Framing the Stalemate: Thoughts on Gallaudet
This is the second half of what was originally a super-long, granddaddy of all posts. As much as I would have liked to bang it all out and publish in one sitting, that isn't always possible. Especially on a topic as complex as this! But I'm ready now. So open that bag of popcorn, get your drink settled on the coaster, your hand on your mouse, and let's go for it.
[WARNING: *Another* super-long post!]
My Current Position
Since I type long posts a lot of times, and since I know from my teaching days and from writing in general that people pay the most attention to the beginning and end of articles, essays, and the like, I figured I'd get this out of the way, before I dig in and analyze.
As I stated earlier, my position has evolved over time. One thing has remained constant: I strongly feel/felt the search should be re-opened, if not from scratch, then at least from a pool of the stronger candidates who applied the first time. I know this means a lot of time and energy from those involved, but I think a new presidential search, with as transparent a process as possible, is best.
Second, despite a lot of errors and missteps on both sides of this battle, I feel it is in everyone's best interests that Jane Fernandes decline her appointment.
Thus, I'm in favor of the demands of the protesters, FSSA, et al: (1) Jane Fernandes declining the Presidency of Gallaudet University, and (2) re-opening the Presidential search. Since May 1, I've been in favor of these two conditions, even though I was initially against the protest itself, and still harbor doubts about its effectiveness as a tool.
Issues, Tactics and More
One of the biggest problems I had with the protest is not that I don't want to hold the glory of DPN for myself and my fellow veterans from those heady days, but that I felt from the beginning and still feel that protests are weapons of limited effectiveness, and should not be used all the time. Is the community going to resort to protesting each and every time there's turnover in the top slot? Was the protest thought-out, or was it a knee-jerk reaction born out of genuine frustration? The student strikes of the 1960's are famous, sure, but many of them failed, at least in the short term. Their overall cumulative effect was to raise public awareness of the anti-war movement, including educating the country as to why the Vietnam War was a mistake. In this sense, the protests succeeded, because they had a single, overriding message: end the war now.
For the same reasons, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and 1960's accomplished much, but for the same simple reason: a single goal, or a few clear-cut objectives in the same direction. Issues were black and white (no offense meant, or pun intended!). Single or limited issue protests and strikes with clear, defined messages succeed over general protests that involve complicated, diverse issues or controversial aspects. To take the above example of the Civil Rights era, the movement succeeded over time because it was a clear-cut moral issue: blacks were second-class citizens or worse, and the promise of America, its Constitution, and the ideals of its entire social system were not being lived up to. By the late 1960's, various groups had splintered from the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference-- while they all advocated change for blacks, they all had different messages, goals, and methods. The bloc splintered, and the various subgroups and organizations met with no or limited success since.
Once the Vietnam War wound down and our armed forces were withdrawn starting in 1973, the main impetus of student unrest was accomplished; instead, you had numerous groups with their own single-issue focus and methods-- none of them were able to unite on an overarching cause at the same power and level that they had earlier. You can see it even today, during protests against the war in Iraq-- I marched in the anti-war parade in February 2003, before we invaded Iraq, and while numerous protesters had anti-war signs, there were signs for other causes and issues as well. This kind of medley of "causes" continued at later protests, long after the war started. By having one sign for environmental awareness, another on civil rights, six on Iraq, five urging justice for Palestinians (a recent anti-war protest I went to last fall highlights the problem: half of the people I saw were marching with pro-Palestinian signs, t-shirts, etc.; many of the speakers were pro-Palestinian. While Israel v. Palestine is an important subject and one of the root causes of Middle East unrest, you can't exactly urge Joe and Jane Middle Class out to march against Iraq, when so many others aren't fighting for the same message), you dilute the overall message.
Let's apply the above to 1988 and today. As I previously stated in an earlier entry, DPN was a black-and-white conflict, with a ready-made cast of characters- almost one-dimensional, really. It was very easy to support, it was media-friendly in the sense that it had a simple, powerful, overarching narrative, and the issue was clear-cut: the Deaf/deaf community will be patronized no longer-- we are capable of governing ourselves, thank you.
BPN, DPN2, CDPN, RDPN, Tent City Protest, Unity for Gallaudet, or whatever the hell it's going to be referred to once it's all over and done with (which it isn't yet, not by a long shot!), is not as one-dimensional: while Fernandes is the boogeyman for many, she isn't coming across that way in the media, or outside the Gallaudet community and the Deaf-World. Instead, she's gotten pretty good press up until very recently, and a lot of hearing people outside are scratching their heads over what we're doing (witness Ray LaHood-- while you had Bush, Dukakis, Jesse Jackson and a host of others falling over themselves to be first in line to praise DPN and secure our votes, we have a congressman who is an ex-officio member of the BOT saying he felt Fernandes was a fine choice.). On paper, she is indeed the best choice out of the final three-- never mind that it was an extemely lopsided (and thus suspicious, at best) final field. The initial message coming out of the student camp (fairly or unfairly) was one of personality-- "we don't like her." Subsequent running skirmishes and commentary on blogs and websites all over revealed a huge split between members of the Deaf/deaf community (whereas, DPN was a unifying issue for deaf/Deaf, regardless of communication methods, educational backgrounds, status in the pecking order, etc.), so a true consensus hasn't completely been there, and still isn't there. While the initial demands were clear for most of the life of the protest to now, the rationale behind those reasons hasn't been fully articulated. As I've said elsewhere, PR is half the battle/war.
Which leads me to another beef I have with how things have progressed so far: did any of the student leaders/influential figures on campus have any idea of what they were going to do should the decision of the PSC be to recommend Fernandes? Somehow I doubt it. While a certain number of people foresaw events happening as they did, most just sat there, and as Kristi, a commenter on this blog and others has said, "crossed their fingers" for their candidate, doing little else. I don't know (or pretend to know) what was going on in the minds of campus leaders and alumni, but waiting until after the announcement was made to just stand around and figure out what to do was NOT the right move, and it cost them in the short run, and maybe in the long run as well. Whoever controls the message has the advantage. By ceding control to Jordan, Fernandes et al in the first crucial days makes it that much harder.
That isn't to say that the two objectives can't be achieved; it just means the battle is going to be that much more protracted. Let's briefly examine the rationales/talking points on both sides (a similar list, which I've referred to while doing mine, is at Deafness/Hard of Hearing at About.com, and compiled by Jamie Berke):
Fernandes/Jordan and supporters:
Now to the FSSA/protesters/students side of the equation:
Another point that many raise is that Jordan had undue influence over the process. While this may or may not be true, I do feel there was a conflict of interest that Jordan needed/needs to face: he served as a reference for Fernandes. Because of this, he should have recused himself entirely from any interviews/consultations throughout the process, from start to finish. Were he not a reference/advocate, I would fully welcome his participation. While I'm not certain how other institutions handle Presidential involvement in the search for a successor, it is crucial to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. By doing so, Jordan has tarnished his last days in office, which is a shame; overall I think he was a good President for Gallaudet at a time when the university needed such a leader.
Additionally, does this mean that every time in the future that Gallaudet conducts a search, a person of color must be in the final pool for the process to be judged successful? What if the BDSU and other similar advocacy groups "won" and Anderson was installed as President, and turned out to be a poor choice (I doubt he would be, I'm just saying, you know...?)? Is it really neccessary to sacrifice all merely for the sake of race?
Dont get me wrong, I'm all for racial equality and diversity; I have no problem with having a non-white, or a female, in office; in fact my initial preferred choice before the filing period closed was Dr. Laurene (Gallimore) Simms (A black, Deaf woman! The perfect trifecta! But that's not why I supported her.). I still feel that if the search is re-opened, she would be a viable (and hopefully successful!) candidate. She'd also make an excellent provost, for that matter. But I think without reasoned logic or firm evidence that it is a mistake to inject race and diversity issues into the debate. All this did was add another reason onto a number of rationales for why Fernandes wasn't acceptable, and played in initial media reports, rightly or wrongly, as "the race card." In an early WaPo article, there were three very different reasons listed for student discontent: one of them was race, none of them focused on abuses by Fernandes as Provost. I'm sorry, but this isn't a winning argument, folks.
She is obviously a competent (note, I said "competent," *not* outstanding) administrator, or she wouldn't have gotten as far as she has or have the resume she does. That does not necessarily translate into being a competent or outstanding leader. But to make such an argument, you have to go beyond personality issues. Instead, some idiot at one of the initial protests early this month made a sign that said, "She doesn't say Hi." As you all know by now, that one got plucked out of the crowd by a WaPo reporter and right or not, quickly became the meme for the protest. As the initial story passed from the WaPo to AP, many newspapers used the AP story and stuck it in their daily edition.
Another meme that quickly gained currency is one I mentioned above-- Fernandes isn't "Deaf enough." One thing that really bothers me about the protest is how divisive it's been. You have people sneering at culturally Deaf people from Deaf families, calling them the "10-percenters;" You have people questioning others about whether they use ASL. You have some commenters suggesting that if one has no affiliation with Gallaudet whatsoever, then they have no right to participate in the discussion/debate. There are individuals with cochlear implants being called "borgs." You had others stating why they left Gallaudet/refused to attend Gallaudet was due to the snubbing they received, the stratification they saw solely based on where they went to school and how they were brought up, choices that often weren't theirs to make in the first place. It seems that people are far more willing to tear each other down than to focus on providing background, examples, and logical, documented and supported facts for why Fernandes should not ascend to the presidency. Most of the articles and media source material I've viewed/culled has been from the East Coast, especially the WaPo and local media outlets in the DC area. But even out here, the L.A. Times did include an article, buried in the back of the paper. The article was from the AP (Associated Press), and with the exception of a quote from student leader Anthony Mowl, the comments and focus was entirely on Fernandes and Jordan, both of whom pointed to Deafness and identity politics as the reason for the protest. This is probably going to be the only mention about the protest for the average reader here in Los Angeles-- what the average person is going to carry away from it is not a narrative about a poor choice due to bad leadership or unethical actions, but a story about a community devouring its own.
We are starting to tear our leaders down, one by one. I've seen noted people denigrated for not stepping up to the plate. I'm seeing certain individuals being told they're not following through, and thus their opinions, leadership, what have you is no longer being accepted. Celia May Baldwin, a Deaf woman of Deaf parents who attended a residential school, attended Gallaudet, and taught and worked in residential schools all over the West, resigned from the Board of Trustees due to the stress and "aggressive threats" made against her. I suspect that why people made threats against her was due to the posting of her private pager e-mail address on a blog, for the world to see. It's one thing to contact her at her public, work e-mail address, or her official mailing address c/o Gallaudet or her workplace. But to publish people's pager or private e-mail addresses without their consent is irresponsible.
When all is said and done, who will remain our leaders? Who will we accept, who will we cast aside? Is that what should happen? A community as small as ours with the limited talent pool we have-- we're willing to throw all that away?
This is, for better or for worse, the narrative that is and has been carrying the day for the most part. The movement is called "Unity for Gallaudet"-- where's the unity? All I see everywhere is divisiveness and mixed messages. There is no "unity" here at all.
Mowl's essay on Inside Higher Ed tries to reframe the debate, but unfortunately I don't think he succeeded (especially when you read the comments-- yes, some people don't get it, but controlling the message is crucial to these kinds of battles); for one thing, instead of focusing on why Fernandes was unfit, Mowl tried to encapsulate the spirit of Gallaudet into a few paragraphs, and stressed his Deaf heritage ("I’m the fourth generation in my family to be born deaf, and the third to attend Gallaudet."). This kind of essay would be perfect on any number of blogs or within our community; it doesn't play well in Peoria, unfortunately. It stresses again that to be a leader in the Deaf-World, one must have been born into it.
As Fernandes explained and many in the press reported, she came from an oral deaf family and didn't learn to sign until age 23. I could cast a stone and hit dozens around me who have similar experiences. I know Deaf of Deaf who have gone to mainstream programs, or oral schools. I know one family with Deaf siblings who have gone to different types of programs (I went to school with one such man, and have an ongoing acquaintanceship with his brother, who are three deaf siblings out of a large family. One child went to an oral program, another was completely mainstreamed, and a third went to a state residential school- yet all are accepted in their own ways within the Deaf-World). I myself attended a self-contained pre-school program for deaf kids, then was mainstreamed as a sole student without support services until high school, when I attended a large mainstreamed program with interpreters, during the tail end of the Rubella bulge school population), then was mainstreamed on my own with an interpreter, and finally went to Gallaudet, where I discovered and accepted myself as a deaf and Deaf person. I have a close friend who is firmly within the Deaf-World, hangs out with many so-called 10-percenters, yet was mainstreamed until high school.
So as you can see, there's quite a bit of variety. We proclaim that we're not rejecting Fernandes based on her background (and as far as pedigree goes, she's a deaf child of deaf parents-- even though she's from a deaf family, she has a better "pedigree" than a lot of other people!), yet on nearly every blog or forum I visit, there's arguments, debates, and general acrimony over what it means to be deaf/Deaf. This is not an argument we're going to "win," it's not a talking point we can use, but unfortunately, it's already out there.
One bright spot is the letter from nine Gallaudet faculty members, nearly all women, who come from non-residential school/cultural Deaf backgrounds, addressing Fernandes on the matter and chiding her for using such an argument to counter the protesters. While I thought it was an excellent letter for many reasons, the writers didn't include, nor have they followed up, with concrete examples of why Fernandes isn't acceptable. By missing this opportunity, the chance to *really* shift the debate to the actual issues, and to control the message was lost.
Well, as I've said before, I don't "know" the story. I graduated from Gallaudet before Fernandes appeared on the scene. While I visit campus an average of once a year, I don't really interact with people there anymore, except for friends who are now professors or staff on campus. Usually we have a quick lunch or catch up on things non-Gallaudet, and that's that. I'm not the only one, folks-- there are thousands upon thousands of alumni and folks who attended briefly and people who didn't even go to Gallaudet at all who knew nothing about Fernandes prior to this spring. The period during the final presentations, the brief lull afterwards, and the span since May 1 was a golden opportunity to educate the Deaf/deaf community and society at large about Fernandes. Unfortunately, with a few notable examples, no one has really stepped up to the plate. I've tried to educate myself, but not too many people could personally relate anything to me about her days as Provost. I did have the benefit, thanks to my wife, of contacts with former MSSD students, and what I learned shocked me. I've repeated many times that Jamie Berke's account of her unpleasant experience with Fernandes started to turn the tide for me regarding my opinion of Fernandes. This was not a person I felt was right for the job, but I still wanted further evidence, more concrete examples, and especially material about her job as Provost, which is far more directly related to the campus as a whole than Pre-College Programs.
Here's what I found. One blogger states he got an unsatisfactory answer from Fernandes regarding sexual assaults on campus. While I fully agree with her that Megan's Law can't be applied to students, I agree with the poster that she did not provide a satisfactory response, nor did she apparently follow up on his concerns (which I think are very valid-- if I had a dollar for every woman I've met at Gallaudet who has been raped/sexually assaulted, I'd be able to take a nice weekend vacation somewhere). While her reaction/response wasn't great, it isn't strong enough on its own to take to the PSC/BOT and demand Fernandes' ouster.
Sonny James provides a first-person anecdote about Fernandes claiming credit for a scholarship in the wake of the murders at Gallaudet in 2001. While this example is indeed troubling, there needs to be more such evidence to be able to present a damning case.
One professor alleges that Fernandes dealt with the hiring and retention of international scholars/employees in an improper fashion. The subject was raised on Not Without Us! But aside from the link I just provided, and a brief message from said professor elsewhere (and I've since lost the link!), I have seen/heard nothing else on this topic. If this was truly the case, then Fernandes should have been disciplined and should definitely have not made it as far as she did. But so far, I have seen or been provided with no other evidence for this allegation-- and if it was this serious, as the poster I linked to states, then why didn't that person (who I suspect is either on campus or a whole lot closer to campus than I am) bring it to the attention of FSSA and other leaders? Why is this professor the only one speaking out? I would imagine that such a misstep would create a furor- where is the documentation on this matter? Until this can be verified and used as evidence, it remains just another allegation/anecdote.
I've seen posts somewhere stating that Fernandes' selection as Provost in 2000 was not welcomed by the faculty. But I have yet to hear from anyone on the faculty, or anyone with formal papers/specific evidence that there was anything untoward about her appointment as Provost. Since I have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence online and offline and through personal contacts that many of the faculty are not pleased with her, why hasn't there been a follow-up on this? Where is the publicity? Where is the history of Fernandes' career as Provost? This troubles me quite a bit.
Fernandes gained tenure in the Department of ASL & Deaf Studies. Aside from her time at Northeastern University, I fail to understand how she qualified for tenure in that particular department. She has published quite a few academic articles and pieces on ASL and deafness, she was chair of the Department of Sign Communication for a scant six months, and she coordinated an interpreter training program. With the exception of her publications, I can think of quite a few others who qualify far more for a position in ASL & Deaf Studies than Fernandes. Some commenters have stated that there's something fishy about the length of time before she was granted tenure, yet I recall the whispers about how quickly Ben Bahan was granted tenure in the very same department. Additionally, Dr. Shirley Shultz-Myers posted a letter to GallyNet-L, which was then reprinted on DeafDC-- you can see it here-- and in her letter, she states that there was nothing untoward about Fernandes' being granted tenure. Although this is Dr. Shultz-Myer's contention, there has been no other faculty member or individual stepping forth with concrete evidence to rebut Shultz-Myers. So for the time being, this example is, as they say, a nonstarter. Of more interest is the editing of a WaPo piece that Rob V. picks up on. I am curious myself as to what "procedural error" Mercy Coogan refers to. For more on that, take a break for a minute and head over here. I'm still waiting for a response to Rob's e-mail, so that's all I can say for the moment.
A lot of people have pointed to I. King Jordan's retirement announcement as evidence that the fix was in. Whether there were truly Machiavellian machinations behind the scenes or Jordan simply made an honest mistake in his comments, this says nothing about Fernandes current job performance-- it merely says the process is flawed. If this is the only serious problem, then re-starting the process again would be the best course. It could be that Fernandes would again emerge as the top choice. Nope, this won't really work either.
Fernandes apparently seized the 2000-01 yearbook, due to unacceptable student content within the yearbook. Since the link that a lot of people tout as evidence of the content leads to a page where it's difficult for me to read clearly and concisely all of the controversial text and photos, I can't really say for sure 100% whether the confiscation was justified. If someone can fill me in on this, I'd be happy to reconsider this piece of evidence. I can see where some of it might be considered offensive, but a better solution might have been to have the books reprinted at the Tower Clock's expense, rather than deprive all the students of a yearbook (I confess I'm not sure what the final decision by the commission was in regards to the yearbook). For the time being, all I can say is that rounding up the yearbooks resulted in dampened student morale at the time and did not earn her any points with the student body. Yet if this example is the strongest case anyone can make against Fernandes, you'll most likely have to say President Fernandes come 2007.
A handful of other anecdotes are at Trimmin' the Fern, which I cited several posts ago. None of them point to unethical or sub-par behavior (with the exception of Jamie Berke's experience)-- all of them demonstrate a woman who demonstrates a certain amount of insensitivity and awareness of other people and their needs. Again, this is about her personality and communication style, not neccessarily about whether she can handle the job as President.
The strongest point so far is the faculty's vote of "no confidence." This is what I urged needed to happen, in tandem with alumni opposition and pressure, to force the BOT to reconsider their decision. Yet, aside from the vote, I have seen precious little in the way of examples/evidence/opinion from individual faculty against Fernandes, with the exception of Lynn Jacobowitz's statements and David Pancost's rebuttal to Shirley Shultz-Myers. If they were upset at her selection of Provost, upset at her handling of employment issues, upset at her receiving tenure, upset at her selection as President, then why aren't more of the tenured faculty (I can understand perfectly well why junior and non-tenured faculty would not want to rock the boat!) or former faculty standing up and providing their accounts/experiences, etc.? However, Faculty Resolution #5, taken up during the voting on the "no confidence" measures, is intriguing. I wonder what decisions by Committee C were overturned? What recommendations of Committee E? I can understand that perhaps there were reasons for a long search for a new librarian, but to leave a college library underfunded? That's not good. I'd say the real story lies with the faculty and their experiences.
If any of my readers can come up with further examples that do NOT start with "But she had six years...!", please, please let me know. What happened during those six years? Did it happen to you, or did you hear it third- or fourth-hand from your main squeeze's sorority sis/fraternity bro's dormmate's best friend? Do you have or can you locate solid evidence/documentation? Simply having bruised feelings or an upsetting experience doesn't equate into a case that you can take to the public outside of campus and declare Fernandes incompetent for the job. This really should have been done prior to or immediately after May 1. It's regrettable no one has been able to fully catalog her job performance as Provost.
Final Thoughts... for Now
I've just completed a rather exhaustive analysis of how we've gotten here and the talking points thus far. I know your eyes are about to fall out, but just bear with me a few minutes more.
Taken all together, there really isn't anything substantive to keep Fernandes from becoming President. In fact, after reading everything I've written, you're probably thinking, "How in the hell can he say he doesn't want Fernandes?? He just blew up everything in the water!"
Here's why I don't support Fernandes, and why I support FSSA's conditions/demands: She is proving totally divisive. Yes, she has a stellar resume. Yes, she's met with the students and the FSSA over the past two weeks. Yes, she's held forums, and stood her ground. I'll give her credit for not being a wimp and backing down. She's a tough lady. She doesn't deserve the character assassination, half-truths, insults, and other verbal and written garbage she's gotten. She is a woman who has worked within the Deaf community or with the Deaf community most of her adult life. She had to have the guts, intelligence, and work ethic to complete her doctorate in Comparative Lit at one of the best English graduate programs in the nation. She deserves a lot more credit than what she's getting.
BUT-- the fact remains that in one way or another, she has not proven able to unify the campus. She tried to meet with students-- now whether they gave her a fair chance or not, I don't know. It's possible a fair number continued to vilify her and that's why she gave up. I'd give up too. However, she didn't, as far as I know, try to reach out (say, by stating she'd like X, Y, and Z to work with her- perhaps some of her competitors for the presidency?) in ways that could have solidified support for her. She has allowed Gallaudet's PR machine to speak for her, rather than send a letter of her own to students/alumni. She has claimed the furor is about identity politics, rather than confront the fact that it's been far more than just degrees of deafness involved here. She and the board do not seem to recognize or want to accept that she is going to have a permanent population of dissenters who will not accept her, who will not donate money, who will be watching her every move. She may very well have won the job fair and square. But considering the sizeable front arrayed against her and the divisiveness and ugliness projected so far, it would be in her best interests, the campus's best interests, and the community's best interests if she declined the job.
[Next: What Now?]
[WARNING: *Another* super-long post!]
My Current Position
Since I type long posts a lot of times, and since I know from my teaching days and from writing in general that people pay the most attention to the beginning and end of articles, essays, and the like, I figured I'd get this out of the way, before I dig in and analyze.
As I stated earlier, my position has evolved over time. One thing has remained constant: I strongly feel/felt the search should be re-opened, if not from scratch, then at least from a pool of the stronger candidates who applied the first time. I know this means a lot of time and energy from those involved, but I think a new presidential search, with as transparent a process as possible, is best.
Second, despite a lot of errors and missteps on both sides of this battle, I feel it is in everyone's best interests that Jane Fernandes decline her appointment.
Thus, I'm in favor of the demands of the protesters, FSSA, et al: (1) Jane Fernandes declining the Presidency of Gallaudet University, and (2) re-opening the Presidential search. Since May 1, I've been in favor of these two conditions, even though I was initially against the protest itself, and still harbor doubts about its effectiveness as a tool.
Issues, Tactics and More
One of the biggest problems I had with the protest is not that I don't want to hold the glory of DPN for myself and my fellow veterans from those heady days, but that I felt from the beginning and still feel that protests are weapons of limited effectiveness, and should not be used all the time. Is the community going to resort to protesting each and every time there's turnover in the top slot? Was the protest thought-out, or was it a knee-jerk reaction born out of genuine frustration? The student strikes of the 1960's are famous, sure, but many of them failed, at least in the short term. Their overall cumulative effect was to raise public awareness of the anti-war movement, including educating the country as to why the Vietnam War was a mistake. In this sense, the protests succeeded, because they had a single, overriding message: end the war now.
For the same reasons, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and 1960's accomplished much, but for the same simple reason: a single goal, or a few clear-cut objectives in the same direction. Issues were black and white (no offense meant, or pun intended!). Single or limited issue protests and strikes with clear, defined messages succeed over general protests that involve complicated, diverse issues or controversial aspects. To take the above example of the Civil Rights era, the movement succeeded over time because it was a clear-cut moral issue: blacks were second-class citizens or worse, and the promise of America, its Constitution, and the ideals of its entire social system were not being lived up to. By the late 1960's, various groups had splintered from the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference-- while they all advocated change for blacks, they all had different messages, goals, and methods. The bloc splintered, and the various subgroups and organizations met with no or limited success since.
Once the Vietnam War wound down and our armed forces were withdrawn starting in 1973, the main impetus of student unrest was accomplished; instead, you had numerous groups with their own single-issue focus and methods-- none of them were able to unite on an overarching cause at the same power and level that they had earlier. You can see it even today, during protests against the war in Iraq-- I marched in the anti-war parade in February 2003, before we invaded Iraq, and while numerous protesters had anti-war signs, there were signs for other causes and issues as well. This kind of medley of "causes" continued at later protests, long after the war started. By having one sign for environmental awareness, another on civil rights, six on Iraq, five urging justice for Palestinians (a recent anti-war protest I went to last fall highlights the problem: half of the people I saw were marching with pro-Palestinian signs, t-shirts, etc.; many of the speakers were pro-Palestinian. While Israel v. Palestine is an important subject and one of the root causes of Middle East unrest, you can't exactly urge Joe and Jane Middle Class out to march against Iraq, when so many others aren't fighting for the same message), you dilute the overall message.
Let's apply the above to 1988 and today. As I previously stated in an earlier entry, DPN was a black-and-white conflict, with a ready-made cast of characters- almost one-dimensional, really. It was very easy to support, it was media-friendly in the sense that it had a simple, powerful, overarching narrative, and the issue was clear-cut: the Deaf/deaf community will be patronized no longer-- we are capable of governing ourselves, thank you.
BPN, DPN2, CDPN, RDPN, Tent City Protest, Unity for Gallaudet, or whatever the hell it's going to be referred to once it's all over and done with (which it isn't yet, not by a long shot!), is not as one-dimensional: while Fernandes is the boogeyman for many, she isn't coming across that way in the media, or outside the Gallaudet community and the Deaf-World. Instead, she's gotten pretty good press up until very recently, and a lot of hearing people outside are scratching their heads over what we're doing (witness Ray LaHood-- while you had Bush, Dukakis, Jesse Jackson and a host of others falling over themselves to be first in line to praise DPN and secure our votes, we have a congressman who is an ex-officio member of the BOT saying he felt Fernandes was a fine choice.). On paper, she is indeed the best choice out of the final three-- never mind that it was an extemely lopsided (and thus suspicious, at best) final field. The initial message coming out of the student camp (fairly or unfairly) was one of personality-- "we don't like her." Subsequent running skirmishes and commentary on blogs and websites all over revealed a huge split between members of the Deaf/deaf community (whereas, DPN was a unifying issue for deaf/Deaf, regardless of communication methods, educational backgrounds, status in the pecking order, etc.), so a true consensus hasn't completely been there, and still isn't there. While the initial demands were clear for most of the life of the protest to now, the rationale behind those reasons hasn't been fully articulated. As I've said elsewhere, PR is half the battle/war.
Which leads me to another beef I have with how things have progressed so far: did any of the student leaders/influential figures on campus have any idea of what they were going to do should the decision of the PSC be to recommend Fernandes? Somehow I doubt it. While a certain number of people foresaw events happening as they did, most just sat there, and as Kristi, a commenter on this blog and others has said, "crossed their fingers" for their candidate, doing little else. I don't know (or pretend to know) what was going on in the minds of campus leaders and alumni, but waiting until after the announcement was made to just stand around and figure out what to do was NOT the right move, and it cost them in the short run, and maybe in the long run as well. Whoever controls the message has the advantage. By ceding control to Jordan, Fernandes et al in the first crucial days makes it that much harder.
That isn't to say that the two objectives can't be achieved; it just means the battle is going to be that much more protracted. Let's briefly examine the rationales/talking points on both sides (a similar list, which I've referred to while doing mine, is at Deafness/Hard of Hearing at About.com, and compiled by Jamie Berke):
Fernandes/Jordan and supporters:
- Fernandes was chosen through a process that is similar to what occurs at hundreds of colleges and universities nationwide; it is not an "election."
- The protesters insist on a "Deaf-centric" president-- Fernandes "not deaf enough"
- [as Berke states] As provost, had to make unpopular decisions
- The search process was corrupt/flawed
- "Diversity" and issues of race not fully considered in the search
- "Aloof, cold, and condescending"; her personality isn't warm enough
- "She had six years as Provost and didn't do a good enough job"
- [again, per Berke!] Low campus morale
- Fernandes was chosen through a process that is similar to what occurs at hundreds of colleges and universities nationwide; it is not an "election."
- The protesters insist on a "Deaf-centric" president-- Fernandes "not deaf enough"
- As provost, had to make unpopular decisions
Now to the FSSA/protesters/students side of the equation:
- The search process was corrupt/flawed
Another point that many raise is that Jordan had undue influence over the process. While this may or may not be true, I do feel there was a conflict of interest that Jordan needed/needs to face: he served as a reference for Fernandes. Because of this, he should have recused himself entirely from any interviews/consultations throughout the process, from start to finish. Were he not a reference/advocate, I would fully welcome his participation. While I'm not certain how other institutions handle Presidential involvement in the search for a successor, it is crucial to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. By doing so, Jordan has tarnished his last days in office, which is a shame; overall I think he was a good President for Gallaudet at a time when the university needed such a leader.
- "Diversity" and issues of race not fully considered in the search
Additionally, does this mean that every time in the future that Gallaudet conducts a search, a person of color must be in the final pool for the process to be judged successful? What if the BDSU and other similar advocacy groups "won" and Anderson was installed as President, and turned out to be a poor choice (I doubt he would be, I'm just saying, you know...?)? Is it really neccessary to sacrifice all merely for the sake of race?
Dont get me wrong, I'm all for racial equality and diversity; I have no problem with having a non-white, or a female, in office; in fact my initial preferred choice before the filing period closed was Dr. Laurene (Gallimore) Simms (A black, Deaf woman! The perfect trifecta! But that's not why I supported her.). I still feel that if the search is re-opened, she would be a viable (and hopefully successful!) candidate. She'd also make an excellent provost, for that matter. But I think without reasoned logic or firm evidence that it is a mistake to inject race and diversity issues into the debate. All this did was add another reason onto a number of rationales for why Fernandes wasn't acceptable, and played in initial media reports, rightly or wrongly, as "the race card." In an early WaPo article, there were three very different reasons listed for student discontent: one of them was race, none of them focused on abuses by Fernandes as Provost. I'm sorry, but this isn't a winning argument, folks.
- "Aloof, cold, and condescending"; her personality isn't warm enough
She is obviously a competent (note, I said "competent," *not* outstanding) administrator, or she wouldn't have gotten as far as she has or have the resume she does. That does not necessarily translate into being a competent or outstanding leader. But to make such an argument, you have to go beyond personality issues. Instead, some idiot at one of the initial protests early this month made a sign that said, "She doesn't say Hi." As you all know by now, that one got plucked out of the crowd by a WaPo reporter and right or not, quickly became the meme for the protest. As the initial story passed from the WaPo to AP, many newspapers used the AP story and stuck it in their daily edition.
Another meme that quickly gained currency is one I mentioned above-- Fernandes isn't "Deaf enough." One thing that really bothers me about the protest is how divisive it's been. You have people sneering at culturally Deaf people from Deaf families, calling them the "10-percenters;" You have people questioning others about whether they use ASL. You have some commenters suggesting that if one has no affiliation with Gallaudet whatsoever, then they have no right to participate in the discussion/debate. There are individuals with cochlear implants being called "borgs." You had others stating why they left Gallaudet/refused to attend Gallaudet was due to the snubbing they received, the stratification they saw solely based on where they went to school and how they were brought up, choices that often weren't theirs to make in the first place. It seems that people are far more willing to tear each other down than to focus on providing background, examples, and logical, documented and supported facts for why Fernandes should not ascend to the presidency. Most of the articles and media source material I've viewed/culled has been from the East Coast, especially the WaPo and local media outlets in the DC area. But even out here, the L.A. Times did include an article, buried in the back of the paper. The article was from the AP (Associated Press), and with the exception of a quote from student leader Anthony Mowl, the comments and focus was entirely on Fernandes and Jordan, both of whom pointed to Deafness and identity politics as the reason for the protest. This is probably going to be the only mention about the protest for the average reader here in Los Angeles-- what the average person is going to carry away from it is not a narrative about a poor choice due to bad leadership or unethical actions, but a story about a community devouring its own.
We are starting to tear our leaders down, one by one. I've seen noted people denigrated for not stepping up to the plate. I'm seeing certain individuals being told they're not following through, and thus their opinions, leadership, what have you is no longer being accepted. Celia May Baldwin, a Deaf woman of Deaf parents who attended a residential school, attended Gallaudet, and taught and worked in residential schools all over the West, resigned from the Board of Trustees due to the stress and "aggressive threats" made against her. I suspect that why people made threats against her was due to the posting of her private pager e-mail address on a blog, for the world to see. It's one thing to contact her at her public, work e-mail address, or her official mailing address c/o Gallaudet or her workplace. But to publish people's pager or private e-mail addresses without their consent is irresponsible.
When all is said and done, who will remain our leaders? Who will we accept, who will we cast aside? Is that what should happen? A community as small as ours with the limited talent pool we have-- we're willing to throw all that away?
This is, for better or for worse, the narrative that is and has been carrying the day for the most part. The movement is called "Unity for Gallaudet"-- where's the unity? All I see everywhere is divisiveness and mixed messages. There is no "unity" here at all.
Mowl's essay on Inside Higher Ed tries to reframe the debate, but unfortunately I don't think he succeeded (especially when you read the comments-- yes, some people don't get it, but controlling the message is crucial to these kinds of battles); for one thing, instead of focusing on why Fernandes was unfit, Mowl tried to encapsulate the spirit of Gallaudet into a few paragraphs, and stressed his Deaf heritage ("I’m the fourth generation in my family to be born deaf, and the third to attend Gallaudet."). This kind of essay would be perfect on any number of blogs or within our community; it doesn't play well in Peoria, unfortunately. It stresses again that to be a leader in the Deaf-World, one must have been born into it.
As Fernandes explained and many in the press reported, she came from an oral deaf family and didn't learn to sign until age 23. I could cast a stone and hit dozens around me who have similar experiences. I know Deaf of Deaf who have gone to mainstream programs, or oral schools. I know one family with Deaf siblings who have gone to different types of programs (I went to school with one such man, and have an ongoing acquaintanceship with his brother, who are three deaf siblings out of a large family. One child went to an oral program, another was completely mainstreamed, and a third went to a state residential school- yet all are accepted in their own ways within the Deaf-World). I myself attended a self-contained pre-school program for deaf kids, then was mainstreamed as a sole student without support services until high school, when I attended a large mainstreamed program with interpreters, during the tail end of the Rubella bulge school population), then was mainstreamed on my own with an interpreter, and finally went to Gallaudet, where I discovered and accepted myself as a deaf and Deaf person. I have a close friend who is firmly within the Deaf-World, hangs out with many so-called 10-percenters, yet was mainstreamed until high school.
So as you can see, there's quite a bit of variety. We proclaim that we're not rejecting Fernandes based on her background (and as far as pedigree goes, she's a deaf child of deaf parents-- even though she's from a deaf family, she has a better "pedigree" than a lot of other people!), yet on nearly every blog or forum I visit, there's arguments, debates, and general acrimony over what it means to be deaf/Deaf. This is not an argument we're going to "win," it's not a talking point we can use, but unfortunately, it's already out there.
One bright spot is the letter from nine Gallaudet faculty members, nearly all women, who come from non-residential school/cultural Deaf backgrounds, addressing Fernandes on the matter and chiding her for using such an argument to counter the protesters. While I thought it was an excellent letter for many reasons, the writers didn't include, nor have they followed up, with concrete examples of why Fernandes isn't acceptable. By missing this opportunity, the chance to *really* shift the debate to the actual issues, and to control the message was lost.
- "She had six years as Provost and didn't do a good enough job"
Well, as I've said before, I don't "know" the story. I graduated from Gallaudet before Fernandes appeared on the scene. While I visit campus an average of once a year, I don't really interact with people there anymore, except for friends who are now professors or staff on campus. Usually we have a quick lunch or catch up on things non-Gallaudet, and that's that. I'm not the only one, folks-- there are thousands upon thousands of alumni and folks who attended briefly and people who didn't even go to Gallaudet at all who knew nothing about Fernandes prior to this spring. The period during the final presentations, the brief lull afterwards, and the span since May 1 was a golden opportunity to educate the Deaf/deaf community and society at large about Fernandes. Unfortunately, with a few notable examples, no one has really stepped up to the plate. I've tried to educate myself, but not too many people could personally relate anything to me about her days as Provost. I did have the benefit, thanks to my wife, of contacts with former MSSD students, and what I learned shocked me. I've repeated many times that Jamie Berke's account of her unpleasant experience with Fernandes started to turn the tide for me regarding my opinion of Fernandes. This was not a person I felt was right for the job, but I still wanted further evidence, more concrete examples, and especially material about her job as Provost, which is far more directly related to the campus as a whole than Pre-College Programs.
Here's what I found. One blogger states he got an unsatisfactory answer from Fernandes regarding sexual assaults on campus. While I fully agree with her that Megan's Law can't be applied to students, I agree with the poster that she did not provide a satisfactory response, nor did she apparently follow up on his concerns (which I think are very valid-- if I had a dollar for every woman I've met at Gallaudet who has been raped/sexually assaulted, I'd be able to take a nice weekend vacation somewhere). While her reaction/response wasn't great, it isn't strong enough on its own to take to the PSC/BOT and demand Fernandes' ouster.
Sonny James provides a first-person anecdote about Fernandes claiming credit for a scholarship in the wake of the murders at Gallaudet in 2001. While this example is indeed troubling, there needs to be more such evidence to be able to present a damning case.
One professor alleges that Fernandes dealt with the hiring and retention of international scholars/employees in an improper fashion. The subject was raised on Not Without Us! But aside from the link I just provided, and a brief message from said professor elsewhere (and I've since lost the link!), I have seen/heard nothing else on this topic. If this was truly the case, then Fernandes should have been disciplined and should definitely have not made it as far as she did. But so far, I have seen or been provided with no other evidence for this allegation-- and if it was this serious, as the poster I linked to states, then why didn't that person (who I suspect is either on campus or a whole lot closer to campus than I am) bring it to the attention of FSSA and other leaders? Why is this professor the only one speaking out? I would imagine that such a misstep would create a furor- where is the documentation on this matter? Until this can be verified and used as evidence, it remains just another allegation/anecdote.
I've seen posts somewhere stating that Fernandes' selection as Provost in 2000 was not welcomed by the faculty. But I have yet to hear from anyone on the faculty, or anyone with formal papers/specific evidence that there was anything untoward about her appointment as Provost. Since I have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence online and offline and through personal contacts that many of the faculty are not pleased with her, why hasn't there been a follow-up on this? Where is the publicity? Where is the history of Fernandes' career as Provost? This troubles me quite a bit.
Fernandes gained tenure in the Department of ASL & Deaf Studies. Aside from her time at Northeastern University, I fail to understand how she qualified for tenure in that particular department. She has published quite a few academic articles and pieces on ASL and deafness, she was chair of the Department of Sign Communication for a scant six months, and she coordinated an interpreter training program. With the exception of her publications, I can think of quite a few others who qualify far more for a position in ASL & Deaf Studies than Fernandes. Some commenters have stated that there's something fishy about the length of time before she was granted tenure, yet I recall the whispers about how quickly Ben Bahan was granted tenure in the very same department. Additionally, Dr. Shirley Shultz-Myers posted a letter to GallyNet-L, which was then reprinted on DeafDC-- you can see it here-- and in her letter, she states that there was nothing untoward about Fernandes' being granted tenure. Although this is Dr. Shultz-Myer's contention, there has been no other faculty member or individual stepping forth with concrete evidence to rebut Shultz-Myers. So for the time being, this example is, as they say, a nonstarter. Of more interest is the editing of a WaPo piece that Rob V. picks up on. I am curious myself as to what "procedural error" Mercy Coogan refers to. For more on that, take a break for a minute and head over here. I'm still waiting for a response to Rob's e-mail, so that's all I can say for the moment.
A lot of people have pointed to I. King Jordan's retirement announcement as evidence that the fix was in. Whether there were truly Machiavellian machinations behind the scenes or Jordan simply made an honest mistake in his comments, this says nothing about Fernandes current job performance-- it merely says the process is flawed. If this is the only serious problem, then re-starting the process again would be the best course. It could be that Fernandes would again emerge as the top choice. Nope, this won't really work either.
Fernandes apparently seized the 2000-01 yearbook, due to unacceptable student content within the yearbook. Since the link that a lot of people tout as evidence of the content leads to a page where it's difficult for me to read clearly and concisely all of the controversial text and photos, I can't really say for sure 100% whether the confiscation was justified. If someone can fill me in on this, I'd be happy to reconsider this piece of evidence. I can see where some of it might be considered offensive, but a better solution might have been to have the books reprinted at the Tower Clock's expense, rather than deprive all the students of a yearbook (I confess I'm not sure what the final decision by the commission was in regards to the yearbook). For the time being, all I can say is that rounding up the yearbooks resulted in dampened student morale at the time and did not earn her any points with the student body. Yet if this example is the strongest case anyone can make against Fernandes, you'll most likely have to say President Fernandes come 2007.
A handful of other anecdotes are at Trimmin' the Fern, which I cited several posts ago. None of them point to unethical or sub-par behavior (with the exception of Jamie Berke's experience)-- all of them demonstrate a woman who demonstrates a certain amount of insensitivity and awareness of other people and their needs. Again, this is about her personality and communication style, not neccessarily about whether she can handle the job as President.
The strongest point so far is the faculty's vote of "no confidence." This is what I urged needed to happen, in tandem with alumni opposition and pressure, to force the BOT to reconsider their decision. Yet, aside from the vote, I have seen precious little in the way of examples/evidence/opinion from individual faculty against Fernandes, with the exception of Lynn Jacobowitz's statements and David Pancost's rebuttal to Shirley Shultz-Myers. If they were upset at her selection of Provost, upset at her handling of employment issues, upset at her receiving tenure, upset at her selection as President, then why aren't more of the tenured faculty (I can understand perfectly well why junior and non-tenured faculty would not want to rock the boat!) or former faculty standing up and providing their accounts/experiences, etc.? However, Faculty Resolution #5, taken up during the voting on the "no confidence" measures, is intriguing. I wonder what decisions by Committee C were overturned? What recommendations of Committee E? I can understand that perhaps there were reasons for a long search for a new librarian, but to leave a college library underfunded? That's not good. I'd say the real story lies with the faculty and their experiences.
If any of my readers can come up with further examples that do NOT start with "But she had six years...!", please, please let me know. What happened during those six years? Did it happen to you, or did you hear it third- or fourth-hand from your main squeeze's sorority sis/fraternity bro's dormmate's best friend? Do you have or can you locate solid evidence/documentation? Simply having bruised feelings or an upsetting experience doesn't equate into a case that you can take to the public outside of campus and declare Fernandes incompetent for the job. This really should have been done prior to or immediately after May 1. It's regrettable no one has been able to fully catalog her job performance as Provost.
- Low campus morale.
Final Thoughts... for Now
I've just completed a rather exhaustive analysis of how we've gotten here and the talking points thus far. I know your eyes are about to fall out, but just bear with me a few minutes more.
Taken all together, there really isn't anything substantive to keep Fernandes from becoming President. In fact, after reading everything I've written, you're probably thinking, "How in the hell can he say he doesn't want Fernandes?? He just blew up everything in the water!"
Here's why I don't support Fernandes, and why I support FSSA's conditions/demands: She is proving totally divisive. Yes, she has a stellar resume. Yes, she's met with the students and the FSSA over the past two weeks. Yes, she's held forums, and stood her ground. I'll give her credit for not being a wimp and backing down. She's a tough lady. She doesn't deserve the character assassination, half-truths, insults, and other verbal and written garbage she's gotten. She is a woman who has worked within the Deaf community or with the Deaf community most of her adult life. She had to have the guts, intelligence, and work ethic to complete her doctorate in Comparative Lit at one of the best English graduate programs in the nation. She deserves a lot more credit than what she's getting.
BUT-- the fact remains that in one way or another, she has not proven able to unify the campus. She tried to meet with students-- now whether they gave her a fair chance or not, I don't know. It's possible a fair number continued to vilify her and that's why she gave up. I'd give up too. However, she didn't, as far as I know, try to reach out (say, by stating she'd like X, Y, and Z to work with her- perhaps some of her competitors for the presidency?) in ways that could have solidified support for her. She has allowed Gallaudet's PR machine to speak for her, rather than send a letter of her own to students/alumni. She has claimed the furor is about identity politics, rather than confront the fact that it's been far more than just degrees of deafness involved here. She and the board do not seem to recognize or want to accept that she is going to have a permanent population of dissenters who will not accept her, who will not donate money, who will be watching her every move. She may very well have won the job fair and square. But considering the sizeable front arrayed against her and the divisiveness and ugliness projected so far, it would be in her best interests, the campus's best interests, and the community's best interests if she declined the job.
[Next: What Now?]
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:35 PM
<< Home