Framing the Stalemate: Intermission
In May, in the aftermath of the initial protest, I examined the events from May 1-12 and explored where each of the principals/major factions stood, and what I believed each actor needed to do next. Unfortunately (and I didn't really expect it-- after all, I'm here in L.A., have no real influence or "in" with anyone of importance), no one really did anything that I suggested, or thought through what their next move(s) should be.
I view the period from the announcement of the finalists through graduation as "Act I" of this drama. Graduation through October 2 I see as an intermission of sorts. The events of this month constitute a second act, which depending on how things escalate, will probably culminate in some sort of conclusion before long. Right now I'd like to take a few minutes (or more!) to examine how events have developed from May to September. Obviously I'm doing this with 20/20 hindsight, so this won't necessarily slake your thirst for the latest news. Again, DeafRead is probably the best overall site, since it collects blogs of all sorts, and you can sort and pick your way through different viewpoints there. For brief, succinct, up-to-the-minute details, try Elisa Abenchuchan's blog. View this post as a history of sorts, and as always, it's my own personal perspective. You may agree or disagree, but it's solely my take.
Commencement
Graduation marked the end of the school year, and ostensibly, an end to Tent City (this protest has been given many different titles and labels, but two I'm leaning towards right now are the Tent City Protest and the FSSA Protest. DPN2 isn't appropriate, for reasons I've already discussed. I'm going with "Tent City" for two reasons: one is, the central protests have coalesced around the use of tents, and second, it gave birth to a sign of its own, a play off of the signs for "tent" and "city"-- sign that to anyone who knows even a little about this protest, and they know *exactly* what you mean). In the midst of the normal celebration that graduation brings came a fresh controversy: the lack of a signed commencement speech by interim BoT chair Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. This speech led to a furor which has yet to fully die down. Personally, I think she should have tried signing the beginning of her speech, stopped, apologized, explained that she would be using an interpreter, and then carried on. For her to just speak vocally, especially considering the events of the month leading up to graduation, insulted a number of participants and the community at large.
One thing to consider here is that there are different kinds of deaf people, and that has been one of the issues of this protest (like it or not!). Dr. Brueggemann is one such person. As a deaf person, her upbringing is not her fault. Her adult life has been marked by both an independent career and one linked to deafness. She has written books, essays, and other materials on deafness, and works with Gallaudet University Press. While she may not be culturally deaf, and she is obviously not comfortable with her ASL skills, she is still a member of the deaf community.
I don't think she owes anyone an apology for her knowledge (or lack thereof) of ASL. I do think she made a mistake at graduation, and could have issued a statement afterwards-- while that would, I suppose, have constituted an apology of sorts, it also would have quelled some of the backlash. Public relations is NOT a skill that any of the principals so far have demonstrated a real flair for. For a thoughtful perspective on the controversy about graduation, go here.
The second post-protest action was the announcement that Fernandes would immediately step down as Provost and prepare for the Presidency. This was a rather odd action in some ways: if she truly was being "groomed" for the position, wouldn't she already have had some sense of what was coming? It also probably wouldn't have been too much difficulty to continue as provost, and instead announce a search for her replacement, and ease out of her duties as January 1, 2007 neared. I'm still scratching my head over why this was necessary.
Right after graduation, the Board of Trustees released a letter, addressing some of the events and concerns of the preceding weeks. It was remarkably conciliatory, and heralded some possible compromises, and the promise of future cooperation in ensuring Gallaudet would be different afterwards. To recap: there were to be no reprisals for anything that occurred from the Search Committee process to Commencement; a recognition that the Board needed to interact with and engage in dialogue with the community (exact words: "We... recognize that the Board needs to interact more directly with campus constituents and will set up less filtered, more informal times for interaction when the Board meets on campus."); acknowledged the need for shared governance, and promised to begin implementing this with the selection of the next provost, and to begin " identifying ways to directly involve campus constituencies in Board business;" and finally, a consideration of the qualities of leadership.
While this directive didn't capitulate to the immediate demand that Jane Fernandes resign, it seemed like a giant first step on the part of the Board to begin to remedy some of the problems that had led to the current impasse. I thought it was a very positive sign.
At this point, campus had largely emptied, and the summer had begun. How did each of our various principals fare?
Jane Fernandes
I have no idea how Jane spent her summer on Kendall Green. I do know she visited the NAD, which I thought was an appropriate move on her part. However, the buzz was that she mostly kept to herself, and there seemed to be no movement on her part to try to directly deal with the concerns of the students, faculty, staff, alumni, or the community. It's difficult for me to assess, because I didn't see her myself while I was at the NAD, and second, nearly all of my information, like most of you, was filtered through the opinions and accounts of others, some of whom were already biased against her. I did see Fernandes sharing a meal with a few people I didn't expect to see her with, and I didn't see or hear of her making any overtly stupid moves over the summer. That's a point in her favor. Unfortunately, as the president-designate, the summer was her time to try to heal some of the fractures, to try to address some or all of the concerns, and to demonstrate some qualities of *leadership*. In other words, it was a chance, a time for her to show the world what the Board apparently saw in her. She didn't seize this opportunity, and in my eyes, she failed to quell or lessen any concerns others had about her.
Verdict: Poor. In my eyes (and many others!), she reinforced the central concern about her: that she does not have the demonstrable leadership needed for the job. There is absolutely no way she could have failed to notice the split in the campus community, the outrage of the alumni and community at large, and the divisiveness which continued over the summer. As I've said before, she may have a paper-perfect resume, but she has proven too divisive to assume the presidency.
I. King Jordan
Jordan entered this drama as the president-emeritus-to-be, a man who, as I've previously said, was overall a good president, all things considered. Unfortunately, through directives released by the administration, his speech at the NAD, and his overall tack through the summer, Jordan merely reaffirmed the accusation that he was tarnishing his legacy.
His first move, on May 19, was to announce the search for the interim provost, to replace Fernandes. While it seemed odd to want an interim provost when administration could just start the search for the permanent replacement, Jordan did try to follow the BoT's directive, and announced the makeup of the search committee would include faculty, staff, and students. All fine and good, until June 28. At this point, Jordan sent out another memorandum, an update on the search process. He declared that Fernandes was now to be officially considered the President-designate, and that she would focus on a number of things, including "issues of diversity, particularly white privilege and hearing privilege, and implementing action plans to address the University strategic goals related to diversity." Jordan then revealed that he would serve as both president *and* provost, until the interim provost was announced.
Whatever goodwill Jordan had up until this point was quickly shattered in many quarters. Some saw it as a power grab; others, like myself, were struck by the awkwardness of it all. Again, what was wrong with Fernandes continuing her duties? Summer session was nearly complete, and it didn't seem like it would be particularly onerous for Fernandes to start working on various issues; as provost, she most likely sits in or is appraised of most of the meetings and paperwork she'd be dealing with as President anyway. What would Jordan hope to accomplish as provost? Presidents do not tend to take on a second job anyway, and adding more responsibilities seemed contradictory for one who was retiring.
Jordan's biggest blunder came on June 28, with the release of the "Guidelines for Expressive Activities and Assemblies." The requirement that "[a]ll demonstrations, marches, rallies or peaceful assemblies on campus must be registered" struck me as ludicrous. For one thing, Jordan himself was chosen as president due to a protest: DPN. For him to approve restrictions on protests was at best, hypocritical. It also smacked of governmental interference: while I am no expert in constitutional law, the First Amendment does state "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though I thought then (and still think now) that a full-scale protest was not the best tactic, the students assembled peacefully, and they were indeed "petitioning" the "Government" for a redress of grievances. This particular element also stressed the need to plan in advance such gatherings so that they would not conflict with other campus events. This too struck me as unreasonable; the whole point of protest is to conduct said protest where it is most effective. To stick protesters around the corner and out of sight defeats the whole purpose of civil disobedience.
The portion about structures of a temporary nature was mixed; I agree that eventually they need to be taken down, and I definitely agree that littering is not acceptable. However, it was an obvious thrust at "Tent City," and was a subtle attack on the protest itself. Cooking and other similar activities does need to be limited, for fire and safety purposes. Concerns about noise were warranted as well; Gallaudet does not and has never existed in a vaccuum. For more than 100 years, the university has shared its boundaries with the citizens of D.C.-- I can't imagine the neighbors particularly want loud music, vocal hoots and hollers, and other aural pollution disturbing their evenings and sleep time.
While I agreed that there needed to be clarification about who was responsible for a group or number of individuals (due to liability concerns: if someone is injured or dies, the party responsible needs to be held responsible), the formal registration process also seemed a bit ridiculous. Additionally, the ban or restrictions on posters, signs, and other visual material again smelled, also due to First Amendment rights.
Overall, this missive was offensive to just about everyone I talked to, and it didn't seem fully legally kosher to me. It was an obviously blatant attempt to forestall the resurrection of Tent City-- a likelihood that Jordan et al knew would probably happen come Fall.
He cancelled his appearance at the CEASD, then attended the NAD. While I did not arrive in Palm Desert until later, I heard that his speech did not go over very well (which is probably an understatement!). I suggested in May that Jordan "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." Instead, he made it clear that Fernandes was here to stay, and that the community needed to come together. This wasn't the answer people were looking for, especially in the wake of the "guidelines" released the previous week. His speech, for those totally immersed in the protest, was yet another nail in the coffin for Jordan. For those on the other side, it was an attempt at reconciliation, and rebuffed yet again by the protesters. For those like me who were in the middle-- sympathetic to FSSA, but still hoping to see some sort of balance struck, it was yet another head-scratching moment, another realization that perhaps things were far more beyond repair than we thought.
Publicly, Jordan didn't acknowledge any blunders on his part, but instead forged ahead with the interim provost selection process. On July 19, he released an update, in which he stated that it was inappropriate for him to serve as the interim provost (but didn't say if it was inappropriate for him to serve as the interim-interim-provost! That seemed rather illogical...), and stated that he was revising the process, based on input from Dr. Mark Weinberg, among others. He also said that most of the committee had been selected, except for the student representatives.
On August 1, he announced yet another update, and stated that the committee was fully formed. He outlined some of the considerations the committee would need to make, and the guidelines for candidates for the job. A follow-up on August 4 again stressed the timeliness of the matter.
Verdict: Poor. While Jordan continued to do his job, and to follow the directive of the BoT, he seemed to not fully comprehend or try to directly address the many issues from April and May. Additionally, he didn't even attempt to answer concerns about his role in the search process or his backing of Fernandes. Finally, the "Guidelines" of June 28 cemented for many people serious reservations about the intentions of the administration-- concerns that Jordan did nothing to alleviate.
The Board of Trustees
As I previously mentioned, the BoT began the summer on a positive note: while they did not retract support for Fernandes or accede to the demands of the protesters, they did acknowledge the need to address some of the larger, overarching issues that surfaced in April and May. For the most part, the BoT stayed quiet over the summer, with the exception of Dr. Brueggemann's letter of July 31, in which she stated that the Board continued to reaffirm "their unanimous and strong support for Dr. Jane Fernandes as the university’s 9th President."
Verdict: Mixed. While the BoT seemed open to dialogue with the campus and its various constituencies, they continued to support Fernandes. This blind refusal to acknowledge that they had ample warning prior to May 1 that Fernandes was opposed by many, and the inability to appropriately respond to the faculty's vote of no-confidence in Fernandes left the BoT collectively suspect.
FSSA
FSSA did little over the summer to capitalize fully on the mistakes and chinks in the armor of the BoT and the administration. For example, quite a few charges were raised about Fernandes and Dean Karen Kimmel; no new evidence came out over the summer from individuals or in the form of a paper trail. As I stated in May: 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. Oh, sure, bits and pieces dribbled out here and there, but nothing totally overwhelming that it presented a clear, stark picture.
The FSSA website continued to be a mess; there was no mission statement on its home page, or a quick summarization of events, the contentions, the overall message, or the demands that FSSA made. Indeed, the website was symbolic of the central weakness of the Tent City Protest thus far: there is no single reason for the removal of Fernandes. Charges of a "flawed process," "racism", "social justice," "cultural deafness (and don't try to tell me that isn't true-- not everyone said this, but there certainly were enough rumblings about this in certain quarters that it clearly was a concern for a number of people);" "poor leadership;" and "personality flaws." For every person I talked to, there was a slightly different reason, a slightly different justification, a slightly different take.
Would it really have killed FSSA to have spent some time over the summer remedying this glaring weakness? The lack of control over media exposure and the overall message proved the FSSA leadership's Achilles heel in May. While there's no way to go back and completely paper over that wound, it would have behooved FSSA to prepare for the fall.
"But they're students," you say. "They have the summer off." No, I'm sorry-- even during the 1960s, the key leadership, the core of groups such as SDS continued to act throughout the summer, as did the participants of Freedom Summer and the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam War. It's a lesson the students need to learn fast: the world isn't going to wait for you.
I don't have concrete evidence, but it was widely shared that FSSA declined the services of a DC-area public relations firm. If this is true, that was a totally stupid move. Additionally, many people privately grumbled to me that FSSA was waving away offers of help from alumni, and not listening to the suggestions many had. In one sense, they were correct to do so: as the saying goes, too many cooks in the kitchen... But on the other hand, alumni (especially DPN-era folks) had a lot to offer.
Visibility is important, and FSSA failed at this. While it was said that there were "meetings" during the summer, the only time I personally noticed FSSA capitalizing on anything was at the NAD conference. I've already virtually shot the poor fool who scheduled the FSSA and Deafhood workshops simultaneously, but there was nothing stopping FSSA from having an impromptu workshop. Instead, all we were treated to was a pep rally, with cheers, ASL poetry, chants, and brief speeches.
FSSA also did not appoint visible leadership as well. I discreetly inquired into this, and was told "white privilege" was at the heart of this decision. I'm white, so maybe I don't get it, but this protest was the first time I'd heard of "white privilege." Because of this, every decision was made by committee.
Excuse me? Nothing in history was ever won "by committee." Sure, the "Ducks" constituted a committee of sorts, but they were smart enough to have leaders in front of them. I'm sorry, but hiding behind the safety of a committee isn't going to work. The media isn't going to want 20 people at a press conference singing/signing "Kumbaya." They want, at the very least, a public figurehead, if not an actual leader. For better or for worse, someone has to step up, even if it means academic or career suicide in the short run.
Now, I agree that racism is alive and well, and not just at Gallaudet, but there is very little time. Issues of "white privilege" can be wrangled with at another time-- it isn't the central issue here. The removal of Fernandes is the primary objective, correct? If the key subject is really and truly racism and "white privilege," please correct me now.
As the summer wore on, more and more I heard grumblings of "Where's FSSA?" I urged frequent meetings between student leaders and administration over the summer. As far as I know, this didn't happen. The BoT held out an olive branch of sorts with its post-graduation letter. I didn't see a whole lot of effort to engage the BoT on the elements that both sides agreed upon or seemed willing to compromise. There needs to be some give and take, and if it doesn't happen, nothing is going to change.
Verdict: Poor. As I've said *many* times before, PR is half the battle. If FSSA isn't going to take advantage of summer downtime to retool their movement, and fine-tune their message, how are they going to have time once the Fall comes?
Alumni/Community
Ironically, the alumni and the community at large proved the most proactive actor in this mess. Alumni immediately reacted by withholding donations; I can't verify it now, but I was told by a reliable source in mid-June that as of that point, various university projects and funds had lost roughly $150,000 in donations since May 1. My source added that this unmistakably sends a message to the BoT and the administration: "Hello?? Get rid of her." Many alumni gathered after the FSSA pep rally at NAD and earnestly discussed solutions, exchanged information, and forged new ties.
Additionally, a number of people from across a wide spectrum maintained a steady dialogue and kept the various issues of the protest alive on GallyNet-L. There were times where I dreaded opening one of the digests, knowing I was guaranteed anywhere from 10-30 messages at any given time, but they also gave me insight as to the strengths and weaknesses of the protest. It was here as well that people started discussing how to resolve some of the festering wounds, such as the age-old battle between oralism and manualism, the proliferation of mainstreamed people in the community, and other aspects. Deafhood was also a hot topic, and while it has quieted down some since, holds promise as a tool to further explore deafness and possibly will provide an avenue to begin the healing that must come eventually.
Verdict: Good. Groups like Bay Area Perspective on Gally form the nucleus for groups that could continue to explore other areas of concern in the post-protest era. For all its flaws, GallyNet-L provides a forum for an exchange of ideas. I have become more and more convinced since May that the alumni are key to the protest, and central to the aftermath.
Summary
Overall, none of these factions came across well over the summer. With the possible exception of the alumni/community, none capitalized on the events of May. None tried to repair their obvious flaws. Most importantly of all, the promise of dialogue that the BoT offered doesn't seem to have happened. I'm hoping that it happens soon, because I think the sooner some kind of dialogue happens, the less damage overall there will be to repair.
I view the period from the announcement of the finalists through graduation as "Act I" of this drama. Graduation through October 2 I see as an intermission of sorts. The events of this month constitute a second act, which depending on how things escalate, will probably culminate in some sort of conclusion before long. Right now I'd like to take a few minutes (or more!) to examine how events have developed from May to September. Obviously I'm doing this with 20/20 hindsight, so this won't necessarily slake your thirst for the latest news. Again, DeafRead is probably the best overall site, since it collects blogs of all sorts, and you can sort and pick your way through different viewpoints there. For brief, succinct, up-to-the-minute details, try Elisa Abenchuchan's blog. View this post as a history of sorts, and as always, it's my own personal perspective. You may agree or disagree, but it's solely my take.
Commencement
Graduation marked the end of the school year, and ostensibly, an end to Tent City (this protest has been given many different titles and labels, but two I'm leaning towards right now are the Tent City Protest and the FSSA Protest. DPN2 isn't appropriate, for reasons I've already discussed. I'm going with "Tent City" for two reasons: one is, the central protests have coalesced around the use of tents, and second, it gave birth to a sign of its own, a play off of the signs for "tent" and "city"-- sign that to anyone who knows even a little about this protest, and they know *exactly* what you mean). In the midst of the normal celebration that graduation brings came a fresh controversy: the lack of a signed commencement speech by interim BoT chair Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. This speech led to a furor which has yet to fully die down. Personally, I think she should have tried signing the beginning of her speech, stopped, apologized, explained that she would be using an interpreter, and then carried on. For her to just speak vocally, especially considering the events of the month leading up to graduation, insulted a number of participants and the community at large.
One thing to consider here is that there are different kinds of deaf people, and that has been one of the issues of this protest (like it or not!). Dr. Brueggemann is one such person. As a deaf person, her upbringing is not her fault. Her adult life has been marked by both an independent career and one linked to deafness. She has written books, essays, and other materials on deafness, and works with Gallaudet University Press. While she may not be culturally deaf, and she is obviously not comfortable with her ASL skills, she is still a member of the deaf community.
I don't think she owes anyone an apology for her knowledge (or lack thereof) of ASL. I do think she made a mistake at graduation, and could have issued a statement afterwards-- while that would, I suppose, have constituted an apology of sorts, it also would have quelled some of the backlash. Public relations is NOT a skill that any of the principals so far have demonstrated a real flair for. For a thoughtful perspective on the controversy about graduation, go here.
The second post-protest action was the announcement that Fernandes would immediately step down as Provost and prepare for the Presidency. This was a rather odd action in some ways: if she truly was being "groomed" for the position, wouldn't she already have had some sense of what was coming? It also probably wouldn't have been too much difficulty to continue as provost, and instead announce a search for her replacement, and ease out of her duties as January 1, 2007 neared. I'm still scratching my head over why this was necessary.
Right after graduation, the Board of Trustees released a letter, addressing some of the events and concerns of the preceding weeks. It was remarkably conciliatory, and heralded some possible compromises, and the promise of future cooperation in ensuring Gallaudet would be different afterwards. To recap: there were to be no reprisals for anything that occurred from the Search Committee process to Commencement; a recognition that the Board needed to interact with and engage in dialogue with the community (exact words: "We... recognize that the Board needs to interact more directly with campus constituents and will set up less filtered, more informal times for interaction when the Board meets on campus."); acknowledged the need for shared governance, and promised to begin implementing this with the selection of the next provost, and to begin " identifying ways to directly involve campus constituencies in Board business;" and finally, a consideration of the qualities of leadership.
While this directive didn't capitulate to the immediate demand that Jane Fernandes resign, it seemed like a giant first step on the part of the Board to begin to remedy some of the problems that had led to the current impasse. I thought it was a very positive sign.
At this point, campus had largely emptied, and the summer had begun. How did each of our various principals fare?
Jane Fernandes
I have no idea how Jane spent her summer on Kendall Green. I do know she visited the NAD, which I thought was an appropriate move on her part. However, the buzz was that she mostly kept to herself, and there seemed to be no movement on her part to try to directly deal with the concerns of the students, faculty, staff, alumni, or the community. It's difficult for me to assess, because I didn't see her myself while I was at the NAD, and second, nearly all of my information, like most of you, was filtered through the opinions and accounts of others, some of whom were already biased against her. I did see Fernandes sharing a meal with a few people I didn't expect to see her with, and I didn't see or hear of her making any overtly stupid moves over the summer. That's a point in her favor. Unfortunately, as the president-designate, the summer was her time to try to heal some of the fractures, to try to address some or all of the concerns, and to demonstrate some qualities of *leadership*. In other words, it was a chance, a time for her to show the world what the Board apparently saw in her. She didn't seize this opportunity, and in my eyes, she failed to quell or lessen any concerns others had about her.
Verdict: Poor. In my eyes (and many others!), she reinforced the central concern about her: that she does not have the demonstrable leadership needed for the job. There is absolutely no way she could have failed to notice the split in the campus community, the outrage of the alumni and community at large, and the divisiveness which continued over the summer. As I've said before, she may have a paper-perfect resume, but she has proven too divisive to assume the presidency.
I. King Jordan
Jordan entered this drama as the president-emeritus-to-be, a man who, as I've previously said, was overall a good president, all things considered. Unfortunately, through directives released by the administration, his speech at the NAD, and his overall tack through the summer, Jordan merely reaffirmed the accusation that he was tarnishing his legacy.
His first move, on May 19, was to announce the search for the interim provost, to replace Fernandes. While it seemed odd to want an interim provost when administration could just start the search for the permanent replacement, Jordan did try to follow the BoT's directive, and announced the makeup of the search committee would include faculty, staff, and students. All fine and good, until June 28. At this point, Jordan sent out another memorandum, an update on the search process. He declared that Fernandes was now to be officially considered the President-designate, and that she would focus on a number of things, including "issues of diversity, particularly white privilege and hearing privilege, and implementing action plans to address the University strategic goals related to diversity." Jordan then revealed that he would serve as both president *and* provost, until the interim provost was announced.
Whatever goodwill Jordan had up until this point was quickly shattered in many quarters. Some saw it as a power grab; others, like myself, were struck by the awkwardness of it all. Again, what was wrong with Fernandes continuing her duties? Summer session was nearly complete, and it didn't seem like it would be particularly onerous for Fernandes to start working on various issues; as provost, she most likely sits in or is appraised of most of the meetings and paperwork she'd be dealing with as President anyway. What would Jordan hope to accomplish as provost? Presidents do not tend to take on a second job anyway, and adding more responsibilities seemed contradictory for one who was retiring.
Jordan's biggest blunder came on June 28, with the release of the "Guidelines for Expressive Activities and Assemblies." The requirement that "[a]ll demonstrations, marches, rallies or peaceful assemblies on campus must be registered" struck me as ludicrous. For one thing, Jordan himself was chosen as president due to a protest: DPN. For him to approve restrictions on protests was at best, hypocritical. It also smacked of governmental interference: while I am no expert in constitutional law, the First Amendment does state "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though I thought then (and still think now) that a full-scale protest was not the best tactic, the students assembled peacefully, and they were indeed "petitioning" the "Government" for a redress of grievances. This particular element also stressed the need to plan in advance such gatherings so that they would not conflict with other campus events. This too struck me as unreasonable; the whole point of protest is to conduct said protest where it is most effective. To stick protesters around the corner and out of sight defeats the whole purpose of civil disobedience.
The portion about structures of a temporary nature was mixed; I agree that eventually they need to be taken down, and I definitely agree that littering is not acceptable. However, it was an obvious thrust at "Tent City," and was a subtle attack on the protest itself. Cooking and other similar activities does need to be limited, for fire and safety purposes. Concerns about noise were warranted as well; Gallaudet does not and has never existed in a vaccuum. For more than 100 years, the university has shared its boundaries with the citizens of D.C.-- I can't imagine the neighbors particularly want loud music, vocal hoots and hollers, and other aural pollution disturbing their evenings and sleep time.
While I agreed that there needed to be clarification about who was responsible for a group or number of individuals (due to liability concerns: if someone is injured or dies, the party responsible needs to be held responsible), the formal registration process also seemed a bit ridiculous. Additionally, the ban or restrictions on posters, signs, and other visual material again smelled, also due to First Amendment rights.
Overall, this missive was offensive to just about everyone I talked to, and it didn't seem fully legally kosher to me. It was an obviously blatant attempt to forestall the resurrection of Tent City-- a likelihood that Jordan et al knew would probably happen come Fall.
He cancelled his appearance at the CEASD, then attended the NAD. While I did not arrive in Palm Desert until later, I heard that his speech did not go over very well (which is probably an understatement!). I suggested in May that Jordan "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." Instead, he made it clear that Fernandes was here to stay, and that the community needed to come together. This wasn't the answer people were looking for, especially in the wake of the "guidelines" released the previous week. His speech, for those totally immersed in the protest, was yet another nail in the coffin for Jordan. For those on the other side, it was an attempt at reconciliation, and rebuffed yet again by the protesters. For those like me who were in the middle-- sympathetic to FSSA, but still hoping to see some sort of balance struck, it was yet another head-scratching moment, another realization that perhaps things were far more beyond repair than we thought.
Publicly, Jordan didn't acknowledge any blunders on his part, but instead forged ahead with the interim provost selection process. On July 19, he released an update, in which he stated that it was inappropriate for him to serve as the interim provost (but didn't say if it was inappropriate for him to serve as the interim-interim-provost! That seemed rather illogical...), and stated that he was revising the process, based on input from Dr. Mark Weinberg, among others. He also said that most of the committee had been selected, except for the student representatives.
On August 1, he announced yet another update, and stated that the committee was fully formed. He outlined some of the considerations the committee would need to make, and the guidelines for candidates for the job. A follow-up on August 4 again stressed the timeliness of the matter.
Verdict: Poor. While Jordan continued to do his job, and to follow the directive of the BoT, he seemed to not fully comprehend or try to directly address the many issues from April and May. Additionally, he didn't even attempt to answer concerns about his role in the search process or his backing of Fernandes. Finally, the "Guidelines" of June 28 cemented for many people serious reservations about the intentions of the administration-- concerns that Jordan did nothing to alleviate.
The Board of Trustees
As I previously mentioned, the BoT began the summer on a positive note: while they did not retract support for Fernandes or accede to the demands of the protesters, they did acknowledge the need to address some of the larger, overarching issues that surfaced in April and May. For the most part, the BoT stayed quiet over the summer, with the exception of Dr. Brueggemann's letter of July 31, in which she stated that the Board continued to reaffirm "their unanimous and strong support for Dr. Jane Fernandes as the university’s 9th President."
Verdict: Mixed. While the BoT seemed open to dialogue with the campus and its various constituencies, they continued to support Fernandes. This blind refusal to acknowledge that they had ample warning prior to May 1 that Fernandes was opposed by many, and the inability to appropriately respond to the faculty's vote of no-confidence in Fernandes left the BoT collectively suspect.
FSSA
FSSA did little over the summer to capitalize fully on the mistakes and chinks in the armor of the BoT and the administration. For example, quite a few charges were raised about Fernandes and Dean Karen Kimmel; no new evidence came out over the summer from individuals or in the form of a paper trail. As I stated in May: 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. Oh, sure, bits and pieces dribbled out here and there, but nothing totally overwhelming that it presented a clear, stark picture.
The FSSA website continued to be a mess; there was no mission statement on its home page, or a quick summarization of events, the contentions, the overall message, or the demands that FSSA made. Indeed, the website was symbolic of the central weakness of the Tent City Protest thus far: there is no single reason for the removal of Fernandes. Charges of a "flawed process," "racism", "social justice," "cultural deafness (and don't try to tell me that isn't true-- not everyone said this, but there certainly were enough rumblings about this in certain quarters that it clearly was a concern for a number of people);" "poor leadership;" and "personality flaws." For every person I talked to, there was a slightly different reason, a slightly different justification, a slightly different take.
Would it really have killed FSSA to have spent some time over the summer remedying this glaring weakness? The lack of control over media exposure and the overall message proved the FSSA leadership's Achilles heel in May. While there's no way to go back and completely paper over that wound, it would have behooved FSSA to prepare for the fall.
"But they're students," you say. "They have the summer off." No, I'm sorry-- even during the 1960s, the key leadership, the core of groups such as SDS continued to act throughout the summer, as did the participants of Freedom Summer and the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam War. It's a lesson the students need to learn fast: the world isn't going to wait for you.
I don't have concrete evidence, but it was widely shared that FSSA declined the services of a DC-area public relations firm. If this is true, that was a totally stupid move. Additionally, many people privately grumbled to me that FSSA was waving away offers of help from alumni, and not listening to the suggestions many had. In one sense, they were correct to do so: as the saying goes, too many cooks in the kitchen... But on the other hand, alumni (especially DPN-era folks) had a lot to offer.
Visibility is important, and FSSA failed at this. While it was said that there were "meetings" during the summer, the only time I personally noticed FSSA capitalizing on anything was at the NAD conference. I've already virtually shot the poor fool who scheduled the FSSA and Deafhood workshops simultaneously, but there was nothing stopping FSSA from having an impromptu workshop. Instead, all we were treated to was a pep rally, with cheers, ASL poetry, chants, and brief speeches.
FSSA also did not appoint visible leadership as well. I discreetly inquired into this, and was told "white privilege" was at the heart of this decision. I'm white, so maybe I don't get it, but this protest was the first time I'd heard of "white privilege." Because of this, every decision was made by committee.
Excuse me? Nothing in history was ever won "by committee." Sure, the "Ducks" constituted a committee of sorts, but they were smart enough to have leaders in front of them. I'm sorry, but hiding behind the safety of a committee isn't going to work. The media isn't going to want 20 people at a press conference singing/signing "Kumbaya." They want, at the very least, a public figurehead, if not an actual leader. For better or for worse, someone has to step up, even if it means academic or career suicide in the short run.
Now, I agree that racism is alive and well, and not just at Gallaudet, but there is very little time. Issues of "white privilege" can be wrangled with at another time-- it isn't the central issue here. The removal of Fernandes is the primary objective, correct? If the key subject is really and truly racism and "white privilege," please correct me now.
As the summer wore on, more and more I heard grumblings of "Where's FSSA?" I urged frequent meetings between student leaders and administration over the summer. As far as I know, this didn't happen. The BoT held out an olive branch of sorts with its post-graduation letter. I didn't see a whole lot of effort to engage the BoT on the elements that both sides agreed upon or seemed willing to compromise. There needs to be some give and take, and if it doesn't happen, nothing is going to change.
Verdict: Poor. As I've said *many* times before, PR is half the battle. If FSSA isn't going to take advantage of summer downtime to retool their movement, and fine-tune their message, how are they going to have time once the Fall comes?
Alumni/Community
Ironically, the alumni and the community at large proved the most proactive actor in this mess. Alumni immediately reacted by withholding donations; I can't verify it now, but I was told by a reliable source in mid-June that as of that point, various university projects and funds had lost roughly $150,000 in donations since May 1. My source added that this unmistakably sends a message to the BoT and the administration: "Hello?? Get rid of her." Many alumni gathered after the FSSA pep rally at NAD and earnestly discussed solutions, exchanged information, and forged new ties.
Additionally, a number of people from across a wide spectrum maintained a steady dialogue and kept the various issues of the protest alive on GallyNet-L. There were times where I dreaded opening one of the digests, knowing I was guaranteed anywhere from 10-30 messages at any given time, but they also gave me insight as to the strengths and weaknesses of the protest. It was here as well that people started discussing how to resolve some of the festering wounds, such as the age-old battle between oralism and manualism, the proliferation of mainstreamed people in the community, and other aspects. Deafhood was also a hot topic, and while it has quieted down some since, holds promise as a tool to further explore deafness and possibly will provide an avenue to begin the healing that must come eventually.
Verdict: Good. Groups like Bay Area Perspective on Gally form the nucleus for groups that could continue to explore other areas of concern in the post-protest era. For all its flaws, GallyNet-L provides a forum for an exchange of ideas. I have become more and more convinced since May that the alumni are key to the protest, and central to the aftermath.
Summary
Overall, none of these factions came across well over the summer. With the possible exception of the alumni/community, none capitalized on the events of May. None tried to repair their obvious flaws. Most importantly of all, the promise of dialogue that the BoT offered doesn't seem to have happened. I'm hoping that it happens soon, because I think the sooner some kind of dialogue happens, the less damage overall there will be to repair.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 8:33 PM
<< Home