Leave Jane Fernandes Alone

Well, actually, let me qualify that statement (from my previous post, where I said “I agree”).

Even though IKJ has encouraged us to put down our “weapons of words” and begin healing, articles from the AP continue to roll in every day stating that the protestors ousted JKF because she’s not “deaf enough.” 

It’s kind of hard to say, “no, that had nothing to do with it,” yet at the same time not give alternative reasons for why she was ousted.  If we lived in a world where the Press had gotten this right in the first place, I’d immediately say, “yes, leave JKF alone now.”  But we don’t live in that world, and we have a right to defend ourselves (not just as protestors, but as a people) and continue to tell our side of the story.  That’s the only way we’re ever going to start undoing the enormous damage to Deaf Culture caused by Gallaudet’s PR Department.

And the following message is for that very same PR Department:

Don’t tell me ”we didn’t spin anything… we pushed  it.”  There’s no difference.  You seized upon something that wasn’t the major issue and you turned it into one of the major issues so that you could distract and detract from what actually were the major issues.  If you were an outside PR firm I wouldn’t be surprised, but you aren’t–you’re Gallaudet’s PR firm, and to that extent, you are supposed to be for deaf people too, and not just for administration.  Maybe it doesn’t say that in the accursed A and O Manual… maybe it doesn’t say that in your job descriptions, but I offer you the same argument that I’ve often given to Deaf Ed teachers whom I’ve thought over the years were not making the grade: you can go anywhere.  You could become PR reps for Big Tobacco (and I dare say you’d do a damned fine job) or something like that.  But if you’re here, then you’re first love should be for deaf people, and not Administration.!

If you’re here solely to push the official positions of the Administration, and that Administration is at odds with what the people want, then you’re the enemy.  Don’t expect them to trust you now, or work to defend you or keep you around.  And from now on, every time that you write “Mecca” in yet another one of your fake PR creations, you remember that it was you who destroyed the Mecca in the first place.  Because a lot of people here honestly had no problem with JKF being “deaf enough,” but you screwed us all over, possibly for the rest of our lives.  What am I going to do now, if I go out looking for a job and my potential future employer says “Oh, I’ve heard of you, you’re one of those Deaf Culture militant nuts.”  Thank you very much–you just cost me the job that could’ve been mine.  And God forbid someday we’ll all have to stand up and protest genetic engineering before it wipes us out… you just dangerously weakened our ability to do that, because once again, the press, and through them the public, will perceive us as a lunatic militant fringe group.

Should that ever happen, so far as I’m concerned, it’s on your shoulders.

Enjoy your career.

Chris Heure

Reprinted with permission by the author

Posted at GallyNet-L

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

Biased Media Do Do?

On reading news media reports and armchair analyses of the Gallaudet
situation:

1. Most aren’t getting it right. A few are close, but still missing what
we see as insiders. We need to formulate a policy, a sense of direction
and disseminate it over and OVER again. It could be a GUFSSA statement,
or a collaborative statement for all of Gallaudet including its Board of
Trustees.

2. The King/Fernandes camps are still issuing their own statements and
analyses, and the damned thing is there is still some truth in them. So
that these do not confuse the real issue, incorporate, but amplify them
in context of the situation. For example, we do encompass all kinds of
deaf people and all the new assistive devices and always have. We will
continue to expand our outreach to all people who can use and appreciate
the ASL approach, or who can learn it and by it, to further increase our
enrollment. We will also continue to explore and strengthen the ASL/Deaf
culture in the interests of greater efficiency, applications, and self
acceptance. We also will explore all assistive devices and communicative
philosophies in strengthening the operating range of each student on
campus. In doing so, we ask that all members of the Gallaudet community
learn ASL and apply it at all times as one of the core priorities on
campus.

3. There is a tendency for the public to perceive the situation (thanks
to the editorials at Washington Post) as anarchists refusing to accept
the established bylaws and authority of the Board of Trustees. We need
to make clear the concept that the staff and faculty as well as students
and alumni have used their influence in a socially significant way: in
eventually changing an outmoded system of top-down governance of a body
of people. Secondarily, we need to convey that we were fighting
incompetence or at least an inappopriate management orientation for our
community.

4. Red herrings that have been thrown out need to be examined publicly
and dismissed with point by point rebuttals. An example is the “deaf
card”. It was an irresistible sound bite that the media eagerly grasped
and continues to circulate.

5. A weakness of the protest is that it began poorly organized and
poorly focused: it grew out of outrage that Dr. Anderson with
credentials and reputation was replaced by a white person with lesser
credentials, and then gained further steam by dislike for the
president-designate herself. If the selection had been a more popular
person with credentials, this protest might not have happened or been
limited to a quibble about why Dr. Anderson was not a finalist. Both of
these point to flawed selection: a question of racial discrimination and
one of political influence. This eventually became the focus of the
protest, but might not be actually the most valid one.

6. By formulating a clearly explained public position about the protest,
we might have to go into background, which means explaining the historic
oppression and audism that goes back to Milan 1880 and the point where
it diverged from the Laurent Clerc method. Parallels might be drawn with
other oppressed minority groups.

Dr. McCay Vernon once wrote an especially enlightening paper on
“Deafness and Minority Group Dynamics” which was published in the Deaf
American in 1969. In this article he made the point that disenfranchised
groups such as Indians and Black people historically had poor
self-esteem, were taught by white people, and taught to despise and
reject their own characteristics while successful groups such as Jews,
Mormons, and Italian-Americans were taught by members of their own
culture and incorporated their ethnic pride into their accomplishments.

7. However, make no mistake about this: this was not solely about
oppression, it was about a management style that the Gallaudet community
did not want. In today’s climate of business and management, there are
ripples of rejection of certain management styles and evolution of a
more inclusive style that respects individual rights. Whether this is a
trend that reached Gallaudet or whether Gallaudet’s revolt was against a
specific management by intimidation style that had grown up during the
IKJ-JKF years, bears analysis.

8. Allow some consideration of where the IKJ-JKF team is going to be
placed for now and in history. They had their good points and
contributions and might still be useful in some way. It looks better for
us if we can still encompass them.

We need to have a public position. Let’s get cracking on it before the
PR flacks and the news pontificators mess it up for us.

Diane.Gutierrez

Reprinted with permission by the listserv moderator

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

From James Fernandes

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:38:39 -0500
From: James Fernandes
Subject: Gallaudet’s Loss
To: Jim Verizon Fernandes

Dear All,

Sincere and deep thanks from all our family for the diverse ways you 
have expressed your love, support and shared greiving for the loss we
and Gallaudet have experienced.  Many–particularly those at
Gallaudet–are not on this group email  list, so please forward our
thanks and my verizon email address to others you know who have fought
the good fight.  (I will set up a verizon email account for Jane soon,
but she should remain emailable at jane.fernandes@gallaudet.edu for the
rest of this year.)

One card Jane got today from four lovely people said this: “‘There is no
pillow so soft as a clear conscience.’  You are a model of decency,
integrity, and forward thinking.”  She is indeed sleeping well.  One
blessing for all the mammals in our household is to have her back with
us.  The stress of the past months and weeks has been replaced with
grief for what Gallaudet and Jane have lost.  But Jane is just too great
a person in so many ways not to have in her future another, perhaps even
better, way of serving the cause of inclusive and effective education.

Not too long ago very dear friends of ours gave Jane a small medallion
of Joan of Arc (Jeanne d’Arc in French, and I think Jeanne can be
translated as Jane too) that she’s been wearing around her neck.  So it
was no small coincidence to see on the news triumphant detesters burning
JK’s effigy on a stake.   The fears, fury and hatred that drive a mob to
turn on a heroic leader are clearly still with us so many centuries
after Jeanne d’Arc was toppled from her horse and put to death after a
sham of a trial.

Many of you have already seen today’s Washington Post lead editorial,
but for those of you who haven’t I’ll paste it below.  Once again, the
Post’s editorial board gets it right.

Aloha,
Jim
—————————–

Gallaudet’s Loss
The ouster of the university’s incoming president defeats her vision of
a more diverse institution.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006; A20 (Lead Editorial)

THE BOARD OF trustees at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
“urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” />Gallaudet University
certainly showed who was in charge when it voted to terminate Jane K.
Fernandes’s contract as president. Sadly, it wasn’t the members of the
board, who are supposed to serve the interests of the university. Nor,
for that matter, were reason or right in evidence Sunday as the trustees
ousted a woman they had recently judged to be the best person to lead
the renowned school for the deaf. Instead, what triumphed was
lawlessness and the principle that a university president should be
chosen on the basis of popularity.

If this were just the story of another university administration
crumbling under pressure, it might be of interest to the larger public
only to the extent that Congress is Gallaudet’s chief funder. But more
was at stake: Alternative visions of Gallaudet were at war during the
past months. Ms. Fernandes promoted a school that would welcome all
sorts of deaf and hard-of-hearing people; that would accommodate itself
to improving technologies, which in coming years will allow more and
more deaf people to function in the hearing world; and that would
emphasize tolerance of diversity. The protesters were promoting a
university that celebrates what they call Deaf (with a capital D)
culture, prescribes American Sign Language as the only acceptable medium
of communication and relates with suspicion to deaf people who choose to
function in the hearing world. To the extent the latter vision won out,
it does not bode well for Gallaudet’s future.

When students launched their protest against president-designate
Fernandes in the spring, many of them stated the objection that she was
“not deaf enough.” Though deaf, she grew up speaking and lip-reading;
she did not learn sign language until she was a young adult. That
protest theme didn’t play well beyond Gallaudet, and it was dropped from
public discourse; students and faculty soon were reacting angrily if it
was ascribed to them. But the protest movement never came up with a
convincing alternative explanation for their anti-Fernandes passion. All
that was left was a series of relatively petty complaints about her
executive style as provost.

In a way it’s too bad that the underlying debate couldn’t have been
played out more openly. The protesters’ fealty to and pride in their
language and culture are admirable and understandable. Not very long
ago, deaf people were often regarded as substandard and were treated
accordingly. Amazingly, Gallaudet’s current president, I. King Jordan,
is the school’s first deaf leader, and it took a round of protests to
persuade the board to name him in 1988. That technology and genetic
science might provide more alternatives to deafness just as deaf pride
has achieved a breakthrough is an understandable source of anxiety.

Neither nostalgia nor pride, however, are sufficient bases for
educational policy. We have no doubt that Ms. Fernandes, a tough and
qualified educator, will find other ways to contribute; her behavior
throughout this painful time was exemplary. More consequential to the
university is how long it takes for her inclusive and progressive vision
to be accepted.

C 2006 The Washington Post Company
GALLYNET-L@gallynet.org

Reprinted with permission by the listserv moderator

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

Transcript of Nightline on Protest

American Broadcast Company (ABC)
ABC News
Nightline
(National news program)
Monday, October 30, 2006
When Students Revolt

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN (anchor): We’re going to take a journey inside one of
the most closed and insular communities in the country tonight, inside
the world of the deaf.  This weekend, the trustees of Gallaudet
(GOLL-uh-det, phonetic) University, the country’s most prestigious
school for the deaf, revoked the appointment of the school’s new
president.  Why did she lose her job?  She says she wasn’t deaf
*enough* to suit the students.  Here’s Nightline’s John Donvan.

(Unidentified voice:) Go! [Video showing students locking arms and
sitting on the ground]

JOHN DONVAN (pre-recorded): You could take this as a Sixties
thing–students take up a cause and stage a sit-in and force a
crisis–sort of straight out of 1968… [drumming sound] … But when
the students of Gallaudet started their protest and it went on for
weeks–a protest to keep the next appointed university president from
taking office–[cheers]–they were only reaching back–[cheers]–to
nineteen *eighty*-eight, and another protest.  That year may have been
the first time many outsiders had actually ever heard–[cars honking
horns]–of Gallaudet University–a publicly funded school for the deaf
in which the language of instruction is spoken by hand–[honking,
cheering]–and where to be deaf, totally deaf, is never anything you
have to explain, even something you can be proud of…[continued
honking sounds]…In ‘88, protests began when Gallaudet select as its
president-designate–[honking]–a person who was not
deaf…[honking]…which had been true of all of the school’s
presidents up until that point…[honking]…  The students won that
time.  Another candidate, a deaf candidate, was selected as
president… [cheers]… They just won again in 2006, only this time
the candidate the students were against–[cheering]–the candidate they
burned in effigy, she is deaf.  But, she can also speak, as she did to
ABC News back in May.

JANE FERNANDES [sounds like the voice of a hard-of-hearing person]: Uh,
there are many ways to be deaf, and there are many paths that deaf
people take in life.

DONVAN: Her name is Jane Fernandes, and now she’s out of a job, because
the board that appointed her in the first place gave in to the student
protest movement–[cheers, drumming]–without really giving a reason,
just a statement that said: “With much regret and pain, after serious
deliberation, we have voted to terminate–terminate her
appointment.”…[Beeping sound of pedestrian signal for the blind on
Florida Avenue and 8th St.]… One explanation is that she was seen as
not committed enough to Deaf culture and to the language in which Deaf
culture is centered, American Sign Language, ASL–[continued drumming
sounds]–whose use among the protesters is not just a question of
communication, but identity.

LEAH KATZ-HERNANDEZ (voice of interpreter): [Birds chirping]…We need
a leader who we can look up to–a leader who is one of us.

DONVAN: Fernandes herself had argued that this was all about her being,
quote, “not deaf enough.”

FERNANDES (her own voice) [from the pre-recorded interview in May
2006]: I think that’s in the mix of everything else.  We had a forum
yesterday and the first person who made a comment, or asked me a
question was related to my not being a native signer, and the question
about how I thought I could represent deaf and hard-of-hearing people
if I’m not a native signer.

DONVAN: Today however, as students began to clean up the protest site,
practically everyone who appeared before the cameras insisted the
identity issue has been overplayed–[pedestrian beeping sound]–that
it’s all about competency–that Fernandes, who served 11 years [sic] as
provost for the school was not a good administrator. The student
government president:

NOAH BECKMAN (voice of interpreter): When Dr. Fernandes and I had met,
she wanted to work with the student body government and I told her that
that was great and she should send me an e-mail…[beeping]…To this
day I have not had one e-mail from her in my box. It shows that she
speaks, but she does not reach out.

DONVAN: The professor who pulled his four deaf children out of the
special elementary school on campus which she was responsible for at
one time.

JEFF LEWIS (voice of interpreter): This is not about issues of identity
and “not deaf enough.” This is about the issue of failed leadership of
11 years.  I can tell you this till I’m blue in the face, but this is
what you need to hear.

DONVAN: Now the students here are talking with a sense of the new power
they feel–[cheers]–to have a say in running the place.  This is Chris
Corrigan:

CHRIS CORRIGAN [his vocal sounds audible in background] (voice of
interpreter): This university is governed by the students, faculty,
administrators, the board–all of us together, including the
community–are what makes this university what it is.

DONVAN: But if this protest was all about competency and *not*
identity–[cheering]–it’s hard to understand how it could become so
passionate.  Students had started disrupting school ceremonies.  A
classroom was targeted for a bomb threat at a university where one of
the board members teaches–

[Editorial response: This is not a fair comment.  The reporter should
have done his homework to discover the likelihood that the Jordan
administration was behind these false bomb threats.  This report is
obviously biased in favor of Fernandes in many ways, probably because
the reporter met her and got her story before learning anything else
about the situation.]

DONVAN (continued): –and then–[cheering]–there’s the face, in
effigy, in the flames… [sustained cheering]… Yes, the students won,
but at the expense of raising the question: Who’s in charge now?  I’m
John Donvan for Nightline in Washington.

MCFADDEN: And we should add that Night Line did reach out to Ms.
Fernandes for comment, but she was unavailable.  And when we come back:
Halloween screams–the new haunted houses for grown
ups–psychologically tested to make sure they terrify.  It’s a sign of
the times [music]…

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

Staff/Faculty Reprisals Still On

 With this statement, anyone who contributed to the protest,  including those who offered verbal support, are subjected to reprisals.  This means all staff and faculty may be disciplined, including demotions and losses of job. From what I’ve heard and what Dr Bob Johnson stated in his letter, Jordan is well known for his severe retaliations. The protest is not over, not by a long shot. We got Dr Fernandes out of the picture, but anyone who supported the protest is now consider fair game. We need to demand that they be protected from reprisals. They were courageous. They stood up against oppression and discrimination. They stood up for the students. They stood up for Gallaudet University.    How fair is it that they get punished, speaking against the wrongs? elizabeth

From: Office of Public Relations public.relations@gallaudet.edu
To: public.relations@gallaudet.edu
Subject: Office of Public Relations – Statement on accountability from
the Board of Trustees
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:15:41 -0500

Signature: Gallaudet University – Public Relations/Visitors Center

TO:             Gallaudet University

FROM         Board of Trustees

DATE:         October 29, 2006

RE:              Statement of the Board

“The Board of Trustees respects the right of people to express their
views in a peaceful manner. However, individuals who violated the law
and Gallaudet University’s Code of Conduct will be held accountable. We
expect the University to honor its long tradition of respect for each
other and property and to return to normal.”

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

Video for Deaf Women Who Are Victims of Domestic Violence

The Chicago Hearing Society has produced a half-hour video called “Deafening Silence” under a grant provided by the Office on Violence Against Women of the U.S. Department of Justice.  The video uses a dramatic portrayal to depict what often happens when women who are deaf suffer domestic violence. 

A press release about the new video notes that women who are deaf or hard of hearing “are up against an even tougher challenge than hearing women when they try to escape their batterers, secure the services they need to survive — such as counseling and domestic violence shelters — and make sure their legal rights are protected.”

The video and accompanying guide are being distributed free of charge to nearly 2,500 domestic violence agencies nationwide.  For more information, contact www.chicagohearingsociety.org

---

©2006 by Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons (NVRC), 3951 Pender Drive, Suite 130, Fairfax, VA 22030; www.nvrc.org   Items in this newsletter are provided for information purposes only; NVRC does not endorse products or services. You do not need permission to share this information, but please be sure to credit NVRC.  This news service is free of charge, but donations are greatly appreciated.  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your email address, or report a problem receiving the news, send an email to cheppner@nvrc.org

LV Tent City: Big Success

We proudly inform you that Las Vegas Tent City Rally last Saturday was successful. Approximately 100 people were in attendance in this rally. We raised funds at this event, netting almost $2000.  You may now enjoy this video about the event.  Thanks to Debbie Salo for making the video.  Here is a link of video website:
http://WWW.youtube.Com/watch?v=8bLBNcIIYkE 
Many thanks for people and organizations like Silver Belles, Silver Knights, Las Vegas Club of Deaf, Las Vegas Charter School of Deaf and others who made some donations!
Deafly Yours,

Denny Voreck, FSSA rep. for Las Vegas
Bill Moran, Mayor of LV Tent City and Parent of Graduate Student

Way to go, Denny, Bill and the fellow LV tent city participants!

Gallaudet Documentary Interviews

Gallaudet University Documentary: October 28-30, 2006 (16 Videos)

http://www.deafread.com/media/gallyprotest/

many many thanks for making time to interview

tayler

–
Find Captioned Movies at www.Fomdi.com
Only the best of Deaf Blogs – www.DeafRead.com

From elizabeth:  Thanks, Tayler, for providing this valuable service for Gallaudet University and the Deaf Community.  You did a great job!

Another personal note: I was curious to see the interview of myself. I was so exhausted last Sunday that I had very little memory of what I said during the interview, so now I finally have the opportunity to watch the interview. It was also great to finally meet Tayler in person after we corresponded quite a lot during the coverage of protest, especially that Black Friday.  Even though we have never met in person before, it felt like we have. One thing I must comment about people working together during the protest, they develop a common bond.

Gallaudet’s Victory: A Personal Note To Students

Gallaudet’s Students:

I would like to whole heartedly salute you! Your bravery, determination and, above all character deserve admiration. Whether one likes it or not, what you have done forces respect even from your foes and detractors. What you have accomplished combine classicism–classical revolution– and modernism.

Classicism, because you have don’t have the kind of resources one need to fight an all-powerful, iconized, feared, and oppressive administration. Your resolve is reminiscent of old times’ style revolutions. You responded to the old “world proletarians, unite!” Make no mistake, I am not a Marxist. However, given what has happened at Gallaudet over the years, after DPN, after so much hypocrisy, so much MBI, so much discrimination, so much audism, and given the recent October the 13th brutal response of the outgoing administration, one can’t help tracing a parallel between times, no matter how distant. In fact, without unity, this victory could have remained an unattainable objective. Without your resolve, determination and yes, SACRIFICE, this victory could not have been achieved.

Modernism because you turned your resolve, courage, resolve, intuitiveness and creative tactics into a formidable arsenal. You transcended your difference–albeit sometimes painfully–and formed a rock solid block.l You have overcome your lack of resources and positioned to make yourselves Davids. The administration was so arrogant and so confident, that it had totally discarded the likelihood of your success. This was David vs. Goliath! They had and have the money. You had nothing but your resolve. They had a powerful PR machine, though the same machine has sometimes fired shots at itself and its “owner.” They had the money to go cyber. They slept in six figures villas. You spent night in tents. They filled their stomachs with fancy food. You lived on snacks and some, on water and juice alone.

No, I haven’t supported you the way I wish I had! Regardless, I have a genuine a higher than conceivable admiration for you. You are my heroes and once again, I salute you!

Gallaudet faculty,I know that casting the votes the way you was painful. Some of you are not tenured and have risked their teaching job. History will show that your support proved critical to this outcome. I have always admired and respected teachers, even when we don’t agree on certain things. However, the beauty of this is that we agree to disagree. Thank you so very much for your historic and powerful VOTES!

Gallaudet Alumni, you have, once again proven that you love your alma mater and that whenever you are called to duty, you will always respond massively. I cannot name you but I know you know what I mean. You have all given what you could give. You have used the means you could use, sometimes risking and accepting to lose “friends.” I know you’ll pass this torch to future generations of Gallaudet alumni.

Jeff Rosen, the power in silence. Your support for these students especially during the critical week following now historic 13/10 will be remembered for years to come. I know it wasn’t easy for you. I know it wasn’t easy for your sister either, given that your active involvement, be it just humanitarian, could have been construed as being in response to your beautiful and beloved–and missed–mother, Dr. Rosen’s rejection by a group apparent dominated by the king for once ordered her sacking. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, simply, very simply, thank you!

Gallaudet staff, oh poor friends! I know many of your have thrown in their towels. What a bravery! Knowing that tomorrow, you might be sacked for having dared to say a word! Whether you supported this fight openly, used fake names for fear of retaliation, your support has paid off. I do salute you all!

Now, let me call our attention on a few critical points.

Victory is Gallaudet’s: I know I have given you bouquets of roses for all your wonderful, heroic fight. So, now pointing out that victory is Gallaudet’s might seem odd. No, it isn’t off and let me explain why. History is replete with facts showing chaos followed victories. Why? Though reasons might vary, I do sincerely think that the most obvious justification is poor or ineffective management of victories. A victory always calls for more focus, more attention. More importantly, victories won through this kind of struggle calls for magnanimity, the ability to forgive without forgetting, the ability to build consensus, unite forces—even antagonistic ones.

Effectively managing victory requires that we adopt a unifying attitude. It requires strong character. It requires that you not view yesterday’s opponents as today’s enemies today. Even though yesterday’s opponents may continue to belittle you, hate you, despise you, show them grandeur! if you reciprocate, you are going to contradict yesterday’s message and the core purpose of the fight, which was and is to SAVE Gallaudet from an oppressive and dysfunctional leadership.

In view of the preceding, I dare call upon each of us, to please declare that this victory is Gallaudet and Gallaudet’s future. It is not the students’. It is not the faculty’s. It is not the staff’. It doesn’t belong to alumni. It s Gallaudet’s victory. The victory is Gallaudet’s.

However, trying to aim for incrementalism might prove fatal. So much is needed. Here are some of the things I expect to see happen:

1. The Presidential Term Limit: I wrote last Spring or summer during phase one of this struggle, that allowing an individual–a single individual to rule for almost 20 years was an absurdity. It is an academic aberration, it is academania and pure academentia. Gallaudet is not a monarchy. It is not a Third World tradition chiefdom. It is not Idi Amin Dada’s Uganda or Jean Bodel Bokassa (AKA Papa Bok)’s Central African Republic (these two renegades rulers made themselves life president). Until death us part should never be encountered on any college campus. If such thing were to happen, or existed in academia, they should never be tolerated on any campus of an American university! Let’s all unite forces to work with the BoTs and show them the high value of LIMITING the president’s term. So doing would have obvious benefits.
   • Limiting presidential term would if not eliminate, at least significantly minimize the risks of a second Competent President Now (CPN). We don’t want to turn Gallaudet into a potentially deadly volcano!
   • Limiting presidential term would eliminate deification and/or iconization of the one in office. Once someone is iconized, excesses follow because people become consciously or unconsciously conditioned to always follow like Panurge’s goats.
   • Limiting presidential term would improve accountability This is even more true IF the university’s By-laws are subsequently updated to include a clause that allows the outgoing president to bid. for a second term. However, each the outgoing president is allowed to run again, then the term should be reduced to 5 years. In the event that the outgoing president is not allowed to bid for a second term, then the term should be 6 year or 7 at a maximum.
2. Shared Governance: While DPN did not necessarily result from a lack of shared governance,  the current fight is a result of it. The BoTs should update and streamline the By-Laws and clearly spell out core principles of shared governance. In fact, because Gallaudet is an institution of higher learner, shared governance is a sine qua condition without it education–effective teaching and learning cannot happen. never again shall the president of Gallaudet dictate his/her will on faculty, students, the BoTs and staff. Never again should the president impose his/her choice of a key senior administrator to the campus community. Shared governance means that students, the core stakeholders, faculty,  staff and whenever necessary alumni, are consulted. There are alumni who have significant know how in various (e.g., IT, law, teaching) who can provide Gallaudet with significant, cost effective or sometime free consultancy. Gallaudet needs to learn to trust its own graduates. If you don’t trust us, don’t expect others to do so! Shared governance also means that students, faculty, staff and alumni are represented on the Gallaudet BoTs.
3. Inclusion: Let’s be clear and honest with ourselves. There are events beyond our controls. Dynamic societal changes will happen, whether we want it or not. Technology will continue to change with unfathomable speed and unprecedented awe. These changes will continue o affect our life, including our hearing and vision. If we wear eye glasses to see, when we go to our eye doctor with a vision issue, and receive a prescription for a pair of reading glasses, why should any other technology be viewed as taboo? If we want freedom, let’s be willing to accept that others’ including parents, make freely make decisions that affect their life and/or the lives of their offspring. Fighting lost battles is akin trying to catch the win, or write on water.
4. Diversity: The outgoing administration has constantly turned diversity into diversitism. It has even used diversity to divide. Let’s work with the new administration, interim or permanent, to ensure that real and effective diversity initiatives are implemented.
5. Audism/Racism: The BoTs must develop anti racism and anti-audistic policies. For instance, it is unacceptable for a hearing person to throw a massive, destructive insult onto the deaf community and still keep their job. For a hearing administrator to throw in the face of a deaf professional that “technology is nit for deaf people should be asked to leave the university. This kind of insult is tantamount to moral assassination. It is like a white faculty telling a student of color that: “college education is not for people of color.” I repeat, anyone guilty of such massive offense (character holocaust) should be immediately fired.
6. The Need for an Independent Auditing Office: I have been at Gallaudet and need not attend a day long workshop at Gallaudet to know what the reality is. Gallaudet Internal auditor simply has no authority to do the job! Make no mistake! The current director of Audit didn’t tell me nothing. I have been at Gallaudet an have first hand experience. For the university’s auditor to do the job effectively and serve the Gallaudet stakeholders well, this position must be empowered. It must report to the BoTs, NOT even the president. The auditor should nit be expected to audit the little guy, the line manager. The auditor must have the authority to audit the university, from the president to the janitorial staff! Had Having an empowered audit as a senior administrator yield results. One obvious benefits is that it will have a deterrent role. We all know the complaints from the ousted former police chief. Had Gallaudet had an empowered auditor, and an integrity office, such complaints and many other could have been investigated, and I dare have the audacity to say that, actions that triggered them could have been avoided. Additionally, unfair hiring and firing practices could have been avoided. Min you, the University administration must thank God, for these cases could have cost Gallaudet millions of dollars in damage and compensation had the victims chosen a legal route.

These are my $0.00000 cents. The BoTs has allowed a dysfunctional system to exist for decades. It is time it fixed the situation. It is time it took the steps in the direction of building modern, future-oriented structure. You cannot cannot to let Gallaudet stand solidly on the 21st century while functioning in the 20th century!

Poppi

GALLYNET-L@gallynet.org
Reprinted with permission by the listserv moderator

email addy: mishkazena@aol.com

Excellent Article by New York Times: Signs of Revolution

The New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
Signs of Revolution

By LEAH HAGER COHEN
Published: October 31, 2006
Belmont, Mass.

NEARLY a month of astonishingly passionate protest ended on Sunday when
the Gallaudet University board voted to revoke the appointment of Dr.
Jane Fernandes as the institution’s next president.

This was a just and commendable decision, which many are likely to
misinterpret as an act of unconscionable capitulation to an angry mob.

The protest was never really about deafness – a fact that the news
media had trouble grasping. Gallaudet, the nation’s only liberal arts
university for the deaf, is no stranger to protest on its campus in
Washington. Eighteen years ago, it was the site of the Deaf President
Now movement, which resulted in the appointment of the first deaf
university president. In that case the issue was clear, the cause easy
to champion. It was about deaf civil rights; the victory was
everyone’s.

This time the cause is harder to parse, the administration as well as
the protesters themselves having offered varying and inconsistent
accounts. The strangest was that the protesters objected to the
president-designate because she was “not deaf enough.” That this
could be a complaint at all is unfathomable to most hearing people, and
the university officials who kept stressing the point showed political
savvy of the most cynical sort by casting the protesters as a bunch of
headstrong deaf students having a temper tantrum.

The fact is that the students – along with many of the faculty,
alumni and members of the deaf community – were angry. But this anger
was used to discredit the protesters and to deflect attention from a
legitimate grievance: that the presidential search process was
seriously flawed.

Strong evidence exists for this claim. The inexplicable omission of a
few highly qualified candidates from the list of finalists, and the
relatively low merits of some of those who did make it onto the list
(one didn’t even possess a doctoral degree, a requirement for the
job), made it virtually impossible for the position not to go to Dr.
Fernandes, the university provost. But she was the subject of two votes
of no confidence by the faculty in the past six years, and faculty and
students have questioned the manner in which the university appointed
her provost. They have asserted that a proper search was never
conducted, that Dr. Fernandes received tenure without undergoing the
regular seven-year review, and that she has proven an ineffective
leader who was unlikely to improve Gallaudet’s shaky academic record.

Still, most of the hearing world can’t understand why the protest was
so extreme. Students and faculty at most universities don’t expect to
play more than a token role in the selection of a new president. Hunger
strikes? Bulldozers razing tent cities? More than a hundred arrests?
Two thousand people marching on the Capitol? And in the last few days
things were escalating: there were reports of injuries, vandalism and
threats against those who didn’t join the protest.

Understanding this requires understanding that Gallaudet is much more
than a university. Sometimes called “the deaf mecca,” it functions
as the symbolic capitol of a minority culture long disenfranchised. In
years past, deaf people were denied the right to inherit land, to bear
children, to receive an education. Today, all too often they continue
to be denied the right to access information and to speak for
themselves.

Gallaudet is supposed to be the one place where deaf people can expect
those rights in full. What really lies at the heart of the crisis is
the protesters’ refusal to relinquish these basic, hard-won rights.
The message was: don’t dismiss us, and don’t obfuscate.

Their cause would have been strengthened by better leadership and a
more cogent platform, minus the personal attacks. But one way to look
at the events of this month at Gallaudet is as an extraordinary
demonstration of commitment, by a community of stakeholders, to
maintaining the integrity of their cultural center.

That’s why the decision on Sunday was a courageous one. If the board
had insisted on holding fast to its earlier decision, its members might
have saved face. Instead, by showing a willingness to examine honestly
what brought things to this point, they have hastened the possibility
of restoring faith – and they modeled for us an example of leadership
far greater than simply upholding one’s authority, no matter the
cost.

Leah Hager Cohen is the author of “Train Go Sorry: Inside a Deaf
World.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/opinion/31cohen.html

 email contact: mishkazena@aol.com