If you're even remotely aware of the Deaf world, you know the big topic du jour (or rather the month-- perhaps the year...?) is the impending selection of Gallaudet's next President. I've had some time since to reflect on the matter, observe other blogs and commenters, and discussed the issue with friends and alumni alike.
I've been posting in various blogs (and in various incarnations) on the topic. My opinions are still evolving, but they've shifted not only because of the qualifications (or lack thereof!) of the final three candidates, but also from considering what it means to be deaf/Deaf in today's world, and what the future bodes for the community. While they are two separate topics, they are not mutually exclusive, and judging from various quarters online, the two have been inextricably intertwined at times. My first stop of late has been
Gally President Watch; unfortunately, a lot of the commentary there has been less objective than I'd like-- at times, it's deteriorated into highly biased opinions based on brief incidents and hearsay. In the latest commentary on its front page, under "White Noise," the as-yet-publically-named creators of the site state, in part:
Talk on the candidates is fast turning to talk of protest. In disregarding Glenn’s illustrious background, postings say, the Search Committee has sidelined their ideal of diversity. Was the dismissal of Glenn's candidacy color-blind, as was his appointment to the BoT in 1994, or was he whitened out? Roz, an administrator with a nearly unmatched history of professional and community achievements, did not merit an interview. Why was Roz blackballed?
A look at history: we’ve had a Hispanic dean (Davila) and a Black dean (Redding). That’s not exactly color-inside-the-lines hiring. But are we wrong for thinking what we all have been saying? How black and white is this thing?
First of all, this is *NOT* DPN2, nor *should* it be. Despite the claim of the creators to be "alumni," their commentary, their opinions, and their statements of "keggers and sleeping in until noon" demonstrate that either they are a) not quite alumni, b) young alumni, or c) somewhat immature alumni. The issue is a lot more complex than the black-and-white situation they claim it to be. Second, DPN was born of injustice, of a sense that the deaf/Deaf community was being dominated by hearing people, being patronized by "those who know best," and being left behind in a world where black universities had black leaders, women's universities had female administrators, etc. Third, DPN occurred *after* the final announcement was made-- the selection process was allowed to come to completion, even though there were rallies beforehand in favor of a deaf president. It was only when Zinser was chosen that the gates were thrown open to full-blown dissent.
Today's student population grew up in a world where Gallaudet had a deaf president, captioning on television was a given, ADA has been law for more than ten years, more and more deaf/Deaf people possess advanced degrees, and the population at large is more exposed to Deaf culture/ASL than ever before. 2006 is a different world from 1988-- at Gallaudet in 1988, the campus still had a interpreting services center, where hearing graduate students, hard-of-hearing undergrads, and burgeoning interpreters interpreted phone calls for students. Relay was still relatively in its infancy then. Mainstreamed students were just coming into their own, and cochlear implants were rudimentary and just starting to become a viable option for some people (and a flashpoint of controversy!). The students of those days and today occupy and occupied completely different worlds. The social issues, history, and background of the Presidential search process in 1988 are almost wholly different from today. Even the Board of Trustees, the "villains" last time around, was composed of mostly hearing folks, with a hearing leader presiding. Since then, we've had Phil Bravin, Glenn Anderson, and now Celia May Baldwin chairing the board. Sure, politics was then and is now still a factor, but the board makeup and attitude is light-years away from what it used to be.
I'm still hazy on student opinions/rationale behind the rallies, protests, and campus mood these days, but staging protests based on the inclusion/exclusion of candidates based on gender/race isn't viable as far as I'm concerned. You can be righteous and PC all you want, but to me, the process should be based on merit and the ability to conduct the job fairly. The only area where I may be biased regards the ability to hear; but the fact that the official press release stated that 21 deaf and hard-of-hearing people applied for the position lays to rest that particular concern. Beyond that, I couldn't care less about the gender or ethnic makeup of the candidates. What I care about is, do they have the appropriate credentials? Is their work history relevant? Can they effectively lead the campus? Can they act in a manner befitting the University? Can they be as inclusive as possible (i.e., they don't need to be a "uniter, not a divider," but they shouldn't be too polarizing)? Can they be successful at fundraising and dealing with Congress? You could have a black, deaf-blind, lesbian female candidate, or a white, hard-of-hearing, straight male and none of those subcategories would matter to me. What makes a difference to me is what they bring to the job.
Additionally, a lot of the sound and fury seems to be focused on an anti-Fernandes movement. I'm totally against that; while Fernandes may not be the best choice to lead the university, embarking on a highly emotional crusade to exclude one specific individual gets no one anywhere. A lot of what I've seen in the way of opinions/comments/examples has been vague, based on hearsay, and quite emotional, and at times volatile.
You can see examples of this at the next blog I check, Observe But Do Not Interfere. While there is a mix of commenters/commentary, there's also a fair amount of bias. While it's interesting to observe what people have to say, a lot of it isn't logical/objective. To be fair, Ridor has commented here and elsewhere that he is privy to information against Fernandes. Ok, I'll buy that. She's not known for people skills. Additionally, I haven't been as plugged in to the Deaf grapevine as I used to be. Still, I keep wanting to know more about WHY the candidates are qualified/unqualified based on more than just anecdotal evidence.
A more thoughtful mix of opinion/commentary is at
Deaf in the City, whose host is an MSSD graduate. Surdus has commented on the fact that Gallaudet's President serves in a unique capacity; not only as an academic leader, but also as a representative of the American Deaf community. He has also briefly covered candidate Steve Weiner's presentation, and concluded by asking, "what bold things would you like to see happen at Gally? What would make you want to be a student there?"
Good questions. Balancing dual roles is a bit tricky; as I've previously stated, on paper Fernandes has the upper hand in terms of serving as an academic and administrative peer in the world of academia. Either Weiner or Stern would put a Deaf face on Gallaudet's role in the national and international Deaf communities. But as I've already stated, none of them really complete the whole package; Weiner comes closest, but all that I've heard and read thus far is unenthusiastic regarding Weiner. I previously said that he could be the "stealth candidate," the one who has just enough of everything to be able to pass muster. That could still turn out to be the case. That does not mean that the two aspects have to be separate; merely that the job involves more than what is required of the average college/university president. Sure, women presidents at all-female schools and black presidents at black schools juggle the same type of dual roles, but there are quite a few such institutions. For better or worse, there's only one Gallaudet. That means there are various constituencies fighting over who gets to be "their" president and what that all means as a whole. Is this right? Should this be happening? How do we best determine what Gallaudet needs, and what/who is best for Gallaudet? For the Deaf community? For those deaf who are not part of the Deaf community? This of course leads us down a different path to a much broader discussion, one that I'll probably tackle soon.
I've already been a student there, so the second question doesn't exactly apply to me. But Gallaudet, the Deaf/deaf communities, and the world is going to change, and whoever's leading the University next needs to have some sense of what might (or might not) happen, and how best to guide Gallaudet, and by extension, the Deaf community through the next several years.
Over at DeafDC.com,
Adam Stone has also been covering recent events surrounding the Presidential search. He attended Dr. Weiner's presentation, and shared that
The content of his presentation, however, left much to be desired. I felt like I was at a Youth Leadership Camp workshop listening to his interpretation of the eight strategic goals rather than a clear articulation of his vision of Gallaudet at age 150. An inclusive deaf university. Okay, isn’t that already what we all want? I wanted to hear something new. Something bold... Also, for someone with his longevity as a Gallaudet student and employee, I was surprised at many of his answers. He didn’t have satisfactory responses for the graduate student community, for oral/mainstreamed students, or for non-traditional students. He was flying by the seats of his pants through other answers, sometimes appearing even amateurish. That disappointed me. I expect the presidential candidate to know more about what’s going on in his campus, especially if he has a home-turf advantage.
Having known Weiner for several years, and interacted with him, that's rather disappointing to hear too. But it's difficult to assess that, since I'm "hearing" this through another person: Adam Stone. I really wish there had been a way that Gallaudet could have provided a feed or videotape to its alumni chapters, or to various sites around the country where interested persons could observe what was going on and what was being said. While I don't think the students should be permitted to hijack the process (sorry guys-- you were too young for DPN, but that doesn't mean each time in the future that Gally conducts a search for the top post, that protests and the like become de rigueur. Don't get me wrong; I support students and student's rights, but knowing how to pick and choose battles is crucial. Plus, given how Homecoming turned out, I'm not sure I want to trust *this* bunch!), they do form one vital group: students. They are also eventually going to be part of another crucial group: alumni. These two groups deserve to know what's going on.
Yet another recent source of information is Jamie Berke over at her post at About.com in their Deafness/Hard-of-Hearing section. She is herself an alumni of Gallaudet, and has also attended NTID/RIT. While she didn't have a whole lot to say compared with, say, Ridor, her comments on Fernandes were very enlightening. Rather than excerpt, I encourage you to read it in full. It's only one opinion, and I am still reserving ultimate judgment, but this type of conduct is NOT what I want to see in the next President of Gallaudet University.
That's it for the blogosphere. In person, I've heard a lot of mixed opinions: some say Weiner would be okay, nearly all were anti-Fernandes. More than a fair share opined that Stern was a distinct possibility, but the universal lament (including mine!) was that he didn't currently possess a Ph.D., and that his experience in higher education was noticeably lacking.
A few got into further discussion with me, talking about the final pool (What the...?!?!), the exclusion of Roz Rosen and Glenn Anderson, and ruminations on the politicking within the Presidential Search Committee.
I agree- the major question here is why these three candidates?? Of all the people who threw their hat in the ring, why these three? No one outside the Search Committee is ever going to know why, and one has to conclude that the interviews, resumes, and personal biases all played a role in the decisions made thus far. While Rosen has her champions, I know that quite a few faculty/staff aren't completely thrilled about her. It could be that while she has a clear segment of the student body/Deaf community/alumni behind her, she was polarizing in her own way towards other constituencies. Hard to say.
Anderson was previously chair of the Board of Trustees, and has worked with the Gallaudet community in the past. Given such advantages, it's very possible that he did not "interview" well, or that other issues cropped up. I've served on a hiring committee before, and sometimes the most promising candidates do not come across well in person, or their answers to certain questions fall thunderously flat. It's hard to second-guess the process, really.
I'm still reserving ultimate judgment; for one thing, Fernandes and Stern have yet to make their presentations. Second, the entire process needs to play out before anyone can do anything-- it may be the Search Committee is bent, and everything has been rigged, but to try to protest and subvert the process would be to delegitimize it, and that in itself isn't ethical. Even during the days preceding DPN, no one stood up and said, "Do it our way, or you'll pay." Everyone let the process play itself out, and acted only when the final decision was announced. I'm disappointed at how many people have been jumping the gun here. Third, I'm still educating myself, and learning about what's going on bit by bit.
Still, given what I currently know now, I'm still leaning towards Koko. I'm not in favor of any of the three finalists; Weiner still looks like a potential compromise choice. It could be the eventual "winner" will go on to do a fine job. But when you have a polarizing candidate like Fernandes, a candidate like Weiner who most folks agree isn't up for the job, and a third candidate, Stern, who would never have even made the first round at any other school (he does not have Ph.D. yet, and possesses no academic/administrative experience in higher education-- other schools pay attention to this. Gallaudet's reputation wouldn't be the best in the DC academic community if they picked him. Even junior/community college presidents have doctorates and usually have some kind of experience as a professor/dean/department chair/administrator), it speaks ill of the entire results so far. My current verdict? None of the above.
I know I. King Jordan has announced his intent to leave come December of this year. But perhaps the wiser course for the Search Committee and Board of Trustees would be to ask Dr. Jordan to extend his stay until June 2007, then scrap the entire proceedings thus far, and start over again. While this would be exhausting and time-consuming for all involved, it may result in a far better prognosis than what's happened so far.
Of course, this super-lengthy post is solely my opinion. Thoughts? Comments? Disagreements? Go right ahead.
