Framing the Stalemate: Entr'acte
When last we left our intrepid band of actors, most of them had screwed up in one way or another over the summer. No one group (with the exception of the alumni) was totally blameless. Unlike DPN, Tent City Protest has proven to be divisive for all involved. What was and is especially hurtful was the divide between different groups of deaf people. While there's always been a gulf of sorts between those who consider themselves culturally deaf, those who were oral, and those who were late-deafened or hard-of-hearing, the last thirty years has brought new groups to the fore-- a strong core of mainstreamed deaf, those with cochlear implants, and as people lived longer, a growing cadre of deafened elderly citizens. Many people from within these groups offered their opinions, argued about issues, and in some cases, attacked each other or patronized certain subgroups. Ancient debates and conflicts that had lain dormant under the surface re-emerged.
Some of this was to be expected. Each generation seems to "rediscover" some of the same topics over and over, and re-hash them out. But this time there was a new urgency. It's only been a couple of generations since deaf people faced restrictions and barriers: no captions for television or movies, no professional interpreters, no legal protections, limits or bans on driving, discouragement of intermarriage with other deaf people, and numerous other boundaries established by a hearing majority within society. Today's college-aged deaf have a plethora of technological, social, and legal advancements to benefit from. While many places globally are still mired in the past, the deaf of the United States (and to a large extent, Canada) are living in a golden age of deafness. While the storm clouds of gene therapy and other scientific advances are on the horizon, many deaf in this country have it better in many ways than any generation before.
Yet there were and are still issues to confront, injustices to change, and wounds to heal. For example, in the post-DPN world, under- and unemployment remains a huge barrier. Low literacy rates continue to haunt educational programs nationwide. Communication and attitudinal barriers still exist.
But for the citizens of Kendall Green, the immediate, looming issue was Jane K. Fernandes, and by extension, I. King Jordan and the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. Many secondary issues also littered the landscape: audism, racism, sexism, and a host of other isms. Additionally, as best seen through the posts at GallyNet-L over the summer, there were a host of internal problems at Gallaudet as well.
The big challenge that existed at the beginning of our tale in May, the challenge that remained at the end of the summer, and the challenge that still lives today as I type this, is to separate and deal with these issues individually as much as possible. Some of the internal conflicts on campus do not concern the external community at all. Some of the various "-isms" concern everyone; audism is arguably the most widespread, but racism and sexism are national and even universal issues. The problem that faced FSSA (and that they *still* face) is to separate the various issues, gently pull them apart, sift under layer after layer, and expose the foundations of the grievances they have.
Let's look at racism, for example. Quite a few people at Gallaudet claim that the problem is that there must be racist motives involved in the selection process; otherwise, why was Glenn Anderson discarded in favor of an all-white pool? My answer to this is similar to the one that Kristi Merriweather made on GallyNet-L over the summer (and recently again on DeafDC): If Ron Stern or Steve Weiner had been chosen, would anyone be that concerned about racism or the lack of ethnicity in the final candidate pool? I strongly doubt it. I'm white, so maybe I don't "get it," but I don't see racism as the real issue here, and it pains me every time "diversity" is brought up. I see the real problem (and quite a few people noticed this right away, including me) being the fact that a candidate survived to the final round with only a M.A., compared with a number of applicants with Ph.D.'s.
Let's look at it this way: if Glenn Anderson had been a finalist instead of Ron Stern, and Jane Fernandes was chosen over Anderson and Weiner, would there still be an outcry about racism? If so, does that mean that a "person of color" must always be in the final pool? Does it mean that Glenn Anderson should have been picked outright? What if Dr. Anderson turned out to be a mediocre president (I doubt he would have, but this is for the sake of argument)? Would it be okay anyway simply because he's black? Let's look at it from another perspective: What if Dr. Anderson wasn't black? Would there still be the same outrage?
You could apply Judaism to the same argument using Weiner, or sexism with Fernandes (not a problem now, as she WAS offered the job). While I'm all for diversity, and given two equal candidates, I'd prefer to see the one from an underrepresented group given a chance, I still think in the end it needs to be as much of a meritocracy as possible.
This is one of the reasons Fernandes was chosen, of course-- she had the best qualifications on paper. But there was something obviously funny about the process once the final three candidates were announced. I'm just disappointed there wasn't more of an outcry then, and that people waited until after the announcement of Fernandes to do something. It makes reversing the Board's decision that much harder.
I could analyze audism, cultural deafness, and the vagaries of identity politics in the same manner. But no matter; a new semester, a new school year has begun, and in a sense, everyone got a second chance, sort of.
I. King Jordan's memorandum of August 27 kicked off the school year. In his message, he stated that he would divide the responsibilities of provost with whomever was chosen for the interim slot. Again, why is there a need to do so? He stated that Dr. Katherine Jankowski and Deborah DeStefano as heads of the Clerc Center and OES, respectively, would report to him. What was wrong with the two women reporting to the interim provost? What was wrong with the two women doing their jobs on their own for a few months? Another layer of bureaucracy is not always needed, and I'm sure that their respective divisions could have survived a few months without a titular leader to report to.
Jordan also addressed the PART report. This is one area where no one did a satisfactory job of explaining exactly what the report involved; I must have seen the question, "What is PART???" in every third or fourth GallyNet-L digest. Even I'm not completely clear on what's involved. What I DO know is this: if the PART report, even after reassessment, shows a dismal performance on Gallaudet's part, then no matter what explanations the administration makes, Fernandes must take responsibility for her share of the blame; as provost, she is responsible for the internal workings of the university. The BoT should also have taken the report into consideration (and if they did, one wonders why they chose to reward failure. My partisan retort would be, "Maybe they're taking lessons from the Bush administration."), and balanced it against the strengths and weaknesses of the other candidates. To be honest, I think it would have been perfectly okay with most people if the Board had simply announced, "We're sorry, but none of the candidates were acceptable. We are re-opening the application period and asking Dr. Jordan to remain through the end of the 2006-07 school year."
Jordan also addressed the events of May 2006, stating,
Dr. Fernandes also weighed in a week earlier, with her "Letter to the Campus Community" on August 21. In addressing the numerous rationales for protest and grievances that surfaced during the Spring semester, Fernandes remarked
Dr. Fernandes' overall response in her letter was not one of a leader, but that of a bureaucrat: one of her proposed solutions is to "lead a Blue Ribbon Panel on governance and diversity to begin meeting early in the fall semester." Where was this "Blue Ribbon Panel" before? Will it really solve anything at this junction? A committee isn't what's needed at the moment. New layers of bureaucracy will not solve the problems within the current bureaucracy. Instead, Dr. Fernandes demonstrated how little she understands (or actually, how little she is willing to reveal she understands) about the one common goal among the mixed messages from all quarters: "We do not want Jane Fernandes as the next President of Gallaudet University." If she truly has been following events in all forms since the search process began, she should know by now that her presence is truly divisive, and that removing herself is the key to begin addressing some of the lingering issues such as governance and diversity.
The announcement of Dr. Michael Moore as interim provost on September 1 was greeted as welcome news from many quarters, and silence from others. The fact that faculty leadership also recommended Dr. Moore boded well for an interim provost who could try to hold the campus together as best as possible during a time of unrest.
On another front, Dr. Brueggemann announced the formation of a Presidential Transition Team on September 8. While BoT representation was rather heavy (an anticipated four members: the BoT chair, two current members, and a trustee emeritus) compared with the representatives from the other campus constituencies, there was again an attempt in both fact and spirit to include and incorporate a sense of varying perspectives and shared governance. While the makeup isn't perfect, it was a step forward on the part of the Board. Left unsaid, however, was the fact that the Board again chose to ignore the fact that it was decidedly in the minority in its support for Dr. Fernandes, and that any attempt to move forward with the installation of Fernandes would be met with skepticism and rejection from many quarters.
The response from the SBG was problematic; on one hand, it was logical for the SBG president, Noah Beckman, to state that since the SBG did not recognize Fernandes as the new president, it therefore followed that participating in the transition team was not possible. However, the SBG decided to defer to the Student Congress in the matter (for the record, Student Congress voted on September 20 to decline sending a representative).
I had mixed feelings about this decision; on one hand, I agreed that it made no sense to confer even the perception of legitimacy and acceptance if the student stance indeed was anti-Fernandes. On the other hand, shutting themselves out of any dialogue left them exposed to the possibility that decisions would be made that would be unacceptable, but that the students would have no choice but to abide by them, since they didn't even avail themselves of the opportunity to participate. Additionally, the chance to interact with faculty, staff, and other people from across campus may not have tactically been a good short-term move, but could have offered dividends for a long-term strategy: by forging new ties and weighing in on decisions, there existed (and exists) opportunities to potentially make new allies, sway opinions, and steer the conversation towards other issues that WILL have to be dealt with eventually, whether anyone likes it or not. It's a difficult balancing act, and people older and wiser than college students have stumbled badly in similar situations.
Still, it is to the students' benefit (and FSSA's as well) that they start developing a two-pronged strategy (and the sooner, the better!): the first, of course, is the resolution of the current crisis (and for the administration to act like ostriches and pretend there is no crisis whatsoever is not only not helpful, but also extremely short-sighted). The second is to plan for the dialogues, the committees, the forums that MUST take place in the aftermath. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of healing to be done. Additionally (even as I type this, it still remains a possibility), there is always the potential for the students to lose their immediate battle. There exists the very real possibility that come January 1, 2007, the protest will have failed, and Fernandes will assume the presidency. A divide and conquer strategy is not advisable; there needs to be an ongoing dialogue with all affected constituencies to determine how the campus will act, how people will come together and work, with or without Fernandes.
FSSA was still missing in action; many expected the resumption of Tent City, or at least the re-emergence of FSSA in August. When that didn't happen, some assumed it would happen with the actual start of classes. That too didn't happen. August turned into September, and the weeks dragged on. FSSA still didn't have a mission statement on the home page of its web site, nor was there a coherent explanation for how everything began, what had happened, and where FSSA was going. There was no real summary of what FSSA had done the past three months. A small suggestion for FSSA: try developing a mission statement, and link this to a timeline, which should also be on your site. Not only will it provide clarity for people with no prior knowledge who are visiting your website, it also might clarify a lot for you as well.
On September 22, seven FSSA faculty members met with Dr. Fernandes; while most with a sense of the politics of the situation knew nothing was likely to come of the meeting, it represented yet another opportunity for Fernandes to understand what was going on, for the faculty to assess Fernandes' stance, and for both sides to try to initiate some sort of conversation that could eventually conclude in some concrete and positive results for both sides. However, one major flaw that has bedeviled both sides quickly became apparent: the biases of one-sided reporting. Jared Evans posted about this at his blog, and I agree with him (and by extension McConnell. Like Jared, this is probably a rare moment of consensus, which will most likely be repeated seldom, if ever); for all of us to truly assess what is going on, there needs to be accounts from both sides, or even better, transcripts/tapes. I've personally had a difficult time stitching together my commentary, simply because a large amount of the information available is being filtered through a handful of outlets, all of which are biased to some extent (some more than others!).
As far as the letter goes, the veracity can be determined immediately from the title of the letter: "Impressions from our meeting." These are personal opinions, mixed with a re-telling of a private meeting between seven individuals and an eighth person. It's difficult for those of us who were not there to know exactly how questions were phrased, what specific questions were asked and what answers were given. While I personally believe Dr. Fernandes "knows" far more than she admits, this letter is way too partisan to admit as incontrovertible evidence of anything.
That said, these meetings do aid both sides in understanding just exactly how wide the gulf is, and what has been breached, and what can be repaired (if anything). So even though I will not rely on these seven individuals solely, I do give credit to them for trying to establish common ground of sorts with Dr. Fernandes.
By September 30, there was definitely a sense of tension, both within and without campus: as the saying goes, everyone was waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was not an intermission, but rather an interlude-- as an entr'acte. This was still part of the entire drama, a period that served as a backdrop to the events to come.
Some of this was to be expected. Each generation seems to "rediscover" some of the same topics over and over, and re-hash them out. But this time there was a new urgency. It's only been a couple of generations since deaf people faced restrictions and barriers: no captions for television or movies, no professional interpreters, no legal protections, limits or bans on driving, discouragement of intermarriage with other deaf people, and numerous other boundaries established by a hearing majority within society. Today's college-aged deaf have a plethora of technological, social, and legal advancements to benefit from. While many places globally are still mired in the past, the deaf of the United States (and to a large extent, Canada) are living in a golden age of deafness. While the storm clouds of gene therapy and other scientific advances are on the horizon, many deaf in this country have it better in many ways than any generation before.
Yet there were and are still issues to confront, injustices to change, and wounds to heal. For example, in the post-DPN world, under- and unemployment remains a huge barrier. Low literacy rates continue to haunt educational programs nationwide. Communication and attitudinal barriers still exist.
But for the citizens of Kendall Green, the immediate, looming issue was Jane K. Fernandes, and by extension, I. King Jordan and the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. Many secondary issues also littered the landscape: audism, racism, sexism, and a host of other isms. Additionally, as best seen through the posts at GallyNet-L over the summer, there were a host of internal problems at Gallaudet as well.
The big challenge that existed at the beginning of our tale in May, the challenge that remained at the end of the summer, and the challenge that still lives today as I type this, is to separate and deal with these issues individually as much as possible. Some of the internal conflicts on campus do not concern the external community at all. Some of the various "-isms" concern everyone; audism is arguably the most widespread, but racism and sexism are national and even universal issues. The problem that faced FSSA (and that they *still* face) is to separate the various issues, gently pull them apart, sift under layer after layer, and expose the foundations of the grievances they have.
Let's look at racism, for example. Quite a few people at Gallaudet claim that the problem is that there must be racist motives involved in the selection process; otherwise, why was Glenn Anderson discarded in favor of an all-white pool? My answer to this is similar to the one that Kristi Merriweather made on GallyNet-L over the summer (and recently again on DeafDC): If Ron Stern or Steve Weiner had been chosen, would anyone be that concerned about racism or the lack of ethnicity in the final candidate pool? I strongly doubt it. I'm white, so maybe I don't "get it," but I don't see racism as the real issue here, and it pains me every time "diversity" is brought up. I see the real problem (and quite a few people noticed this right away, including me) being the fact that a candidate survived to the final round with only a M.A., compared with a number of applicants with Ph.D.'s.
Let's look at it this way: if Glenn Anderson had been a finalist instead of Ron Stern, and Jane Fernandes was chosen over Anderson and Weiner, would there still be an outcry about racism? If so, does that mean that a "person of color" must always be in the final pool? Does it mean that Glenn Anderson should have been picked outright? What if Dr. Anderson turned out to be a mediocre president (I doubt he would have, but this is for the sake of argument)? Would it be okay anyway simply because he's black? Let's look at it from another perspective: What if Dr. Anderson wasn't black? Would there still be the same outrage?
You could apply Judaism to the same argument using Weiner, or sexism with Fernandes (not a problem now, as she WAS offered the job). While I'm all for diversity, and given two equal candidates, I'd prefer to see the one from an underrepresented group given a chance, I still think in the end it needs to be as much of a meritocracy as possible.
This is one of the reasons Fernandes was chosen, of course-- she had the best qualifications on paper. But there was something obviously funny about the process once the final three candidates were announced. I'm just disappointed there wasn't more of an outcry then, and that people waited until after the announcement of Fernandes to do something. It makes reversing the Board's decision that much harder.
I could analyze audism, cultural deafness, and the vagaries of identity politics in the same manner. But no matter; a new semester, a new school year has begun, and in a sense, everyone got a second chance, sort of.
I. King Jordan's memorandum of August 27 kicked off the school year. In his message, he stated that he would divide the responsibilities of provost with whomever was chosen for the interim slot. Again, why is there a need to do so? He stated that Dr. Katherine Jankowski and Deborah DeStefano as heads of the Clerc Center and OES, respectively, would report to him. What was wrong with the two women reporting to the interim provost? What was wrong with the two women doing their jobs on their own for a few months? Another layer of bureaucracy is not always needed, and I'm sure that their respective divisions could have survived a few months without a titular leader to report to.
Jordan also addressed the PART report. This is one area where no one did a satisfactory job of explaining exactly what the report involved; I must have seen the question, "What is PART???" in every third or fourth GallyNet-L digest. Even I'm not completely clear on what's involved. What I DO know is this: if the PART report, even after reassessment, shows a dismal performance on Gallaudet's part, then no matter what explanations the administration makes, Fernandes must take responsibility for her share of the blame; as provost, she is responsible for the internal workings of the university. The BoT should also have taken the report into consideration (and if they did, one wonders why they chose to reward failure. My partisan retort would be, "Maybe they're taking lessons from the Bush administration."), and balanced it against the strengths and weaknesses of the other candidates. To be honest, I think it would have been perfectly okay with most people if the Board had simply announced, "We're sorry, but none of the candidates were acceptable. We are re-opening the application period and asking Dr. Jordan to remain through the end of the 2006-07 school year."
Jordan also addressed the events of May 2006, stating,
I recognize that there are differences within our community and, in particular, that some of the differences expressed in May remain. I respect completely and uphold the right of any member of the university community to express disagreement with any action or decision made by the University. At the same time, as president, I also have the responsibility to make sure that one person or group’s exercise of the right to freedom of expression does not deny others their rights nor create unsafe conditions.But, but, but... Dr. Jordan? Your guidelines of June 28 very clearly shows you do not respect the right of free assembly. A contradiction here, it seems...
Dr. Fernandes also weighed in a week earlier, with her "Letter to the Campus Community" on August 21. In addressing the numerous rationales for protest and grievances that surfaced during the Spring semester, Fernandes remarked
I know there are differing perspectives on how best to achieve this goal but I am convinced that honest, open dialogue and staying focused on the best interests of the University and our students will lead to a resolution of those differences. President Jordan has said on many occasions that there is more that unites us than divides us, and I firmly believe that to be true.She is correct; there are "differing perspectives," and this was very evident on GallyNet-L, some of the major (and minor) blogs, and in the community at large over the summer and even now. I'm amazed at the amount of thoughtful responses and considerations many people have made. I'm also appalled at the amount of viciousness and closed-mindedness there has been on the part of a number of individuals, from former faculty members to students to community members. Emotions are getting the best of a lot of people; while passion is necessary to maintain a protest and to persevere during a period of social unrest, there also needs to be a certain amount of logic and compassion as well, and unfortunately, it's not happening as often as I would like.
Dr. Fernandes' overall response in her letter was not one of a leader, but that of a bureaucrat: one of her proposed solutions is to "lead a Blue Ribbon Panel on governance and diversity to begin meeting early in the fall semester." Where was this "Blue Ribbon Panel" before? Will it really solve anything at this junction? A committee isn't what's needed at the moment. New layers of bureaucracy will not solve the problems within the current bureaucracy. Instead, Dr. Fernandes demonstrated how little she understands (or actually, how little she is willing to reveal she understands) about the one common goal among the mixed messages from all quarters: "We do not want Jane Fernandes as the next President of Gallaudet University." If she truly has been following events in all forms since the search process began, she should know by now that her presence is truly divisive, and that removing herself is the key to begin addressing some of the lingering issues such as governance and diversity.
The announcement of Dr. Michael Moore as interim provost on September 1 was greeted as welcome news from many quarters, and silence from others. The fact that faculty leadership also recommended Dr. Moore boded well for an interim provost who could try to hold the campus together as best as possible during a time of unrest.
On another front, Dr. Brueggemann announced the formation of a Presidential Transition Team on September 8. While BoT representation was rather heavy (an anticipated four members: the BoT chair, two current members, and a trustee emeritus) compared with the representatives from the other campus constituencies, there was again an attempt in both fact and spirit to include and incorporate a sense of varying perspectives and shared governance. While the makeup isn't perfect, it was a step forward on the part of the Board. Left unsaid, however, was the fact that the Board again chose to ignore the fact that it was decidedly in the minority in its support for Dr. Fernandes, and that any attempt to move forward with the installation of Fernandes would be met with skepticism and rejection from many quarters.
The response from the SBG was problematic; on one hand, it was logical for the SBG president, Noah Beckman, to state that since the SBG did not recognize Fernandes as the new president, it therefore followed that participating in the transition team was not possible. However, the SBG decided to defer to the Student Congress in the matter (for the record, Student Congress voted on September 20 to decline sending a representative).
I had mixed feelings about this decision; on one hand, I agreed that it made no sense to confer even the perception of legitimacy and acceptance if the student stance indeed was anti-Fernandes. On the other hand, shutting themselves out of any dialogue left them exposed to the possibility that decisions would be made that would be unacceptable, but that the students would have no choice but to abide by them, since they didn't even avail themselves of the opportunity to participate. Additionally, the chance to interact with faculty, staff, and other people from across campus may not have tactically been a good short-term move, but could have offered dividends for a long-term strategy: by forging new ties and weighing in on decisions, there existed (and exists) opportunities to potentially make new allies, sway opinions, and steer the conversation towards other issues that WILL have to be dealt with eventually, whether anyone likes it or not. It's a difficult balancing act, and people older and wiser than college students have stumbled badly in similar situations.
Still, it is to the students' benefit (and FSSA's as well) that they start developing a two-pronged strategy (and the sooner, the better!): the first, of course, is the resolution of the current crisis (and for the administration to act like ostriches and pretend there is no crisis whatsoever is not only not helpful, but also extremely short-sighted). The second is to plan for the dialogues, the committees, the forums that MUST take place in the aftermath. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of healing to be done. Additionally (even as I type this, it still remains a possibility), there is always the potential for the students to lose their immediate battle. There exists the very real possibility that come January 1, 2007, the protest will have failed, and Fernandes will assume the presidency. A divide and conquer strategy is not advisable; there needs to be an ongoing dialogue with all affected constituencies to determine how the campus will act, how people will come together and work, with or without Fernandes.
FSSA was still missing in action; many expected the resumption of Tent City, or at least the re-emergence of FSSA in August. When that didn't happen, some assumed it would happen with the actual start of classes. That too didn't happen. August turned into September, and the weeks dragged on. FSSA still didn't have a mission statement on the home page of its web site, nor was there a coherent explanation for how everything began, what had happened, and where FSSA was going. There was no real summary of what FSSA had done the past three months. A small suggestion for FSSA: try developing a mission statement, and link this to a timeline, which should also be on your site. Not only will it provide clarity for people with no prior knowledge who are visiting your website, it also might clarify a lot for you as well.
On September 22, seven FSSA faculty members met with Dr. Fernandes; while most with a sense of the politics of the situation knew nothing was likely to come of the meeting, it represented yet another opportunity for Fernandes to understand what was going on, for the faculty to assess Fernandes' stance, and for both sides to try to initiate some sort of conversation that could eventually conclude in some concrete and positive results for both sides. However, one major flaw that has bedeviled both sides quickly became apparent: the biases of one-sided reporting. Jared Evans posted about this at his blog, and I agree with him (and by extension McConnell. Like Jared, this is probably a rare moment of consensus, which will most likely be repeated seldom, if ever); for all of us to truly assess what is going on, there needs to be accounts from both sides, or even better, transcripts/tapes. I've personally had a difficult time stitching together my commentary, simply because a large amount of the information available is being filtered through a handful of outlets, all of which are biased to some extent (some more than others!).
As far as the letter goes, the veracity can be determined immediately from the title of the letter: "Impressions from our meeting." These are personal opinions, mixed with a re-telling of a private meeting between seven individuals and an eighth person. It's difficult for those of us who were not there to know exactly how questions were phrased, what specific questions were asked and what answers were given. While I personally believe Dr. Fernandes "knows" far more than she admits, this letter is way too partisan to admit as incontrovertible evidence of anything.
That said, these meetings do aid both sides in understanding just exactly how wide the gulf is, and what has been breached, and what can be repaired (if anything). So even though I will not rely on these seven individuals solely, I do give credit to them for trying to establish common ground of sorts with Dr. Fernandes.
By September 30, there was definitely a sense of tension, both within and without campus: as the saying goes, everyone was waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was not an intermission, but rather an interlude-- as an entr'acte. This was still part of the entire drama, a period that served as a backdrop to the events to come.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 9:03 PM
<< Home