Framing the Stalemate: What Now, Gallaudet?
In my last two posts on Gallaudet, I first examined the general background of how the current protest evolved up to May 12. I then analyzed some of the key issues/talking points. Now I'd like to discuss where the students, FSSA, and the community at large needs to go from here.
Before I begin though, I'd like to address one point I find rather illogical and intolerant. I've been told a few times, both here and elsewhere, that because I have not been on campus in the last two weeks, nor have I ever had any personal experience with Fernandes or Gallaudet of recent years, that my arguments, comments, or discussions of any aspect of the current crisis is, in one gadfly's words, "invalid."
Let's see... many alumni who passionately support FSSA, sent money, letters, and verbal ammunition to the protesters at Gallaudet have not been on campus in years, and few of them had any personal contact with or prior knowledge of Fernandes. Does that mean their comments, arguments, and suggestions are "invalid"?
Look at it from another perspective: During the 1950's and 60's, many blacks and some whites supported the Civil Rights Movement all over the nation. Not everyone lived in the South, or bore the full brunt of racist reactions to civil disobedience, such as the dogs and firehoses in Birmingham. Does the fact that they were not directly in harm's way invalidate their solidarity, silence their voices?
A more recent example is Iraq. Does the fact that one has not ever served in the military, nor ever been in the Middle East disqualify them from sharing an opinion, advocating the war, or supporting withdrawal?
I think that in a country whose Constitution celebrates freedom of speech (despite what our government is doing to subvert our constitutional rights), I have just as much freedom to share my opinion as anyone else.
As far as not demonstrating a lot of passion in my posts or being pissed off, I know it doesn't show. But if I wasn't this engaged or pissed off, I wouldn't be devoting a chunk of my time to outlining what's been going on and offering my thoughts and unsolicited advice (of which there's plenty in this post!).
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Since my last post, two key developments took place: (1) graduation and the end of the academic year, and (2) the announcement by the Board of Trustees that Jane Fernandes had resigned her position as Provost in order to begin the "transition to her presidency." The immediate impact of the two events means that Tent City has been more or less dismantled, with most students heading home or off to jobs for the summer, and that the BOT has signaled their refusal to consider the demands of FSSA.
So far, FSSA and its supporters have shown no inclination to back down from the conditions they've set for Fernandes and the BOT, and so far the BOT demonstrates no intention of acting upon these requests. So for better or worse we have a stalemate. What happens if she stays or goes?
Outcomes
Either way, no one's really won here. The so-called "unity" is only present on one level: for those who are/were physically present at Tent City and campus grounds, protesting. Even on campus, not to mention outside in the rest of the world, cyber and otherwise, there have been differences of opinion, splits, and arguments and debates raised that will not go away overnight. I'm sorry, but that doesn't meet the definition of "unity."
For all of this, I blame the BOT. The Board is supposed to oversee the president, so if Jordan was truly pulling the strings, then the BOT allowed itself to be manipulated. Additionally, the BOT (and Jordan) *knew* prior to their announcement that all interested stakeholders (students, staff, faculty, and alumni) did NOT want Fernandes. They *knew* she was divisive and that there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that threatened to explode into a protest (which it did). If they truly cared about the university and ensuring a smooth transition, they haven't shown it. What were they thinking?!?!?
As it is, going back and dissecting all the possibilities, the "what ifs," the "should'ves" is counterproductive. As I'm known for saying, what's done is done. Where do we go from here? What does each group/faction need to do?
I. King Jordan
He needs to come clean about any behind-the-scenes machinations he may have done, and acknowledge any additional conflicts-of-interest that are/were in play. One of the heroes of DPN, and overall a good President for Gallaudet, his presidency is currently tarnished, and his legacy possibly in danger if he doesn't do something proactive about his role in the entire presidential selection process. Right now many in the Deaf community are suspicious of him, and that isn't going to go away. If Jordan just wants to dash into retirement and doesn't care about his last months in office, that's his right. But he shouldn't expect community goodwill in return. Already he decided not to attend the CEASD in Riverside, and so far is scheduled to appear at the NAD convention on opening day. If I were him, I'd seize the NAD convention as an opportunity to address the community at large about events. The key for him is not to rely on the Gallaudet PR office or proxies, but to come out and address events in person.
Jane Fernandes
If she's going to insist on staying, she needs to immediately change her tactics. So far she isn't being a good example of a leader or proactive president-in-waiting. While she's made an effort to meet with students, FSSA, and the like, she's simultaneously using the media to issue statements in an attempt to dampen opposition to her, rather than addressing the campus community directly. As anyone who's been paying attention knows, there are several audiences here: the immediate campus community, the external Deaf/deaf community, and the public at large. Her first priority and obligation should be the internal campus itself. Since she was still provost during the bulk of the protests so far, the internal campus was her sole province. Of course, you can't completely blame her; she knows public pressure could doom her shot at the job even before she formally assumes it, and she knows making sure it doesn't become the topic du jour in the external media is crucial.
Her initial comments in the media focused on her educational background/social status in the community-- "I didn't learn to sign until I was 23." She was wildly successful at pushing that, since the protests then veered from unsuitability for office to a larger, overarching theme of community pecking order/social status/communication-- far more complicated topics to cover in the media and garner support for, and certainly not winning arguments for compelling the BOT to reconsider. However, her new narrative is that "the faculty" encouraged the protests "to settle scores with her." I find this totally disingenuous and irresponsible. Not only does it make her look like she's casting about for reasons for why everything happened, it also assumes the risk of alienating the faculty further, and hints at retribution (I'm not saying she will take measures when all is said and done-- just that even the hint of retaliation would further contribute to the decline in campus morale, which is *NOT* what needs to be happening!). Instead of trying to pin blame on people and quash the protests via the media, she needs to be taking visible, proactive steps to demonstrate that the BOT's faith in her was justified. For example, instead of letting Gallaudet's PR machine handle the announcement that she was leaving as Provost in order to prepare to take over in January, she should have called for a public announcement on campus with a PR representative and media there. Sure, it would have been a magnet for protesting students to hurl invectives at her, but it would have shown a willingness to publicly face the campus and try to start engaging people. She failed to do so, and people have pointedly noticed and commented on it.
Any new management team she puts together should be composed of people who will balance her-- in other words, perhaps some of her competitors for the presidency or others who will be able to forge links between her and the campus as a whole. Not doing so will deepen the divide between her and the community.
She has stated that she will help the campus heal through "committees." Excuse me, that's a response typical of a bureaucrat, not a leader. Healing isn't going to happen by proxy, or through various committees. It's going to be a long, possibly sometimes painful process and won't happen overnight.
The best way to being the healing would be for her to decline/resign the presidency. She knows by now that her appointment is divisive, has caused the protests (regardless of who started what), and has led to splits in the community, both at Gallaudet and outside. These rifts will not heal overnight, and she so far hasn't shown that she is the person to lead the healing. But like it or not, regardless of what happens, the next move is really hers. As a friend of mine put it, she is the catalyst here. She said in the NYT, "It is absolutely essential I stay." I'm sorry, Dr. Fernandes, but it isn't. You are and should be expendable for the good of the community.
The Board of Trustees
The Board considers itself in a bind: stay with Fernandes, and reap the whirlwind. Let Fernandes go, and risk being "weakened" because the students will then have forced the reconsideration of a presidential choice twice. While I understand the BOT's reluctance, I also think they need to demonstrate their independence by making the decisions that are best for Gallaudet, not necessarily the best for one individual or one group. As I said above, they are also largely at fault for all that has transpired since. It's my understanding that individual trustees have approached Tent City, or spoken to groups and individuals outside of the boardroom. I applaud this openness, and hope that it continues.
Ideally, the BOT would grow a spine and recognize the damage the appointment of Fernandes has done to Gallaudet and the community, and rescind their offer of the job. It can be done; the Board, like all boards, oversees the chief executive and as such has the right to remove that person from the company/corporation/organization/school. The Bylaws, in Article VI, Section 6.2, clearly states that the President "shall serve at the pleasure of the Board." For analysis of this, go see Rob Voreck's post, "Can the Board of Trustees rescind its offer to Fernandes?"
On a San Francisco Bay Area website, Bay Area Perspective on the Gally Presidential Selection, Di Herron offers her perspective from her years in the corporate world on whether the Board can revoke their offer. She too agrees with Voreck that a payout may be required, but that it is indeed possible for the BOT to withdraw their offer. But as Di points out, "The sooner they terminate it, the lesser the consequence would be." Since the BOT has already announced Fernandes' resignation and telegraphed that they will not be reversing their decision anytime soon, the "consequences" are going to be a lot more severe as time goes on.
The BOT also needs to develop a search committee process that is far more transparent than the one in place. Instead of doing the overhaul themselves, I'd establish a committee with representatives from all factions (two students, two faculty, two staff, two alumni, two trustees) and then letting such a committee independently craft the best possible protocol. This committee should seek input through public forums, and also seek advice from other groups, such as NDBA (National Deaf Black Advocates) to ensure that there is fairness and equitability every step of the way.
Some people are saying Jordan chose the outside company, Academic Consultation Search Service; others say it was the PSC. Regardless of who hired them, in the future the leader of any such service (this time around it was Dr. Tobie Van der Vorm) should be paired with someone neutral who is not a candidate, who has intimate knowledge and understanding of deafness, Gallaudet, and the Deaf community to help guide the process. Both in 1988 and 2006, the searches focused on qualifications. Qualifications are great; I'm all for them, and it's the reason why I was so concerned about Ron Stern (who otherwise was a fantastic fit for the job). But as the protests demonstrate, there's far more at stake here. Yes, the message emanating from the protest should never have been about degree of deafness, but unfortunately, the topic is out there in the open. The best way to deal with it in the future is to confront it head-on.
Faculty/Staff
The faculty's "no-confidence" vote should have been supplemented with far more media attention and evidence than it was. I'm not sure how the faculty as a whole and individually can get their message out; some are speaking in public forums, such as Shirley Shultz-Myers and David Pancost. A former professor, Zoltan Szekely, has discussed in various forums and e-mail lists about the weakening of the University's math department and the role of Dean Karen Kimmel in its decline (while his posts and messages are persuasive, I have yet to see any e-mails or other evidence. Also, where are other members of that department? We're only getting one voice, one side of the story. Still, his allegations are serious enough that if true, Karen Kimmel should be removed and an investigation started.). The staff are also somewhat divided, although their voices haven't been heard as often in news reports. I've talked privately with a few faculty and staff members, and there are serious divisions on campus. Not everyone supports the protesters; some openly support Fernandes. Others are supporting the protesters, but staying quiet; a handful are publicly siding with the protesters. It does not bode well for the campus climate this fall.
While my sympathies are with the protesters and those faculty that do not want Fernandes, I must state that I am troubled: if there have been so many problems with Fernandes, why hasn't the evidence been shared before May 1? Why hasn't the media or other influential persons been contacted? Where are e-mails, memos, and other documents that can build a case against Fernandes? Perhaps the evidence is there, has been used, has been publicly disseminated. But it certainly has failed to reach the outside community at large. Whether this is the fault of the faculty, the FSSA, or some other faction, I have no idea. But the key to getting rid of Fernandes will be cold, hard, incontrovertible evidence on paper-- hard copy, in addition to first-person accounts and narratives. There is no other way.
In any case, my sympathies are with the faculty and staff. It does not sound like most of them have the best relationship with Fernandes and the current administration; the faculty has voted "no-confidence" in her and the process; yet they are the front line in dealing with the students. How they handle the situation this fall and comport themselves will say a lot about the future of the university. My hat's off to them.
Students
The students are for the most part at home this summer. Yet they will be back in the fall, along with a new crop of freshmen. They are the front line of the protest. While I initially did not support an actual student strike (I felt there were better means of registering protest) and I have had concerns since, I admire the fact that they stuck it out for twelve days. That's something. You don't just hang out in tents in all kinds of weather unless you're passionate about your cause.
But the students and their leaders are going to have to come back in the fall with a different discipline and a stronger message if they want to continue the battle, and especially if they want to win. There should be a uniformity to their signs and messages. The leaders and FSSA need to get it across that they need to emphasize performance as why they are not happy with Fernandes. No more of this talk of "deafness" and "ASL" and other stuff (such as your genealogy-- we Deaf may be impressed that you're a fifth-generation Deaf who's the third generation at Gallaudet, but it means little to Congress, the media, and the general public) - as I've said before, it doesn't resonate outside of campus and our community. That means when some reporter comes up and asks you about the protest, you calmly offer examples of Fernandes' lack of ability to lead, pure and simple. Of course, for that to work, you need to be prepared to offer (again!) cold, hard evidence. This isn't easy; it requires coordination, which means everyone from faculty to staff to students need to have ready at the drop of a hat papers, e-mails, memos, etc. or they are going to face skepticism, both from inside and outside campus. The media is very important-- the story has been covered everywhere, from the Washington Post to the L.A. Times, from Andrew Sullivan to Daily Kos (A deaf blogger on Kos! The second time recently! Great! Hat tip to Joseph Rainmound for alerting me to this). How the students and FSSA frame the stalemate will make all the difference.
Additionally, students need to stop making fun of Fernandes and carry on a discourse with her that is at all times civil. I'm hearing that's happening for the most part, but not always. As a staff member at Gallaudet related to me:
Some of you may say it doesn't matter about hearing people, that they're not crucial to the situation. I disagree: the ex-officio members of Congress, who handle the monies for Gallaudet, are hearing. Their constituents are hearing. Many of us work for, with, and under hearing people. Some of us used to be hearing. Some of us are married to hearing people. Many of us have hearing parents and hearing children. Most people are hearing. The Deaf community is but a small segment of the deaf/partially deaf community nationwide. It *does* matter what our message is, and how we're perceived. Out there in the blogosphere, the reaction isn't all that good. See here, here, and here (admittedly, even I don't care for this last one-- I've never been a fan of Free Republic, and I never will be). Remember after DPN, how everyone reacted when they found out you were deaf, and especially when you had attended/graduated/knew of Gallaudet? Well, the same thing will happen again, but the reactions you get may not be as positive.
FSSA
This organization was formed in response to the protest. While lots of blogs refer to it, and it has a website, it has a long way to go. First of all, they aren't even being referred to as FSSA in the media. They aren't harnessing PR the way they need to. Their website lies dormant for days and hours at a time, without updates. I'm sorry guys, but claiming your webmaster has a final exam doesn't cut it. What you need to do in the fall is find an alumni or sympathetic person to act as PR manager/spokesperson-- that person can either be behind the scenes, or in front, but should know about PR techniques, know how to quickly cultivate the media, and be able to respond at a moment's notice. Yes, Fernandes has Mercy Coogan and the formidable name of Gallaudet University behind her. That's why you need to get someone with experience to counter that. Solicit the advice of people who know what they're talking about, can give you pointers, or at the least steer you in the direction of others who can. Examples include Bob Weinstock, Muriel Strassler, and Diana Herron. There are others out there who have done PR or are informally skilled at it-- Butch Zein is another name that comes to mind. The name "FSSA" includes the alumni; make good use of them and learn from them.
The same goes for the webmaster. There are tons of alumni in the immediate DC area who have computer skills. Get a couple who are willing to spare their time and expertise, pair them up with the student webmaster, and keep that website and PR machine humming. As I've said before, PR is half the battle, and keeping the information coming and going is crucial. Look at politics: successful political campaigns operate 24/7-- they don't allow things like "exams" or "family" or other distractions to get in the way. As a friend of mine put it, this is "war." In a war, you can't slow down or stop for a moment, or you'll get mowed down. (Rob Voreck has also commented on this: for his take, go here)
I'm hearing and seeing reports that FSSA isn't listening to outside members offering tips, advice, and expertise. This is inexcusable. You state that it's all about "unity"-- well "unity" means treating this as a sort of democracy, where everyone has a voice and everyone makes contributions. One thing that DPN did very well was that while it was the top four, the Ducks, and their advisors who held meetings and debated in private, they wisely set up a tree of committees, leaders, and others who could handle various aspects of the protest. John Maucere was one of those responsible for securing the gates, and he quickly gathered volunteers who could man the gates and entries; I was one of them. I may be mistaken, but I have heard nothing of such organization on the part of FSSA and the students. If they do have such a "tree," great; if not, it's something they should consider come Fall.
Alumni/The Community
The best thing these two groups can do is to be as educated as possible. But in order to do so, the students, faculty, staff, and FSSA need to do a better job of educating everyone outside their groups. This means instead of spouting meaningless lines like "She had six years as provost, and she failed," it means assuming that *everyone* you meet doesn't know the background or story, and filling them in with a concise, factually-based narrative to bring them up to speed. During such a conversation, a smart person will quickly recognize what the listener/questioner already knows, and can then proceed to fill in the gaps. Self-education's fine, folks, but it takes a lot of time. I know-- I sacrificed quite some time educating myself in order to prepare these posts.
The second thing these two groups need to do is determine how best to support (or not support, if they choose) the protests. Most have done so admirably. In California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, and other states, state organizations and GUAA groups have sent letters and resolutions of support. It is key for such groups to not just rest on their laurels, but to continue to press the BOT and Fernandes to reverse the decisions made so far. The group I alluded to earlier, Bay Area Perspective on the Gally Presidential Selection, is a model for others to follow.
As for the GUAA itself, it's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Part of the problem is it's officially affiliated with Gallaudet and the campus, and its apparatus. It can't exactly undermine the administration. But at the same time, they represent the alumni, a significant portion of whom are against Fernandes' selection. They are going to have to figure out a way out of this conundrum-- I'm not sure how. It doesn't help that the president of GUAA, Andy Lange, is also heading the NAD board. Most of the time, this isn't a problem. Right now though, it's a conflict of interest; the NAD needs to act in the interests of the community and do what's best for the community. The GUAA's mission is to support and aid the alumni. Where the NAD can and should speak out about the situation, the GUAA, as I said, is in a somewhat more nuanced position.
The community at large has a larger, and much more difficult, problem: the protest has revealed large questions that go to the heart of Deaf history, that focus on the core of the Deaf-World. Oral v. Manual, congenitally deaf v. late-deafened, various sign systems v. ASL, assimilation v. separation, questions of audism and oppression, whether internal or external, horizontal or vertical (hat tip to MountainSprite!)-- these are all debates and questions that, whether new or old, have never really been answered/resolved. Some of them have been ongoing constants, while others have been lying under the surface for years, if not decades. All of a sudden, they're all out in the open.
In one way, this is a confrontation, a conversation, a discussion that needs to be had. It may in the long run be healthy for the community, and it certainly is raising awareness of identity and community all over.
But it is also divisive, and it runs counter to the immediate goals of the protesters. In order for the FSSA to be successful, they will need to at least quell the debate on campus when dealing with the media, and when spreading their message and goals. Otherwise it contaminates everything. Already we've had the meme of "She doesn't say hi" and "She's not deaf enough" enter the discourse. It's partly the fault of the students, partly the fault of Fernandes (who, instead of truly trying to unify the campus and outside community, sought to exploit divisions for her benefit). But these are things we need to deal with LATER.
There is also the larger question of deaf education. Gallaudet may be a college, but it's also where the products of all our systems end up: from residential schools to self-contained programs to "true" mainstreaming. As educational methods and programs change and evolve, there is the feeling that traditional residential schools are falling by the wayside: this may or may not be the case, but it is part of a larger debate and problem that needs to be separated from Gallaudet's presidency, at least temporarily. It's also a topic for a separate post.
SO... in a nutshell: the various factions have their work cut out for them over the summer and come this fall. I'm still of the opinion Jane Fernandes needs to vacate her office immediately. I want the PSC re-formed and the process done over again in as transparently as possible. There should be no reprisals against any individuals or groups involved. But in the end, there needs to be discussion, introspection, and examination of what it means to be Deaf, where our community is now, and where we're going. This process needs to involve as many people, opinions, and perspectives as possible. While there may never be a complete, final resolution or answer for everything, there needs to be healing. Otherwise we will balkanize even more so than before, and that cannot be the legacy of this protest.
Before I begin though, I'd like to address one point I find rather illogical and intolerant. I've been told a few times, both here and elsewhere, that because I have not been on campus in the last two weeks, nor have I ever had any personal experience with Fernandes or Gallaudet of recent years, that my arguments, comments, or discussions of any aspect of the current crisis is, in one gadfly's words, "invalid."
Let's see... many alumni who passionately support FSSA, sent money, letters, and verbal ammunition to the protesters at Gallaudet have not been on campus in years, and few of them had any personal contact with or prior knowledge of Fernandes. Does that mean their comments, arguments, and suggestions are "invalid"?
Look at it from another perspective: During the 1950's and 60's, many blacks and some whites supported the Civil Rights Movement all over the nation. Not everyone lived in the South, or bore the full brunt of racist reactions to civil disobedience, such as the dogs and firehoses in Birmingham. Does the fact that they were not directly in harm's way invalidate their solidarity, silence their voices?
A more recent example is Iraq. Does the fact that one has not ever served in the military, nor ever been in the Middle East disqualify them from sharing an opinion, advocating the war, or supporting withdrawal?
I think that in a country whose Constitution celebrates freedom of speech (despite what our government is doing to subvert our constitutional rights), I have just as much freedom to share my opinion as anyone else.
As far as not demonstrating a lot of passion in my posts or being pissed off, I know it doesn't show. But if I wasn't this engaged or pissed off, I wouldn't be devoting a chunk of my time to outlining what's been going on and offering my thoughts and unsolicited advice (of which there's plenty in this post!).
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Since my last post, two key developments took place: (1) graduation and the end of the academic year, and (2) the announcement by the Board of Trustees that Jane Fernandes had resigned her position as Provost in order to begin the "transition to her presidency." The immediate impact of the two events means that Tent City has been more or less dismantled, with most students heading home or off to jobs for the summer, and that the BOT has signaled their refusal to consider the demands of FSSA.
So far, FSSA and its supporters have shown no inclination to back down from the conditions they've set for Fernandes and the BOT, and so far the BOT demonstrates no intention of acting upon these requests. So for better or worse we have a stalemate. What happens if she stays or goes?
Outcomes
- Fernandes remains the ninth president.
- Fernandes resigns as ninth president.
Either way, no one's really won here. The so-called "unity" is only present on one level: for those who are/were physically present at Tent City and campus grounds, protesting. Even on campus, not to mention outside in the rest of the world, cyber and otherwise, there have been differences of opinion, splits, and arguments and debates raised that will not go away overnight. I'm sorry, but that doesn't meet the definition of "unity."
For all of this, I blame the BOT. The Board is supposed to oversee the president, so if Jordan was truly pulling the strings, then the BOT allowed itself to be manipulated. Additionally, the BOT (and Jordan) *knew* prior to their announcement that all interested stakeholders (students, staff, faculty, and alumni) did NOT want Fernandes. They *knew* she was divisive and that there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that threatened to explode into a protest (which it did). If they truly cared about the university and ensuring a smooth transition, they haven't shown it. What were they thinking?!?!?
As it is, going back and dissecting all the possibilities, the "what ifs," the "should'ves" is counterproductive. As I'm known for saying, what's done is done. Where do we go from here? What does each group/faction need to do?
I. King Jordan
He needs to come clean about any behind-the-scenes machinations he may have done, and acknowledge any additional conflicts-of-interest that are/were in play. One of the heroes of DPN, and overall a good President for Gallaudet, his presidency is currently tarnished, and his legacy possibly in danger if he doesn't do something proactive about his role in the entire presidential selection process. Right now many in the Deaf community are suspicious of him, and that isn't going to go away. If Jordan just wants to dash into retirement and doesn't care about his last months in office, that's his right. But he shouldn't expect community goodwill in return. Already he decided not to attend the CEASD in Riverside, and so far is scheduled to appear at the NAD convention on opening day. If I were him, I'd seize the NAD convention as an opportunity to address the community at large about events. The key for him is not to rely on the Gallaudet PR office or proxies, but to come out and address events in person.
Jane Fernandes
If she's going to insist on staying, she needs to immediately change her tactics. So far she isn't being a good example of a leader or proactive president-in-waiting. While she's made an effort to meet with students, FSSA, and the like, she's simultaneously using the media to issue statements in an attempt to dampen opposition to her, rather than addressing the campus community directly. As anyone who's been paying attention knows, there are several audiences here: the immediate campus community, the external Deaf/deaf community, and the public at large. Her first priority and obligation should be the internal campus itself. Since she was still provost during the bulk of the protests so far, the internal campus was her sole province. Of course, you can't completely blame her; she knows public pressure could doom her shot at the job even before she formally assumes it, and she knows making sure it doesn't become the topic du jour in the external media is crucial.
Her initial comments in the media focused on her educational background/social status in the community-- "I didn't learn to sign until I was 23." She was wildly successful at pushing that, since the protests then veered from unsuitability for office to a larger, overarching theme of community pecking order/social status/communication-- far more complicated topics to cover in the media and garner support for, and certainly not winning arguments for compelling the BOT to reconsider. However, her new narrative is that "the faculty" encouraged the protests "to settle scores with her." I find this totally disingenuous and irresponsible. Not only does it make her look like she's casting about for reasons for why everything happened, it also assumes the risk of alienating the faculty further, and hints at retribution (I'm not saying she will take measures when all is said and done-- just that even the hint of retaliation would further contribute to the decline in campus morale, which is *NOT* what needs to be happening!). Instead of trying to pin blame on people and quash the protests via the media, she needs to be taking visible, proactive steps to demonstrate that the BOT's faith in her was justified. For example, instead of letting Gallaudet's PR machine handle the announcement that she was leaving as Provost in order to prepare to take over in January, she should have called for a public announcement on campus with a PR representative and media there. Sure, it would have been a magnet for protesting students to hurl invectives at her, but it would have shown a willingness to publicly face the campus and try to start engaging people. She failed to do so, and people have pointedly noticed and commented on it.
Any new management team she puts together should be composed of people who will balance her-- in other words, perhaps some of her competitors for the presidency or others who will be able to forge links between her and the campus as a whole. Not doing so will deepen the divide between her and the community.
She has stated that she will help the campus heal through "committees." Excuse me, that's a response typical of a bureaucrat, not a leader. Healing isn't going to happen by proxy, or through various committees. It's going to be a long, possibly sometimes painful process and won't happen overnight.
The best way to being the healing would be for her to decline/resign the presidency. She knows by now that her appointment is divisive, has caused the protests (regardless of who started what), and has led to splits in the community, both at Gallaudet and outside. These rifts will not heal overnight, and she so far hasn't shown that she is the person to lead the healing. But like it or not, regardless of what happens, the next move is really hers. As a friend of mine put it, she is the catalyst here. She said in the NYT, "It is absolutely essential I stay." I'm sorry, Dr. Fernandes, but it isn't. You are and should be expendable for the good of the community.
The Board of Trustees
The Board considers itself in a bind: stay with Fernandes, and reap the whirlwind. Let Fernandes go, and risk being "weakened" because the students will then have forced the reconsideration of a presidential choice twice. While I understand the BOT's reluctance, I also think they need to demonstrate their independence by making the decisions that are best for Gallaudet, not necessarily the best for one individual or one group. As I said above, they are also largely at fault for all that has transpired since. It's my understanding that individual trustees have approached Tent City, or spoken to groups and individuals outside of the boardroom. I applaud this openness, and hope that it continues.
Ideally, the BOT would grow a spine and recognize the damage the appointment of Fernandes has done to Gallaudet and the community, and rescind their offer of the job. It can be done; the Board, like all boards, oversees the chief executive and as such has the right to remove that person from the company/corporation/organization/school. The Bylaws, in Article VI, Section 6.2, clearly states that the President "shall serve at the pleasure of the Board." For analysis of this, go see Rob Voreck's post, "Can the Board of Trustees rescind its offer to Fernandes?"
On a San Francisco Bay Area website, Bay Area Perspective on the Gally Presidential Selection, Di Herron offers her perspective from her years in the corporate world on whether the Board can revoke their offer. She too agrees with Voreck that a payout may be required, but that it is indeed possible for the BOT to withdraw their offer. But as Di points out, "The sooner they terminate it, the lesser the consequence would be." Since the BOT has already announced Fernandes' resignation and telegraphed that they will not be reversing their decision anytime soon, the "consequences" are going to be a lot more severe as time goes on.
The BOT also needs to develop a search committee process that is far more transparent than the one in place. Instead of doing the overhaul themselves, I'd establish a committee with representatives from all factions (two students, two faculty, two staff, two alumni, two trustees) and then letting such a committee independently craft the best possible protocol. This committee should seek input through public forums, and also seek advice from other groups, such as NDBA (National Deaf Black Advocates) to ensure that there is fairness and equitability every step of the way.
Some people are saying Jordan chose the outside company, Academic Consultation Search Service; others say it was the PSC. Regardless of who hired them, in the future the leader of any such service (this time around it was Dr. Tobie Van der Vorm) should be paired with someone neutral who is not a candidate, who has intimate knowledge and understanding of deafness, Gallaudet, and the Deaf community to help guide the process. Both in 1988 and 2006, the searches focused on qualifications. Qualifications are great; I'm all for them, and it's the reason why I was so concerned about Ron Stern (who otherwise was a fantastic fit for the job). But as the protests demonstrate, there's far more at stake here. Yes, the message emanating from the protest should never have been about degree of deafness, but unfortunately, the topic is out there in the open. The best way to deal with it in the future is to confront it head-on.
Faculty/Staff
The faculty's "no-confidence" vote should have been supplemented with far more media attention and evidence than it was. I'm not sure how the faculty as a whole and individually can get their message out; some are speaking in public forums, such as Shirley Shultz-Myers and David Pancost. A former professor, Zoltan Szekely, has discussed in various forums and e-mail lists about the weakening of the University's math department and the role of Dean Karen Kimmel in its decline (while his posts and messages are persuasive, I have yet to see any e-mails or other evidence. Also, where are other members of that department? We're only getting one voice, one side of the story. Still, his allegations are serious enough that if true, Karen Kimmel should be removed and an investigation started.). The staff are also somewhat divided, although their voices haven't been heard as often in news reports. I've talked privately with a few faculty and staff members, and there are serious divisions on campus. Not everyone supports the protesters; some openly support Fernandes. Others are supporting the protesters, but staying quiet; a handful are publicly siding with the protesters. It does not bode well for the campus climate this fall.
While my sympathies are with the protesters and those faculty that do not want Fernandes, I must state that I am troubled: if there have been so many problems with Fernandes, why hasn't the evidence been shared before May 1? Why hasn't the media or other influential persons been contacted? Where are e-mails, memos, and other documents that can build a case against Fernandes? Perhaps the evidence is there, has been used, has been publicly disseminated. But it certainly has failed to reach the outside community at large. Whether this is the fault of the faculty, the FSSA, or some other faction, I have no idea. But the key to getting rid of Fernandes will be cold, hard, incontrovertible evidence on paper-- hard copy, in addition to first-person accounts and narratives. There is no other way.
In any case, my sympathies are with the faculty and staff. It does not sound like most of them have the best relationship with Fernandes and the current administration; the faculty has voted "no-confidence" in her and the process; yet they are the front line in dealing with the students. How they handle the situation this fall and comport themselves will say a lot about the future of the university. My hat's off to them.
Students
The students are for the most part at home this summer. Yet they will be back in the fall, along with a new crop of freshmen. They are the front line of the protest. While I initially did not support an actual student strike (I felt there were better means of registering protest) and I have had concerns since, I admire the fact that they stuck it out for twelve days. That's something. You don't just hang out in tents in all kinds of weather unless you're passionate about your cause.
But the students and their leaders are going to have to come back in the fall with a different discipline and a stronger message if they want to continue the battle, and especially if they want to win. There should be a uniformity to their signs and messages. The leaders and FSSA need to get it across that they need to emphasize performance as why they are not happy with Fernandes. No more of this talk of "deafness" and "ASL" and other stuff (such as your genealogy-- we Deaf may be impressed that you're a fifth-generation Deaf who's the third generation at Gallaudet, but it means little to Congress, the media, and the general public) - as I've said before, it doesn't resonate outside of campus and our community. That means when some reporter comes up and asks you about the protest, you calmly offer examples of Fernandes' lack of ability to lead, pure and simple. Of course, for that to work, you need to be prepared to offer (again!) cold, hard evidence. This isn't easy; it requires coordination, which means everyone from faculty to staff to students need to have ready at the drop of a hat papers, e-mails, memos, etc. or they are going to face skepticism, both from inside and outside campus. The media is very important-- the story has been covered everywhere, from the Washington Post to the L.A. Times, from Andrew Sullivan to Daily Kos (A deaf blogger on Kos! The second time recently! Great! Hat tip to Joseph Rainmound for alerting me to this). How the students and FSSA frame the stalemate will make all the difference.
Additionally, students need to stop making fun of Fernandes and carry on a discourse with her that is at all times civil. I'm hearing that's happening for the most part, but not always. As a staff member at Gallaudet related to me:
I've seen her in person being spoken to in a way I was horribly ashamed to see. Students using words, signs, expressions, inflections towards her they would not use with teachers or parents. Like her or don't, fine, but you don't treat people that way.Yes, it's just one person's opinion. But it says a lot: this staff member is not a fan of Fernandes, wanted Stern for the job, is a residential school grad and graduated from Gallaudet. If this person is appalled, imagine how it comes across to others? I know it's difficult in the heat of the moment to contain passion, to stifle emotion; it's not always possible. But try to temper that fire a bit if you want people to listen. You may still be college students, and still growing and learning, and not always fully emotionally or mentally mature, and most of us who are older cut you slack for that; we were students, and your age, once. But you're technically and chronologically adults. You want the respect of other adults, then act like one.
Some of you may say it doesn't matter about hearing people, that they're not crucial to the situation. I disagree: the ex-officio members of Congress, who handle the monies for Gallaudet, are hearing. Their constituents are hearing. Many of us work for, with, and under hearing people. Some of us used to be hearing. Some of us are married to hearing people. Many of us have hearing parents and hearing children. Most people are hearing. The Deaf community is but a small segment of the deaf/partially deaf community nationwide. It *does* matter what our message is, and how we're perceived. Out there in the blogosphere, the reaction isn't all that good. See here, here, and here (admittedly, even I don't care for this last one-- I've never been a fan of Free Republic, and I never will be). Remember after DPN, how everyone reacted when they found out you were deaf, and especially when you had attended/graduated/knew of Gallaudet? Well, the same thing will happen again, but the reactions you get may not be as positive.
FSSA
This organization was formed in response to the protest. While lots of blogs refer to it, and it has a website, it has a long way to go. First of all, they aren't even being referred to as FSSA in the media. They aren't harnessing PR the way they need to. Their website lies dormant for days and hours at a time, without updates. I'm sorry guys, but claiming your webmaster has a final exam doesn't cut it. What you need to do in the fall is find an alumni or sympathetic person to act as PR manager/spokesperson-- that person can either be behind the scenes, or in front, but should know about PR techniques, know how to quickly cultivate the media, and be able to respond at a moment's notice. Yes, Fernandes has Mercy Coogan and the formidable name of Gallaudet University behind her. That's why you need to get someone with experience to counter that. Solicit the advice of people who know what they're talking about, can give you pointers, or at the least steer you in the direction of others who can. Examples include Bob Weinstock, Muriel Strassler, and Diana Herron. There are others out there who have done PR or are informally skilled at it-- Butch Zein is another name that comes to mind. The name "FSSA" includes the alumni; make good use of them and learn from them.
The same goes for the webmaster. There are tons of alumni in the immediate DC area who have computer skills. Get a couple who are willing to spare their time and expertise, pair them up with the student webmaster, and keep that website and PR machine humming. As I've said before, PR is half the battle, and keeping the information coming and going is crucial. Look at politics: successful political campaigns operate 24/7-- they don't allow things like "exams" or "family" or other distractions to get in the way. As a friend of mine put it, this is "war." In a war, you can't slow down or stop for a moment, or you'll get mowed down. (Rob Voreck has also commented on this: for his take, go here)
I'm hearing and seeing reports that FSSA isn't listening to outside members offering tips, advice, and expertise. This is inexcusable. You state that it's all about "unity"-- well "unity" means treating this as a sort of democracy, where everyone has a voice and everyone makes contributions. One thing that DPN did very well was that while it was the top four, the Ducks, and their advisors who held meetings and debated in private, they wisely set up a tree of committees, leaders, and others who could handle various aspects of the protest. John Maucere was one of those responsible for securing the gates, and he quickly gathered volunteers who could man the gates and entries; I was one of them. I may be mistaken, but I have heard nothing of such organization on the part of FSSA and the students. If they do have such a "tree," great; if not, it's something they should consider come Fall.
Alumni/The Community
The best thing these two groups can do is to be as educated as possible. But in order to do so, the students, faculty, staff, and FSSA need to do a better job of educating everyone outside their groups. This means instead of spouting meaningless lines like "She had six years as provost, and she failed," it means assuming that *everyone* you meet doesn't know the background or story, and filling them in with a concise, factually-based narrative to bring them up to speed. During such a conversation, a smart person will quickly recognize what the listener/questioner already knows, and can then proceed to fill in the gaps. Self-education's fine, folks, but it takes a lot of time. I know-- I sacrificed quite some time educating myself in order to prepare these posts.
The second thing these two groups need to do is determine how best to support (or not support, if they choose) the protests. Most have done so admirably. In California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, and other states, state organizations and GUAA groups have sent letters and resolutions of support. It is key for such groups to not just rest on their laurels, but to continue to press the BOT and Fernandes to reverse the decisions made so far. The group I alluded to earlier, Bay Area Perspective on the Gally Presidential Selection, is a model for others to follow.
As for the GUAA itself, it's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Part of the problem is it's officially affiliated with Gallaudet and the campus, and its apparatus. It can't exactly undermine the administration. But at the same time, they represent the alumni, a significant portion of whom are against Fernandes' selection. They are going to have to figure out a way out of this conundrum-- I'm not sure how. It doesn't help that the president of GUAA, Andy Lange, is also heading the NAD board. Most of the time, this isn't a problem. Right now though, it's a conflict of interest; the NAD needs to act in the interests of the community and do what's best for the community. The GUAA's mission is to support and aid the alumni. Where the NAD can and should speak out about the situation, the GUAA, as I said, is in a somewhat more nuanced position.
The community at large has a larger, and much more difficult, problem: the protest has revealed large questions that go to the heart of Deaf history, that focus on the core of the Deaf-World. Oral v. Manual, congenitally deaf v. late-deafened, various sign systems v. ASL, assimilation v. separation, questions of audism and oppression, whether internal or external, horizontal or vertical (hat tip to MountainSprite!)-- these are all debates and questions that, whether new or old, have never really been answered/resolved. Some of them have been ongoing constants, while others have been lying under the surface for years, if not decades. All of a sudden, they're all out in the open.
In one way, this is a confrontation, a conversation, a discussion that needs to be had. It may in the long run be healthy for the community, and it certainly is raising awareness of identity and community all over.
But it is also divisive, and it runs counter to the immediate goals of the protesters. In order for the FSSA to be successful, they will need to at least quell the debate on campus when dealing with the media, and when spreading their message and goals. Otherwise it contaminates everything. Already we've had the meme of "She doesn't say hi" and "She's not deaf enough" enter the discourse. It's partly the fault of the students, partly the fault of Fernandes (who, instead of truly trying to unify the campus and outside community, sought to exploit divisions for her benefit). But these are things we need to deal with LATER.
There is also the larger question of deaf education. Gallaudet may be a college, but it's also where the products of all our systems end up: from residential schools to self-contained programs to "true" mainstreaming. As educational methods and programs change and evolve, there is the feeling that traditional residential schools are falling by the wayside: this may or may not be the case, but it is part of a larger debate and problem that needs to be separated from Gallaudet's presidency, at least temporarily. It's also a topic for a separate post.
SO... in a nutshell: the various factions have their work cut out for them over the summer and come this fall. I'm still of the opinion Jane Fernandes needs to vacate her office immediately. I want the PSC re-formed and the process done over again in as transparently as possible. There should be no reprisals against any individuals or groups involved. But in the end, there needs to be discussion, introspection, and examination of what it means to be Deaf, where our community is now, and where we're going. This process needs to involve as many people, opinions, and perspectives as possible. While there may never be a complete, final resolution or answer for everything, there needs to be healing. Otherwise we will balkanize even more so than before, and that cannot be the legacy of this protest.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 11:14 AM
<< Home