Gallaudet: A Middle Way?

It's been a long day for the Deaf community, both in D.C. and nationwide. Gallaudet University announced its ninth president: Jane K. Fernandes. For a rather succinct summary of the entire search process, Alison Aubrecht and Julie Bourne's article, Chronicles of Deaf Higher Education: Search for the Next Gallaudet President is a good review for anyone who either needs to catch up on the topic or wants to refresh their memories. I posted my own takes on the matter briefly here and here, before finally devoting an entire post to it: Search for a Leader.

Today, the entire Deaf community across the nation was most likely either directly or indirectly watching the announcement, whether at Gallaudet, in conference rooms at various residential schools, sister colleges like NTID/RIT and CSUN, or via pagers. When the announcement came that Fernandes had been selected, all hell broke loose, and I'm surprised a satellite somewhere didn't fail, conveying all the heavy pager traffic that must have been going on in the moments that followed. Since then, there have been rumors and verifications of all kinds of things: fire alarms, forced ejections, arrests, protests, batons, tear gas, the National Guard, Kent State... ok, ok, so I'm exaggerating. But as I write this, there apparently is an overnight vigil at the front gates of the campus.

Coverage in the blogosphere was equally swift: the subject has been a topic of heated discussion over at DeafDC.com, where Adam Stone has single-handedly posted rather objective and neutral coverage of the candidate's presentations, and has now posted an entry that has mired itself in controversy: an "analysis" of Gallaudet's "abortive" protest. Patti Raswant also offered fairly balanced descriptions of the presentations as well, although most of her post-selection commentary has been on various blogs and boards.

Elsewhere, Ridor has continued his march towards becoming the Matt Drudge of the Deaf blogosphere, alternating between providing "EXCLUSIVE" material and adopting a strident anti-Fernandes persona; while one may or may not agree with him and his approach, he's been fairly consistent in his dislike of Fernandes from Day One.

Pro-student, anti-Fernandes, and student-oriented blogs have been overflowing with comments all day long, from Gally President Watch to Not Without Us! to Trimming the Fern.
Some smaller blogs provided some thoughtful commentary, such as over at Random Thoughts, where Moi has also offered ongoing (if not exactly random!) thoughts, from this to that, and today this. The latter entry is probably most representative of how a lot of people feel today.

Some, like Joseph Rainmound at Deaf in the City, have yet to post anything, but I'm curiously awaiting their opinions on the matter.

Not everyone was as enthused over today's events-- a number of other bloggers either had faint praise, muted reactions, or felt the student reaction was a wee bit out of hand.

The reaction through listservs has been rather vitriolic as well, not to mention overflowing. For example, GallyNet-L has been filling my mailbox all day, with lots of familiar names popping up: Jeff Rosen, Paul Singleton, Ron Fenicle, and Roger Kraft, along with many participants who have been hanging out there for the last few weeks. Most of the reaction/commentary so far has been rather anti-Fernandes, and nearly all express disappointment in the Board of Trustees (BOT) and the Presidential Search Committee (PSC).

Before I continue, I'd like to formally come out and reveal where I've stood. Originally, I had no real opinion of who should become the next president of my alma mater. There was no one magic name that stood out. As people started to talk, ruminate, and post names, I started to think carefully. One name came to mind, especially once sites as Gally President Watch started popping up. For me, a candidate like Laurene (Gallimore) Simms would have fit the bill-- I have no idea if she even applied, but she's exactly the kind of person I wanted, had the requisite credentials, the backing of the community, etc. Hell, she even fit the PC requirements some factions had-- she's black, a woman, and of course, deaf. *grin* I saw a few compromise names and choices, along with quite a few nonstarters and "what the hell are you thinking of?!?" types.

Once the pool was narrowed, I opined half-jokingly that Koko, the famed gorilla, would be just fine with me. None of the individuals left standing appealed to me fully, although as I outlined, each had something that was valuable/needed. I made no endorsement. Later, my stance hardened, and I proclaimed, "none of the above." I felt at that time (and still feel) that the PSC should've scrapped what it had done so far and started over. By the end though, I felt resigned to the process and secretly settled on a compromise candidate: Steve Weiner. I felt that Fernandes, while on paper the perfect candidate, had proven too polarizing a candidate, and that Stern, despite community accolades and his personal accomplishments, lacked the requisite credentials and experience. It's one thing to talk about someone like Clinton, Eisenhower, or Chester Bowles as a university president-- but star power sans doctorate/higher education experience is usually limited to those who are potential or proven moneymakers, and few and far in between. While no one I talked to or read opinions by championed Weiner, I felt he had enough of what the job needed that he was someone that could ascend to and grow in the job: he had a doctorate, administrative experience, was well-liked, and was acceptable to various constituencies. Although conventional wisdom was against him, I hoped he would win out in the end.

So now we're here: the students have protested, the community is aghast, and no one seems very pleased. But it's not as simple as that. Here's what I see as the background, the factors, and the problem.

1) this isn't, nor should it be, DPN2. In fact, that label isn't even appropriate. Some are calling this new "movement" BPN, for "Better President Now." A better term might be CDPN: Cultural Deaf President Now, and therein lies part of the problem. DPN was born of a real injustice-- generations of deaf/Deaf students under hearing leaders. It was not neccessarily a one-shot event, but I really feel it isn't wise, nor is it neccessary to protest each and every time a new president is selected. It reduces the situation to an "us vs. them" mentality, diminishes the power of civil disobedience, and unfortunately, makes the students look like spoiled brats.

2) Why "CDPN"? Part of the problem here is that Gallaudet is unique: while it is first and foremost an institution of higher learning, it is also the soul of the Deaf community. Gallaudet's first four presidents had backgrounds in deaf education: Gallaudet, Hall, Elstad, and Merrill. The brief tenure of Dr. Johns notwithstanding, Gallaudet's sixth president was the first who didn't really have strong grounding in the Deaf community or deaf education. Jerry C. Lee intended to serve just a short time, as an interim president. For that time, it was an acceptable situation, but already people were looking forward to the next president, and some started dreaming of a deaf president. (For those of you who are hearing or not knowledgeable, I recommend reading Deaf President Now! by Barnartt and Christiansen, to gain appreciation for the background and issues surrounding DPN)

On paper and in person, Elizabeth Zinser came across as an intelligent, capable, qualified person. Even Tim Rarus at first admitted she'd be acceptable as Gallaudet's first female president. Unfortunately, she had zero experience in deaf education, knew no sign language whatsoever, and understood next to nothing about deafness and the Deaf-World. I firmly believe DPN would probably have happened nevertheless, but that what happened may not have been as smooth had Zinser had a background similar to Gallaudet, Hall, Elstad, or Merrill. The other two candidates, in contrast, were deaf-- Harvey Corson and I. King Jordan. Most of you know what happened next-- one of the few successful student strikes in U.S. history, with Zinser's resignation, Jordan's accession to the presidency, Phil Bravin's assumption of the chair of the BOT, and Harvey Corson stepping up as the new provost. Jordan was seen as a compromise choice of sorts-- he was deaf, which satisfied one of the four core demands of the protesters. But he wasn't considered culturally deaf, or "Big D" deaf.

Now the current hiring process was seen by many as a validation of DPN-- out of 24 candidates, 21 were deaf or partially deaf. Many were Gallaudet alumni or had worked on campus. So there was a sense, an expectation, that the ninth president would be someone who was more of a Deaf leader, rather than just audiologically deaf. Unfortunately, this has led over the last few months to a schism in the community, pitting various constituencies against each other. Some argued that qualifications, credentials, and the ability to lead was far more important, while others wanted the whole package: the aforementioned qualities, *plus* a culturally Deaf or close to culturally Deaf person. Thus, CDPN.

3) Public perception played an important part in 1988 during DPN. The cast of characters was ready-made: a hearing candidate (albeit a woman) against two deaf finalists (although white males). A complete stranger versus two men grounded in various ways within the deaf/Deaf communities. A BOT composed largely of hearing people, either from the community at large, or people accustomed to working on boards, charities, and the like, with only four deaf/Deaf representatives. A chair (Jane Bassett Spilman) who made, either intentionally or inadvertently, one of the most famous remarks in Deaf history annals: "Deaf people are not ready to function in a hearing world." Whether the quote was correct or not, the students, alumni, faculty, staff, and the Deaf community at large had their Cruella De Vil, and they would not be swayed. It was press perfect, and the media ate it up. Even presidential candidates weighed in, the head of the Postal Workers Union personally handed over a donation, and editorial cartoonists had a field day. It was Deaf v. Hearing, and any deaf person, regardless of position within the deaf/Deaf community, educational background, communication preference or employment, could feel kinship with the student protestors and allied in the battle. It was not a divisive issue, there were no complex factors, no little nuances. It was black and white.

Today, we have people denouncing Fernandes as "not deaf enough," groups agitating about racism and diversity, and mixed opinions from all quarters. Sadly, it *is* divisive, and regardless of the outcome of today's protests/tonight's vigil, and tomorrow's whatever, it isn't going to be something the media or the world will rush to cover. In fact, the problem is outlined in the Washington Post's article on today's events: "Some wanted a candidate who would promote "cultural deafness," preferring those who grew up deaf and relied on American Sign Language." While I find the reporter's phrasing misleading, it does highlight a perception gap that could harm any outcry: the impression that to be a leader, one must have had a certain upbringing, communicated a certain way, be accepted by the community, etc. To someone who is still outside the Deaf community but exploring the Deaf-World or thinking about Gallaudet, this could be seen as potential rejection.

4) This consciousness of the Deaf community as insular is one we, as a community, have battled for some time. It's a problem with no easy answers. While I am NOT advocating the subjugation of core Deaf values, nor am I encouraging the use of systems/"languages" other than ASL and written English at Gallaudet, I also see a need for the current crop of protesters and their supporters to wade carefully as they craft their statements, develop key strategies, and shape national and media viewpoints regarding the selection of Fernandes. This is one reason why I don't think a protest is the most effective means right now. Without clearly articulating *why* Fernandes isn't acceptable, the discourse threatens to open that age-old boogeyman-- Oral v. Manual, as it exposes the rifts within the deaf community nationwide. Fernandes' "credentials" within the Deaf community cannot and should not be the sole reason for opposing her. While the core Deaf community (including yours truly) know that Gallaudet and its roots have always been at the heart of the Deaf community and can not be compromised, many others won't see it that way. People unfamiliar with us will ask, "Well, she's deaf- why are they protesting? They seem like crybabies." The media, unschooled in Deaf history and the various controversies within deaf education, will simplify it to the lowest common denominator. To its credit, the Washington Post revised the initial article and expanded it a bit, so it's now more balanced. But that doesn't guarantee positive media coverage from all quarters.

Personally, I know of many people who came to Gallaudet or to the Deaf community after a childhood spent in oral or mainstreamed facilities, with little or no exposure to sign language or ASL, who knew next to nothing of Deaf community history or mores, and developed into bona fide members and champions of the Deaf community. Is it really their fault? Should they be denied an opportunity to be a part of and participate in the community? Fernandes' past shouldn't be held against her. (More on this subject later-- I mentioned previously that this type of discussion broadens into something best covered in another post. I envisioned doing that eventually, but it may have to be sooner than I thought!)

But that doesn't excuse the notion of attitudes. It is important that regardless of any candidates' standing within the Deaf community, they should accept that Gallaudet is at the heart of the Deaf community, that ASL can and should be used at all levels at Gallaudet, and that at present, Gallaudet's role is to not only educate its students but also to work with all types of programs nation-wide.

So with those factors, those who wish to do something about today's decision need to tread carefully and thoughtfully. I don't think a protest can work; despite the events today, there's only a small core at present at the front gates. It's also the end of the term; today was the last day of classes. For better or for worse, the school year's over. DPN succeeded not only because of the passion of its students, but also because of the groundwork laid by the alumni. I'm not seeing such planning and staging going on this time. The garbled bits and pieces I'm "hearing" indicate that students spontaneously left the auditorium, gathered on the campus to discuss what to do next, then marched to the front gate. Some participated in a rally/protest; many just stood by and watched. This indicates none of the organization of 18 years ago.

Several of the alumni who orchestrated DPN have spoken out; most said they will not support Gallaudet, and all expressed severe disappointment. The community at large is also rather upset, but many support the students vocally, if not in action. But this is where the protest will succeed or fail: through the faculty, staff, alumni, and the community. Without visible and physical support, the protest will taper off.

Just because I express skepticism in the protest at present doesn't mean I advocate doing nothing. Over the last month or so, I went from a cautious wariness of Fernandes while admitting she had paper-perfect qualifications to a recognition that she was not a viable choice. It amazes me that knowing she was a divisive personality, the PSC and BOT chose her anyway. What were they thinking?!? Yet, for better or worse, she is the choice to lead Gallaudet as the ninth president.

The alternatives at present as they stand are these:

a) do nothing; b) protest; or c) find a middle way. I don't support doing "nothing." It is already plain most people will not accept her as president. I also don't advocate protesting, since part of a successful drive involves a clear message and objectives, something that at this time hasn't clearly emerged. Some have mentioned a two-fold demand: Fernandes' resignation, and the re-opening of the search process. While that's probably a good pair of requests, I highly doubt Fernandes will resign, and the reasons for her resignation need to be crystal clear. This was one of the objections I've had so far: many people online and in various blogs and forums, have said she has a "negative" personality, or that she "messed up Gallaudet," but very few people have come up with specific examples. A lot of students and recent alumni post comments assuming that everyone knows "what I'm talking about." Well, I've got news for you: I DON'T. A lot of people I know DON'T. Fernandes came to Pre-College Programs (Kendall and MSSD) in 1995; she's only been the provost for the past six years. This means that anyone who left campus/DC before 1995 and has had only minimal contact probably doesn't have any idea who she is, much less why she should be reviled (Personal attacks and unflattering characterizations don't count!). This is something the protesters need to consider, and fast: what is the narrative about Fernandes? What concrete examples can they offer? How will they convince alumni and non-Gallaudet Deaf to join them? What will they tell the media? The aforementioned WaPo article stated that "...the criticism often centered on personality; some said she was cold, aloof, condescending."She doesn't say 'hi,' " one student's poster read..."

So? Lots of leaders (especially in the corporate world!) are cold, aloof, and condescending. Lots of people don't say "Hi". Does that recuse them from responsible positions, from leadership roles? Not necessarily. History is full of assholes. What's one more? Believe me, after hearing what drastic changes Fernandes made at MSSD and her handling of education at Kendall, she doesn't have my vote. But if you're going to forge ahead and parade around the front gates calling for her head, you damn well better have something more concrete than "she doesn't say hi."

So here's how it stands: she's too polarizing to remain. But a protest isn't necessarily a route that should always be used. So what to do? What possible middle way exists? Here's a few ideas/thoughts.

I) take a few hours to craft an acceptable narrative/PR strategy. Given the events of last fall, the current crop of students aren't exactly looked upon favorably by some alumni/community members. Develop a mature outlook, and people will listen. This requires setting aside emotional arguments temporarily, and looking at the cold, hard facts and formulating them into something more incontrovertible.

II) appoint a few student/alumni leaders to continually meet with the BOT, PSC, and administration through the summer. One such meeting is apparently scheduled for next Thursday, but if people want change, that can't be just one meeting and nothing else. It needs to be a dialogue, a conversation if you will. The summer break means there's a lull, a time when there won't be people around to challenge the status quo. Therefore it's crucial to engage the Powers That Be continually.

III) Educate and interest the alumni in what's going on. A few have already stated they won't give any money nor support Gallaudet until changes are made. That's one possible tactic (although alumni giving at Gallaudet is noticeably less than at other universities-- its main punitive effects may be to weaken the awarding of grants that Gallaudet applies for, as well as send a symbolic message). By "educating," I mean doing something other than saying, "Fernie is a cold bitch!" or "She trashed Gallaudet!" or "She did nothing as provost-- she had six years-- what has she done??" "A cold bitch" doesn't say anything, and is an ad hominem attack. She "trashed" Gallaudet. How? In what ways? Her six-year tenure-- don't just assume everyone "knows"-- start from the assumption that *no one* knows, and walk them through your case, point by point. Emotion and passion have their place, but so do logic and reason. Screaming at students, alumni, and community members alike that "we know, so shut up!" or "If you're supporting Fernandes, don't say anything more!" isn't helpful either. First, it's disrespectful, and second, if you're going to call the woman a dictator, don't lower yourselves to that level too. Educating people means getting them interested without turning them off or alienating them.

Additionally, concerned alumni out there (and I've been in touch with several all day) should formulate strategies themselves. Economic protests can be effective symbolically, if not monetarily, as I said. Letter-writing campaigns work too. Many alumni are well-connected, and could mount a formidable front. But without alumni support, not much will happen.

IV) Co-opt the support of the faculty/staff. I know for a fact that not too many of them are happy with Fernandes. Engage the most sympathetic among them, find out where they can help, gather whatever evidence/narratives they have, and use them.

V) Once the support of the alumni and faculty/staff has been garnered, harness their power. For example, quite a few commenters so far have suggested people give Fernandes a chance, to see what she can do before pouncing on her. That is one possible route-- if she's as bad as people say she is, she'll eventually have enough rope to hang herself, as the saying goes. But a more direct approach may be the best middle way: a vote of "no confidence." Informal polls don't have much meaning. Formal votes of "no confidence" are much stronger and send a more powerful message. The faculty, the GUAA, and the SBG can certainly do so, and report their vote to the administration. This, coupled with alumni repudiation, constant media attention, and ongoing meetings/dialogue between students/alumni and the BOT accentuated by letters, calls, and e-mails from the Deaf community at large, may prove a far more effective means of convincing the PSC to abandon their decision, invite Dr. Jordan to remain until the end of the 2006-07 academic year, and re-open the search.

There's seven months left until Dr. Jordan retires; I have strong doubts a protest could last that long, or captivate enough people to hang in that long, especially a media that has a notoriously short attention span. I have more confidence in a slow, ongoing, vise that gradually crushes the decision-makers, and makes them realize that they have not listened as carefully as they should have to their various constituencies, all of whom were saying, "Anyone but Fernandes."

[my apologies for what is the longest post ever. *whew! You get a gold star for reading this far!]