. Hopefully this will change with the next two candidates.
As Josh points out, it was the students who played a big role in bringing us to where we are now in the whole Provost/President situation. Now I have to wonder… what was the whole point of the protest if you’re not willing to follow through?
There wasn’t much of a turnout at the initial forums set up for the Gallaudet President selection, either — which all took place before Jane K. Fernandes was selected. It’s been argued (see previous DeafDC.com postings — under Adam Stone, I think) that they weren’t well-advertised.
I say this with all due respect (of which I have an enormous amount) but your comment “It’s been argued (see previous DeafDC.com postings — under Adam Stone, I think) that they weren’t well-advertised” is bunk.
Fine, if people want to claim that the Presidential Selection forums weren’t well-advertised to cover their own apathetic butts but to claim that this Provost thing isn’t well-advertised is, at best, a very weak argument. I have received emails for what seems like every single day since the three finalists were announced about these forums. Not to mention Daily Digest.
What else do people want? To be hog-tied and forcibly relocated to Swindells to watch the presentation(s)? Then we’ll get a protest about forcing people to care about what happens at Gallaudet.
I think the lack of attendance by the students shows that they are not the “true” stakeholders at Gallaudet. The real stakeholders are faculty and alumni. At best, the students are consumers.
… who subscribe to the “Customer’s Always Right” philosophy?
Any retailer worth his or her salt will tell you that the average customer is an idiot.
jt- actually the auditorium was so full during the presidential candidates’ presentations, there was a huge overflow room complete with 3 TVs (displaying, of course, the candidates’ presentation).
Josh- I think the low nbr of students was due to:
-the position of president at gallaudet being overhyped and overemphasized in relative to the position of provost (that’d explain why students didn’t revolt when JKF was provost).
-timing. The presidential candidates gave presentations good 1 or 2 weeks before the final papers and projects came up. I know I’ll be too busy this week to watch most of the presentations. As for protesting during the wk of finals, obviously there’s a world of difference between protesting a new president-select and watching presentations of aspiring provosts.
-search burnout. In the span of a year, the university community has underwent 4 search/selection processes for president and provost (interim and permanent).
-students trust the process now. The new administration has won students’ trust and they believe it will do the procedure right. Additionally, there was no controversial candidate to worry over.
Interesting footnote: when the 3 candidates (all white men) were announced, the search committee emphasized that it had gone great lengths to find candidates from diverse backgrounds. I wonder how African American members of the community responded. Did they reluctantly concede that the committee tried their best, seeing that the chairperson was black? Or not? I suppose their reactions run the gamut.
Ben M.,
Jt was referring to the PSC workshops that were held *before* the three candidates were announced. She was not referring to the presentations by the three finalists for the 9th Gallaudet President.
Are you trying to imply that the protesters were uncivil and intolerant? That’s simply not true.
Jordan himself was the uncivil and intolerant person. The acts of civil disobedience carried out by the protesters were done in an highly ethical and responsible manner.
Read what Allmann said: “He [Dr. Marshall] asked whether Gallaudet was proud of the incivility, intolerance of opinion, and lack of trust on campus.”
Hi Shane:
I’d like to stay out of the whole pro/anti protest thing and the whole pro/anti IKJ thing just this one time, but I ask you to consider something. If there’s incivility, does anyone in here still think it’s ONLY on the part of the students (notice I’m saying students, not protesters)? Do you really think that, in all the years leading up to now, faculty haven’t insulted other faculty, administrators haven’t insulted other administrators, administrators haven’t insulted faculty, faculty haven’t insulted administrators, students haven’t insulted faculty, faculty haven’t insulted students, students haven’t insulted administrators, administrators haven’t insulted students… that students haven’t insulted OTHER students? Whether a protester or not?
Did I miss a combination? In the midst of all this Deaf Absolutist/temper tantrum/not Deaf enough/extremist group/radical faculty/immature students/administrative tyrant stuff, has any one single group avoided being hit by a big faceful of muck? I think not.
Yet when people try to talk about this, they’re bombarded with “Oh, that kind of thing happens everywhere!” Well if it happens everywhere then why makes such a big deal out of it happening HERE? Or else people are told to stop complaining about it, lest others develop negative feelings about Gallaudet and not come here. Well, if that’s true then why address the problem in your “I would like to be the provost/president” speech in the first place?
It’d be nice–it would be an enormous gift to the community–if we could just settle something here: if there’s incivility, it’s everywhere. If it’s not everywhere, then there’s no incivility. Putting it on any one group… that doesn’t wash anymore. As a community, let’s not LET it wash anymore.
Shane, I’m not saying it was your implication or intention to hold only students responsible, but I know the sentiment is out there.
My two respectful cents. I now resign myself to the inevitable flaming that’s coming. Please keep me at medium rare. My leg hair stinks when it combusts.
Hahahaha…that’s BRAVE of you to admit your leg hairs stinks upon combustion!
Why do you think I keep shaving my head?
(-:
Oh boy, first the statement was attributed to Allmann and now it’s attributed to me?
According to Allmann, Dr. Marshall is the person who talked about incivility, intolerance of opinion, and lack of trust on campus in his presentation yesterday.
Allmann was simply repeating what Dr. Marshall said and I was pointing that out to Brian Riley.
No no, I know. You didn’t say it. Bill Marshall said it. Allmann repeated it. You clarified it.
I’m merely saying that “it” has different interpretations in the community, and the sentiment is out there that it’s on the students.
That’s all, my friend. My apologies if that came out wrong.
Chris Heuer,
I agree. Dr. Davila said in an interview that the protest should never have happened and that “there were no winners” at the conclusion of the Gallaudet protest.
Link to the interview:
http://www.diverseeducation.co.....7039.shtml
Shane,
Many of the protesters will likely and vehemently disagree with Davila (or you) that there were no winners at the conclusion of the Gallaudet Protest. Lots of “in your face” mentality results.
Shane
Davila’s comment that the protest should never have happened — it can be interpreted in a different way. It may mean that BOT should never have picked JFK and the protest would never have happened.
JD,
Davila meant that protest was a mistake then he added one more, “a huge mistake.” he also said about how wrongful the protest was in other medias.
I agree with Davila about how wrongful the protest was and it is a tragedy as long as Gallaudet stands.
Chris, I am not surprised that you’re championing the fact that whatever happens at Gallaudet happens everywhere else. I will be the very first to admit that incivility happens everywhere, including the D/deaf community. BUT….
The problem with it happening “HERE” as you say lies within the fact that people like Brian Riley continue to completely place the onus on one person and fail to recognize that there were massive acts of incivility all over the place. These acts occurred before, during, and after the UFG protest. You are absolutely right, “putting it on any one group… that doesn’t wash anymore.” If that is the case, then we, as a community, can no longer tolerate blanket statements such as “Jordan himself was the uncivil and intolerant person. The acts of civil disobedience carried out by the protesters were done in an highly ethical and responsible manner.” Was the protestor who broke the window in HMB acting in a highly ethical and responsible manner? How about those who dumped liquid on the Jordan’s during the naming ceremony?
Not all of the acts of protesting were done in a civilized manner, just like some of the acts of the IFK/JFK administration during the UFG protest were also not done in a civilized manner. The student portion of the protest was not entirely civilized during the entire protest, just like DPS was not always civilized during the protest. I can go on and on, and list both sides for every party that was involved in the protest….
What I’m getting tired of is that it’s not all just on the IKJ/JFK administration, BOTH sides committed ugly and uncivilized acts during the protest. That is why Gallaudet University AS A WHOLE is struggling with, “Incivility, intolerance of opinion, and lack of trust on campus.” There was no true winner from the UFG protest, ALL of us lost a little something of ourselves and as a community. It remains to be seen if anything has been gained.
I’m very interested in seeing what Drs. Innes and Weiner have to say in their presentations, and I hope Mr. Allmann will also be blogging on both of these presentations.
Davila did say that there were no winners in the protest. Both sides acted with incivility then and continue to do so now.
Silent Observations,
Good comment. Allmann is now at Gallaudet to take notes on Innes’ presentation at 4 pm today. He’ll also be present at Weiner’s presentation tomorrow, also at 4 pm.
Hi S.O.,
This is what Saul Alinsky (author of Rules for Radicals) called the process of polarization. If the public, or a given community, whatever, doesn’t perceive someone as being a scourge sent from hell, then they won’t do anything about that person AT ALL. Translation: apathy at work. It’s how people are and have been for ages.
Another problem that makes polarization necessary is something he called the fight against “fog.” Meaning people pass the buck, they won’t take responsibility. So who’s accountable? Nobody. Try to grab ahold of them and they vanish like tendrils of smoke.
Thus the process of polarization is used to pin people down so they can’t get away. It deliberately ignores anything good or right or just about them and turns them into demons, incompetent idiots, what have you. Which is why we rarely hear about IKJ’s and JKF’s good deeds, and why we rarely hear about the numerous ways in which “the protesters” WERE honorable and responsible, and why we rarely hear about the many GOOD things Gallaudet does, and why we rarely hear anything about the competency of Gallaudet’s students, faculty, etc. All that inconvenient stuff does is muck up forward progress towards solving the problem (translation: getting angry enough to get rid of this or that or that bastard, or burn down–usually in the literal sense but not always–this or that school or this or that system of government).
Sometimes people utilze polariztion unconsciously. It’s probably a big part of what we call crab theory or just the “startle response.” But sometime it’s done deliberately. Sometimes people utilize it as a form of retaliation, and of holding someone in place… for example, one political strategy to prevent a public figure from calling the protesters “Deaf Absolutists” is to hammer that public figure with labels such as “Administrative tyrant” in return, EVERY TIME HE DOES SO. The idea behind the strategy is to make that public figure stop making such remarks by exposing him to immediate and overwhelmingly negative public blowback. The same strategy could be–and has been–used against those who continuously say administrators are tyrants, etc. Whether the strategy is conscious and deliberate or unconscious, it gets used all the time, and the sooner that we, “the public” wise up to that kind of thing, and the sooner we stop reacting to it, the sooner we become a proactive, politically informed community instead of one constantly being kicked around from one crisis to the next.
Good comment from you. I respect what you’re saying.
In discussing polarization, Saul Alinsky was merely labeling a very old process. Lenin used it before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. Radicals of every stripe have used it to crack the middle and further the extremes until violence is used, which drives the extremes even further until no compromise is possible. The fall of the Roman Republic is another instance of it, and pre-revolutionary France is another. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was a revolution of the middle and is an exception to the general rule of polarization before socio-political tumult.
Hi SIM:
I generally agree, but now it’s much more than that. Now it’s a political way of life. It could be argued that Global Warming, which Mike McConnel is discussing in his blog right now, for example, is an issue where polarization is being utilized. Is it possible that Gore and company are going around scaring the living hell out of everyone with fast facts? Sure. But the alternative is… what? People don’t get around to doing anything about anything for the next fifty years, and then we really ARE in the middle of an irreversible man-made ecological disaster.
I don’t have the science to tell you where we actually are right now, in the middle of hype or finaly facing long neglected truths. But the two go hand in hand… the hype is routinely necessary only when truth is routinely neglected.
I believe in global warming, for what it’s worth!
Scaring the living daylights out of people is vastly different than espousing terror to create polarization in societies, much like what is happening in Iraq.
But the question is how to inspire people out of apathy is a legitimate one; terror and violence are not legitimate means, in my opinion. I am an environmentalist and a conservationist, but violence is where I draw the line so you’ll not find me participating in events with Earth Firsters.
Violence, incivility, terror, all breed more of the same, and that’s not how you have a functioning republic or democracy in the first place. Compromise, as ugly as it is, is the necessary ingredient in a functioning democracy, and polarization whether by the right or left detracts from that.
But then again, Saul Alinsky was advocating, if I remember correctly, neighborhood action on the grass roots level. I think that he was merely foreshadowing the diffusion of power from the top to the bottom in today’s world. For example, in politics, blogs and vlogs online dominate the discourse and the national parties are scrambling to find ways to meet and satisfy the discussion. We also see a diffusion from the centralizing hyperpower mania of the late 1990s for the U.S. to a more multi-polar world in the late 2000’s, including non-state agents such as Al Qaeda. The 21st century will seem like so much squabbling between NGOs, traditional states, and non-state actors, much like the Holy Roman Empire feudatories during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries before the Treaty of Westphalia with all its electors, bishoprics, princedoms, dukedoms, and free cities. Also, diffusion in technology is advancing rapidly enough so that our children or their children, with a sufficiently advanced high school biology degree and some chemicals from Home Depot, can whip up a plague that can wipe out half of the human race. So, what I’m saying is that diffusion is the wave of the future, but not necessarily polarization.
Good philosophical discussion. Reminds me of some college benders I’ve had.
Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” – Hobbes (Leviathan)
Polarization occurs at every level of society, from the rich to the poor, the educated to the uneducated, and guess what, it also happens in the D/deaf community and at Gallaudet University.
What most people completely forget is that Hobbes argued that while life essentially sucked, it is NOT in man’s best interest to be confrontational. We enter a social contract with each other, with a governing authority (the Leviathan) to ensure that this contract is upheld. This contract allows polarization, as long as the general facets of life are not disrupted. Under the social contract, man can live life safely under the complete authority and protection of the Leviathan.
The big problem in relations to the UFG protest is that both groups (man and the Leviathan (ie. IKJ/JKF) violated the social contract. Polarization had already existed at Gallaudet before the UFG protest, and continues to do so at this point. Threats, acts of violence, intimidation, and the like are all direct violations of the social contract. As long as such acts continue to be promulgated by ALL parties involved at Gallaudet University, then we are doomed to a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Now, I’m not advocating a totalitarian governing body in any institute, including Gallaudet University. However, we need to have a governing body in order for the social contract to remain in place. If people make the claim that Gallaudet University is the center of the Deaf community, then it stands to reason that the administration of Gallaudet University is also the governing body of the Deaf community. When the social contract is violated (by any party involved), then everything goes straight down the toilet, and that’s exactly what happened at Gallaudet. I don’t think it was an issue of polarization, it was an issue of a complete violation (by both parties) of the social contract that the Deaf community had with Gallaudet University.
For what it’s worth, I’ll take Hobbes over Alinsky any time of the day.
Yeah, I’ve always been a Thomas Hobbes fan over John Locke.
John Locke in his Treatise that People have an innate ability to have goodness in them, yet it’s human nature to be lazy, take shortcuts, be defensive, and fight, eradicate, and destroy each other over something as simple as a plot of dirt and a thought.
Whenever I see Hobbes, I remember the comic strip, “Calvin and Hobbes.” But, yes, Hobbes made a very good point about the social contract (he called it, I think, self-interested cooperation). Unfortunately, the social contract appears to be torn, if not fraying, in many places, not just Gallaudet. Witness the daily acts of incivility that take place between members of the right and the left on Capitol Hill and on the blogosphere. Gallaudet is just another example. I think part of the problem is that we are confronting many problems and instead of deciding to cooperate, we decide to take confrontational stances that just delay the resolution (and increase the cost) of addressing the problem. Social Security and Medicare come to mind here.
But really, the world is changing and that’s why we’re all on the defensive. The postwar social contract (New Deal and the American order post-1945) is fragmenting. As I said, it will be a multi-polar (and thus, increasingly dangerous with so many actors on the stage) world. Globalization just accents the stresses we’re finding here, with job shifts and economic downgrading (i.e., the trickle down theory). It seems every 50 or 60 years, the world undergoes a change and takes on a new paradigm. We’re at a change point but we haven’t decided on our response yet. So, what’s happening at Gallaudet is simply a transformation from an unquestioned educational system to one of transparency and accountability.
Well, that’s one way to look at it.
Hi:
I have to say I am LOVING this particular debate! And what all of you have said is food for thought. My view of all this relative to yours is:
I strongly think polarization is what’s happening. And as S.O. says, it always has been happening, not only at Gallaudet but everywhere, and it will continue to. I never really got into Hobbes or Locke as much as I got into Alinsky but I will now.
Still, a point: It’s polarization if I were to say Charlotte Allen is a right wing ultra conservativist nut (ignoring the good points she DOES make) just as much as it’s polarization if she were to say ALL (notice I said “all”) of the protesters in UFG were cultural absolutists (while ignoring the fact that many, if not most, weren’t).
Now she didn’t say “all,” but you have to remember that the process of polarization sets up exactly that: extreme polar opposites, and then tries to push a target as close to one of those extremes or another as possible. If the extremes are A and Z, it’s still polarization if you succeed in making a guy look like he’s an X when he’s really R, or when you succeed in making him look like he’s a C when he’s really L. In other words polarization is found also in the “pushing toward” the polar extremes, and not just in the extremes themselves.
That’s where your lack of “civility” comes from. When you ignore the fact that people tried to do less extreme, and in fact entirely legal and appropriate things before they finally blew up and did extreme things, then you’re participating in polarization. And if I were to ignore the good things that administrators did or tried to do before they finally started taking more and more extreme measures, then I’d be participating in polarization too.
So how to get out of that? Because if we all actually DID step back for a second and acknowledge what seems to be true, that everyone plays a part in this process, the process itself no longer works, because now we recognize it for what it is.
Without going off topic too much but there is no such thing as man-made global warming. Man-made heat islands in cities, sure. But not global warming saying that CO2 is the cause where we pump CO2 into the atmosphere. Bunk-um.
CO2 constitute only 0.03% of the atmosphere by volume compared to 0.5% for water vapor. Yet water vapor’s specific heat (the ability the hold and release heat) is 4 to 5 times greater than CO2. Water vapor is a known climate driver, and not CO2. And lastly, us mere humans barely pump out 1% of what the Earth pumps out annually on CO2.
What Gore and co are doing are not presenting “fast facts” but lots of 1/2 truths and lies. It’s been documented. It’s the same hype approach that was done back in the mid-70s by the media, scientists and polticians that were facing a massive global cooling. Even Time magazine had a picture on the front cover about “global cooling.”
Hype? Certainly. Truth? About what? That man caused all this? Hardly. And it’s also about allowing information out to the public so they can make an informed decision using correct facts. Using scare tactics defeat the purpose by creating uncertainty and distrust.
Correction: “Using scare tactics sometimes defeat the purpose.”
I meant exactly what I said: Is Allman (by has lack of condemnation of the remark) meaning to imply that he agrees with the statement or not?
In either case, whether he agrees or disagrees, it’s important to point out that the charge of incivility on the part of the UFG protesters is a complete and total myth. The UFG protesters were doing what was ethically necessary to fix the damage that Jordan caused.
I implied nothing. “Incivility,”, “intolerance” and “lack of trust” are the exact keywords that were used in Dr. Marshall’s slides on campus values. Your problem is with him, not with me.
By the way, Dr. Marshall never placed blame on the students or directly accused them of anything, so don’t jump the gun here. A lot was said at that presentation; I would hesitate to interpret his entire ideology based on a few paragraphs from an independent blog.
I’ll say it again as I have said repeatedly ever since last year. I’ve said my “mea culpa” and that everybody is at fault here. If you cannot acknowledge that and continue to point fingers (not you Josh) and lay blame other than your own, we won’t go anywhere.
This is a problem when people cannot see past this and continue to lay blame everyday in their blogs. And when people do this on a constant basis, I see it as a sign of sickness.
We need to simply move past that focus on the future, and not so much on the past although it is the past is what guides us into the future.
Alumni are the true stakeholders of Gallaudet? What stake do they have? They have completed their education already, and really, very little that happens at Gallaudet affects them in any way. The poor turn-out of students at Dr. Marshall’s presentation further emphasizes that students at Gallaudet have little interest in being informed of the issues. Although I saw Noah Beckman there, I didn’t see either of the incoming SBG officers. If you watch the blogs, I’m sure you’ll be seeing Steve Weiner being enthusiastically endorsed by students (whether they attend his presentation or not) because he’s a “nice guy”. They have little understanding or even interest in knowing what the job of the provost is.
And does incivility still rule at Gallaudet? Ask anyone who had to observe MJ making rude comments all throughout Dr. Marshall’s presentation.
Alumni do have a stake in that their Gallaudet degrees have worth and that means the university must, in turn, produce students who can effectively function in the outside world and not be an embarrassment.
I agree that the students have very little understanding of how Gallaudet (or any university for that matter) is operated. But I do know that a large part of the student body appears to be treating the selection as a popularity contest.
That said, whoever succeeds as president will have a whole host of problems to deal with and these problems are not limited only to Gallaudet itself. Other universities have a problem with transparency, accountability, and providing their consumers (i.e., students) with a quality education in today’s world.
http://www.insidehighered.com/.....4/24/hersh
What did MJ say?
MJ Bienvenu? Not surprised!
I am kinda disappointed with Dr. Marshall’s comment - solely focused on the revamping of the Clerc Center, not address the shambles of deaf education nationally affect prospective Gallaudet students. That reveals his own mentality for not thinking of the Gally’s long-term stratgetic interests in broad terms.
My understanding is that Mr. Lindsay Dunn set his personal revenge on Jay Innes for demoting him with the university adminstration - possibility of organized protest against either of provost candidate(s). Innes simply followed the order of adminstration, not his own intention. How sad!
I know Jay Innes personally. He is really a fair-minded individual, not prejudiced or adhor any favorism. Innes strives for the best of best of anything.
I am little concerned about Marshall since he really do not embrace the concept of ASL in linguistic terms for the communication/language usage policy on the campus. Marshall also did criticize the “UFG” protest from time to time. He offiically showed his displeasure with the ongoing protest.
The next provost will deal with the interdepartmental budget issues and put the pressures on departmental chairperson for drastic budgetary cuts.
No questions about I. King Jordan and Jane Fernandes and Paul Kelly were directly responsible for the current budgetary problems. The university unjustifabily spent about $6 to 8 million dollars on the related offensive tactics dealt with last year’s protest. If not for hiring of rent cops and cost of public relations spins thru spewing lies and distortations against protestors. The university would be not in this finanical shortfall at all.
I. King Jordan and Jane Fernandes frequently bragged about their budgetary prowess. Davila ended up with the real mess left by IKJ and JK and Paul Kelly.
Ben Moore is absolutely right about the fatigue of campus politics among students. He is definitely accurate about students having faith in the Davila adminstration.
Dr. Steve Weiner is a consenus-builder and politically savvy individual himself very well responsive to all trends and concerns arisen.
Kinda eerie for being the former student to both Weiner and Innes. I respect both of them very much. Weiner and Innes surely have unique personality and tactics of their own. I wish both of them all the best within their candidacy for the Office of Gallaudet University Provost.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Josh: Nice summary & observation, thanks. Regardless, relevance between Dr. Marshall’s presentation and re-accreditation (your final paragraph)? Seemed thrown in.
Allison Kaftan (first comment) summed it up best. The Provost is arguably more important than the president in dealing with all the internal issues Gallaudet has. Whoever comes next has his work cut out for him.
But doesn’t the power of the Provost depend on how much power the President gives him? A President may want a say on many decisions and demand frequent meetings (a micro manager) or can simply give the Provost free rein. A Provost is only as powerful as the President allows the Provost to be. I think there will be some trust building (with the President, faculty, and students) needed before the Provost can really do his job.
PS I am NOT the MJ who was at the presentation and was mentioned above!
They better announce the selection on May 1, 2007.
You people who talk about alleged “incivility” on both sides are nuts. There has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER been proven any act of incivility on the part of Unity for Gallaudet. It’s all ALLEGATIONS. A - L - L - E - G - A - T - I - O - N - S.
Period.
incivility
n : deliberate discourtesy [ant: civility]
I’m sure blocking the gates and shutting down completely the campus are an act of utmost civility in the assurances that protesters are able to deny, discourage and prevent people who needed to work, go to class or have an audiologist appointment. A sign of unity I’m sure.
I suppose it all depends on how one describes or defines what “incivility” is about and what it could pertain to.
Mr. McConnell:
You say shutting down the campus was an act of incivility. I am apalled with your audacity in presenting a one-side argument because you are essentially saying that Jordan’s rhetoric-infested and childish op-ed was civil.
He insulted and painted a very awful picture of the deaf community and shamed the institution he is currently employed at. To me, that is incivility. He presented himself not in a presidential manner but as a wailing and a spoiled despot who could not accept the fact that his last days were with controversy. Controversy that he escalated with his own arrogance and extreme prejudice.
The next time you go defending him, I need you to THINK about what he did and the damage he inflicted on the deaf community *and* on YOU just to save his posterior.
I agree and it is truly embarassing that he acts like this way, given the position he
is in. It shows that he is without any dignity or regard for anyone.
How he handled the whole thing after the end of the protest allows us to see who he is it could reflect his true motive during the protest, pulling all the strings, to make protestors look bad and to justify his action. His goal was for the protest to go away and have JKF stay on in order to bury what goes wrong, but he failed.
It’s interesting to see how incivility on both sides are emphasized now by those who were anti-protest from the beginning that doesn’t seem to be mentioned anytime throughout the protest until after.
Mike, all due respect, I agree it’s all about what we perceive incivility to be, and what it pertains to. For me it’s also about drawing the line between civil disobedience and incivility. Because I definitely believe in civil disobedience. And I believe in a person’s right not just to be heard when he says “no,” but also to be heeded when he says “no.” We don’t heed somebody when we tell him to go somewhere else if he doesn’t like it here (because he MAY like it here–he just doesn’t want to do what you want him to do). We don’t heed someone when we tell him to shut his mouth or he’ll lose his job. And we don’t heed someone when we label his unhappiness with us, his resistance toward us, as bitching. Such reactions belittle him, insult him, frighten him, anger him. How is that civil? If I did that to you and you simply didn’t want to run away and “go someplace else,” what recourse would you have left? Simply give in to me? What do you think that would do to your spirit?
I don’t ask these questions to again endlessly analyze and justify/criticize the protest. Each and every candidate for the provost position discussed civility and increasing civil discourse on campus. So sooner or later we’re going to have to figure something out: where was incivility on this campus a *reaction,* and where was it the initial action? Because if we’re just going around slapping people in the face and then slapping them a second time to punish them for getting angry, none of this is about their “incivility.” It’s about us being sick enough to believe we were justified in slapping them the first time.
Chris, I think most people here get your point (which you have repeatedly stated). However, can you, at the VERY LEAST, admit that incivility occured on BOTH sides of the protest? I’m not asking for a long winded explanation (you’ve done that time and time again), just a simple yes/no answer.
He can’t do it, he has to present himself as smarter than you. =)
I’m sure Chris is a great guy, i’m convinced he’s intelligent, but I don’t think he likes another Rooster in the hen house. =)
I personally think, both sides have their faults, but one side could have handled themselves a hell of a lot better.
S.O.
Yes, I can. And I already have.
Wow. I guess everyone in the world is crazy except you, Brian. Because everyone on both sides admitted that there was some incivility happening.
Guess you’re very special, Brian.
Wow, Brian…. you’ve stepped down a few more levels.. I used to think of you semi-equal, like me and and an orangutan, now yer just riiiiiiight below the methane, a product of Pig waste.
Everyone remember what I said about reality, let me ask you this, where do people like this come from? HOW do they end up so ignorant? I don’t understand the evolution of the ignoramus. Brian Riley is yet another prime example of why I’d rather keep my kids in mainstream.
Shane said it all, how’s it an allegation when the evidence which is huge and impossible to miss, kinda like rosie o’donnell. NOT just the fact that they blocked the gate, the simple fact that about 300 people protested and half of them weren’t even students so that leaves 150 people approximately, so theres about 2000 students on campus and 150 actual student protesters are not only blocking the them from going to class, they are ALSO blocking the employee’s who are trying to get to WORK. yeah real civilized. (thumbs up) go you Bri.
Mcconnell* Not shane (sorry)
Hey — McConnell and O’Donnell rhyme!
PB
Brian is not deaf. Therefore he grew up “mainstreamed”- unless he went to a private boarding school or something.
okay I have my foot in my mouth.. at least I’ll admit that.
I completely second everything Punkybrewster says here.
I resent that crack about Riley being the reason you’d rather keep your kids mainstreamed. FYI - he’s hearing, and state schools had absolutely nothing to do with how he turned out. Take that back.
Hey, this is a blog centered around deaf people, I should have read his blog to get a clue that he was hearing, but you can’t blame me for stopping on the first paragraph of his drivel…. he actually believes in unicorns, and that they are the counterintelligence beings for Bush. My mistake……. (shrugs)
I have seen incivility and media violence in the protest. I often wonder why Fernandes has not sued some bloggers and organizations for some false informations against her.
I can’t “speak” for the other students, but I think a large reason why the student turnout was so low was due to class conflicts or meetings or so on (and it IS the last week of classes)… I wanted to attend but I had class and then a supervision meeting.
Of course, it’s always difficult to find the “perfect” time slot for the biggest turnout… there’s always something!
The least we can all do is publicize what happened during the speeches so those who couln’t make it can at least have a taste of what transpired and develop their own opinions and send their opinions to the BoT.
Unity… means working together :)
they started in the summer for a short time and actually took a “break” for the summer and started back up late fall.
if yer gonna set up a (mockingly) “unity” protest, you don’t fricken take a break. (expands rubberband aimed at someones head) “i’m gonna do it!!!! i’m gonna loose, ahhh the hell with it i’ll do it 3 months later” (cough) civility at it’s best (cough)
As some others also said, I hope Josh will also report on the other two candidates’ presentations? Can we have the steak, soup to dessert presentation and analysis? It doesn’t seem fair to only discuss one candidate’s presentation and not bring forth the other two as well? I think it’s only fair to cover all three if one is covered, all three should be as well. You did a good job with Marshall’s spiel, I would like to see two other equally well written discourses on the remaining two candidates’ spiels as well. Thanks in advance.
Ann,
Allmann went to Innes’ presentation yesterday. He’ll post that blog soon and he’s going to Weiner’s presentation today as well.
Curiously, where is Jane K. Fernandes now? What is she doing now? How many students attend Gallaudet University this year?
[…] background on this series, see my first and second […]
[…] is needed on this series, check out my previous posts on the finalists for the Provost position: William Marshall, Joseph Innes and Stephen […]