Tent City: Aftermath and Possible Solutions
Tonight, there are celebrations all over Deaf America; the protesters succeeded in forcing the BoT's hand. Yet, just as with DPN, there are larger, overarching problems and issues that remain, that will have to be dealt with. Now is the time for all of us, whether we are leaders on the ground, leaders of long-standing repute, or bloggers with any shred of influence, to begin to work together, in tandem with the deaf community, to start to deconstruct some of these issues and then re-construct certain elements, redefine paradigms, and begin to envision not only how the Gallaudet of the 21st century will function, but also how as a community, we will grow, develop, and change.
The news of Fernandes' removal has been noted on many major news websites tonight (NYT (lifted wholly from the AP), Washington Post, CNN, and many others, I'm sure), and I'm sure will continue to get press notice tomorrow. However, in most forums, Gallaudet will vanish, to be replaced by the next big story (not to mention, there's something big happening on November 7, if I recall correctly...). This is a shame, because a lot of the damage and fallout has come in the media. Most harmful has been the meme of "They don't like me because I'm not deaf enough." That statement was not only disingenuous, it was harmful-- for someone who claimed she wanted to make Gallaudet more "inclusive," Fernandes managed to make Gallaudet look like a highly segregated, clannish enclave, where you will not be welcomed if you don't toe the line.
While anyone who's ever experienced Gallaudet, and has witnessed the cafeteria seating schematics in particular, will find some truth to this, it's also true that cliques, hierarchies, and the like are prevalent elsewhere too-- it's not wholly unique to only Gallaudet or only the Deaf-world. However, it is incumbent on all of us, especially those who have been pushing for increased inclusiveness, to not just talk the talk but also walk the walk.
To better illustrate this, I'd like to refer you to this excerpt from the profile on Fernandes in today's Washington Post:
It's also a tale that will be told again and again, that will occur many times over in the future; they may not be as arrogant, insular, and oblivious, but there are many, many Jane Fernandes out there, and many of them will join or participate in the community (some to a greater extent than others); if we really want to have an inclusive community, and we want to embrace all kinds of deaf people, there's going to be a need to reach out, rather than close the door. In that spirit, I still extend the offer from the other day:
Now, let's move on to some of the issues.
Finding a New Leader
None of us are probably going to have much say in this, since it'll be up to the Board of Trustees to determine how to proceed, but I'm going to impart my unsolicited advice anyway. Right now, as I see it, there's three immediate options.
1) Jordan stays indefinitely until a new president is chosen.
This is possible-- despite the plummet in his poll numbers (if a poll were taken, that is) and the distrust his words and actions have engendered, this is a logical possibility. After all, he's been president for 18 years, he still is president, and it probably wouldn't kill him to stay on another six months to a year.
2) Jordan leaves come December 31, no one replaces him, and Dr. Michael Moore, the current interim provost, continues to handle internal campus affairs with the Board managing external affairs until a new president is chosen.
This is highly unlikely-- at other campuses where this kind of situation arises where the university's presidency is vacant, an interim president is almost always chosen. Of course, that leads us to...
3) Jordan leaves come December 31, and an interim president is chosen, with Moore remaining as interim provost. This transitional team remains until their permanent replacements have been chosen.
This is the most likely scenario, and would probably happen fairly quickly-- after all, Fernandes is no longer on the scene, and we have just a handful of weeks until the end of the semester, the holidays, and then Jordan's departure.
Given that this is what will probably happen, they could do this in a couple of ways. They could do what they did the last time this happened, and turn to one of the remaining two candidates. Most likely Dr. Steve Weiner would get the nod, and most people would find him acceptable. However, given the fact that it was a suspect search process to begin with, I think this option is one the Board should take a pass on.
They could ask Jordan to remain indefinitely, and use the time to quickly re-start the search process as it is. While this would be the quickest way to find new candidates, I also think it isn't appropriate. There needs to be additional transparency, and that means the search process needs to be overhauled.
Another option is to appoint an interim president to serve until a new candidate is selected. This would give the Board time to start interacting further with the campus community, and start building some of the bridges they promised back in May, right after graduation. One of the ways that bridge can be built is to work with the campus in revising and designing a better search process and framework for handling the final candidate pool.
The last option is to appoint an interim president to serve for a limited amount of time; this isn't something new-- Jerry Lee, I. King Jordan's predecessor, was asked to serve in the wake of Dr. Lloyd Johns' embarrassing departure from office, and stated that he intended to serve no longer than 5 to 7 years. True to form, he announced his departure from House One in 1987, thus setting in motion the chain of events that became DPN.
I'd say these last two options are the best-- personally, I'd prefer option #2. I think this may be best as I'd rather the Board, the administration, and the campus community at large take time to thoroughly discuss where they go from here, and make sure that policies and procedures related to future Presidential searches, general campus policies, and frameworks for dealing with issues such as audism, racism, bilingualism, ASL usage, academic standards, etc., are in place. It allows a "caretaker president" to maintain some sort of stability while Gallaudet grapples with how best to approach the future, and to pick a president that will best lead the campus while it heals into a post-healing period, and the future.
Something to consider here is the uniqueness of the office of President at Gallaudet; at most universities, it is rare these days for a president to stay beyond an average of seven or so years. Johns, Zinser, and now Fernandes notwithstanding, Gallaudet's leaders have occupied House One for decades at a time. Should Gallaudet continue in this vein, or should it move towards a more conventional standard of shorter terms of office? Would this new policy be implied, or would a set term be stated in the next president's contract? Is having one leader stay ensconced best, utilizing institutional memory and political, fiscal, and personal relationships to the university's advantage? Might it be better to instead allow the best leaders we have to have more opportunities to guide Gallaudet through the future? These are some of the questions that should be addressed.
The Search Process
I'm not an expert, or even knowledgeable, about search processes. While I've previously served on a hiring committee or two, I'm not intimate with CEO searches (and that's exactly what the search for a university president is-- a CEO search). That said, I think the BoT needs to overhaul the Presidential Search Committee's current design to provide somewhat more transparency. At the same time, the campus community and especially the students, will have to realize that confidentiality and a certain amount of privacy will continue to be required. This is going to be a tricky balancing act to achieve, but that's what's going to have to happen. This is yet another reason why I think appointing an interim president to serve a limited term would be beneficial-- it would allow the BoT time to research and investigate how other universities conduct their searches, and then determine the best plan to implement.
One aspect of the search process that can definitely be changed immediately is to ensure that anytime an outside firm is hired, an advisor or team be paired with the firm to provide knowledge and guidance of Gallaudet, ASL, and Deaf culture. To do so otherwise is to risk a large part of what Gallaudet is vanishing from whatever conclusions are reached. Gallaudet isn't your average, everyday university; even among the Historically Black Colleges (of which Howard University is one), there's dozens of them. Despite large programs, colleges, or divisions at other schools, Gallaudet is the sole four-year liberal arts university for the deaf out there. This, of course, means a unique constituency, and an outsider can't just waltz in and expect to understand Gallaudet's environment, culture, and mission right off the bat. Since we don't, to the best of my knowledge, have any deaf people working for such firms, it's important that any future personnel searches involving outside agencies have an advisor or advisors working with external consultants of any kind.
The Final Candidate Pool
One suggestion I have for when the process reaches this stage is to restructure how public presentations are arranged. The public presentation schedule back in April upset quite a few people, and in retrospect, I agree. Dr. Weiner was given just a few days to prepare, Mr. Stern a bit longer, and Dr. Fernandes benefited by having, if I recall, two weeks before her presentation.
My humble proposal is that next time, ALL the candidates be allowed a week prior to the beginning of the presentations. The applicants then should be scheduled for the following week-- say one on Monday, one on Wednesday, one on Friday (or one on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday-- whatever works best). If there is another candidate or two with home-field advantage, such as Fernandes and Weiner were last time, I'd schedule them FIRST. There also needs to be increased oversight on the part of the search committee and the Board as well-- the fact that none of the candidates were to be present at each others' forums, nor their representatives, is a boundary that needs to be respected. Many people saw staff members from Fernandes' office taking copious notes at both Dr. Weiner's and Mr. Stern's presentations; as I previously said, Fernandes should have been reprimanded at the very least, and probably should have been disqualified.
I'd also advise the BoT next time to pay more attention to the search criteria. Rob Voreck, aka Private Investigator, did a great job breaking down how Fernandes failed to meet the desirable elements outlined at the beginning of the entire search. The most critical point listed was
Build community through open, responsive and visible communication that encourages reciprocal trust both internal and external to Gallaudet;
Anyone with half a brain could see even before May 1 that Fernandes was a divisive candidate, that she didn't have the support necessary for the job even before she was chosen, and that reciprocal trust was lacking. The fact that the BoT played ostrich and ignored all the warning signs the community, both at Gallaudet and outside, were sending is beyond me.
- - - - -
There's more I'd like to touch on, and some thoughts I'd like to share on the various groups involved, but I think this will do for now. Whether anyone with any real power to do so reads and follows the above advice is unknown, but I hope that the rest of you at least begin to understand that the denial of Fernandes' promotion is just the tip of the iceberg; one battle has been won. The real work is still ahead.
The news of Fernandes' removal has been noted on many major news websites tonight (NYT (lifted wholly from the AP), Washington Post, CNN, and many others, I'm sure), and I'm sure will continue to get press notice tomorrow. However, in most forums, Gallaudet will vanish, to be replaced by the next big story (not to mention, there's something big happening on November 7, if I recall correctly...). This is a shame, because a lot of the damage and fallout has come in the media. Most harmful has been the meme of "They don't like me because I'm not deaf enough." That statement was not only disingenuous, it was harmful-- for someone who claimed she wanted to make Gallaudet more "inclusive," Fernandes managed to make Gallaudet look like a highly segregated, clannish enclave, where you will not be welcomed if you don't toe the line.
While anyone who's ever experienced Gallaudet, and has witnessed the cafeteria seating schematics in particular, will find some truth to this, it's also true that cliques, hierarchies, and the like are prevalent elsewhere too-- it's not wholly unique to only Gallaudet or only the Deaf-world. However, it is incumbent on all of us, especially those who have been pushing for increased inclusiveness, to not just talk the talk but also walk the walk.
To better illustrate this, I'd like to refer you to this excerpt from the profile on Fernandes in today's Washington Post:
"There I saw about 300 deaf people, all signing," Fernandes said. "It was a life-changing event. A complete bombshell, in a silent room. For the first time, I knew that there were a lot of other people in the world just like me. I learned that I was not alone. I had found my people."While this kind of incident may be news to the general hearing population, it's an old story to many of us who are not native signers, who didn't grow up with deaf relatives who used ASL, who didn't attend a residential school, or otherwise have any kind of contact with the Deaf-world.
It's also a tale that will be told again and again, that will occur many times over in the future; they may not be as arrogant, insular, and oblivious, but there are many, many Jane Fernandes out there, and many of them will join or participate in the community (some to a greater extent than others); if we really want to have an inclusive community, and we want to embrace all kinds of deaf people, there's going to be a need to reach out, rather than close the door. In that spirit, I still extend the offer from the other day:
If she truly feels she has a role to play in how the community evolves, then she's welcome to do so as a member of the community. I, for one, would like to hear what she has to say as a member of the community.That's true for anyone else too. Feel free to comment on what you think should happen in the days, weeks, and months to come.
Now, let's move on to some of the issues.
Finding a New Leader
None of us are probably going to have much say in this, since it'll be up to the Board of Trustees to determine how to proceed, but I'm going to impart my unsolicited advice anyway. Right now, as I see it, there's three immediate options.
1) Jordan stays indefinitely until a new president is chosen.
This is possible-- despite the plummet in his poll numbers (if a poll were taken, that is) and the distrust his words and actions have engendered, this is a logical possibility. After all, he's been president for 18 years, he still is president, and it probably wouldn't kill him to stay on another six months to a year.
2) Jordan leaves come December 31, no one replaces him, and Dr. Michael Moore, the current interim provost, continues to handle internal campus affairs with the Board managing external affairs until a new president is chosen.
This is highly unlikely-- at other campuses where this kind of situation arises where the university's presidency is vacant, an interim president is almost always chosen. Of course, that leads us to...
3) Jordan leaves come December 31, and an interim president is chosen, with Moore remaining as interim provost. This transitional team remains until their permanent replacements have been chosen.
This is the most likely scenario, and would probably happen fairly quickly-- after all, Fernandes is no longer on the scene, and we have just a handful of weeks until the end of the semester, the holidays, and then Jordan's departure.
Given that this is what will probably happen, they could do this in a couple of ways. They could do what they did the last time this happened, and turn to one of the remaining two candidates. Most likely Dr. Steve Weiner would get the nod, and most people would find him acceptable. However, given the fact that it was a suspect search process to begin with, I think this option is one the Board should take a pass on.
They could ask Jordan to remain indefinitely, and use the time to quickly re-start the search process as it is. While this would be the quickest way to find new candidates, I also think it isn't appropriate. There needs to be additional transparency, and that means the search process needs to be overhauled.
Another option is to appoint an interim president to serve until a new candidate is selected. This would give the Board time to start interacting further with the campus community, and start building some of the bridges they promised back in May, right after graduation. One of the ways that bridge can be built is to work with the campus in revising and designing a better search process and framework for handling the final candidate pool.
The last option is to appoint an interim president to serve for a limited amount of time; this isn't something new-- Jerry Lee, I. King Jordan's predecessor, was asked to serve in the wake of Dr. Lloyd Johns' embarrassing departure from office, and stated that he intended to serve no longer than 5 to 7 years. True to form, he announced his departure from House One in 1987, thus setting in motion the chain of events that became DPN.
I'd say these last two options are the best-- personally, I'd prefer option #2. I think this may be best as I'd rather the Board, the administration, and the campus community at large take time to thoroughly discuss where they go from here, and make sure that policies and procedures related to future Presidential searches, general campus policies, and frameworks for dealing with issues such as audism, racism, bilingualism, ASL usage, academic standards, etc., are in place. It allows a "caretaker president" to maintain some sort of stability while Gallaudet grapples with how best to approach the future, and to pick a president that will best lead the campus while it heals into a post-healing period, and the future.
Something to consider here is the uniqueness of the office of President at Gallaudet; at most universities, it is rare these days for a president to stay beyond an average of seven or so years. Johns, Zinser, and now Fernandes notwithstanding, Gallaudet's leaders have occupied House One for decades at a time. Should Gallaudet continue in this vein, or should it move towards a more conventional standard of shorter terms of office? Would this new policy be implied, or would a set term be stated in the next president's contract? Is having one leader stay ensconced best, utilizing institutional memory and political, fiscal, and personal relationships to the university's advantage? Might it be better to instead allow the best leaders we have to have more opportunities to guide Gallaudet through the future? These are some of the questions that should be addressed.
The Search Process
I'm not an expert, or even knowledgeable, about search processes. While I've previously served on a hiring committee or two, I'm not intimate with CEO searches (and that's exactly what the search for a university president is-- a CEO search). That said, I think the BoT needs to overhaul the Presidential Search Committee's current design to provide somewhat more transparency. At the same time, the campus community and especially the students, will have to realize that confidentiality and a certain amount of privacy will continue to be required. This is going to be a tricky balancing act to achieve, but that's what's going to have to happen. This is yet another reason why I think appointing an interim president to serve a limited term would be beneficial-- it would allow the BoT time to research and investigate how other universities conduct their searches, and then determine the best plan to implement.
One aspect of the search process that can definitely be changed immediately is to ensure that anytime an outside firm is hired, an advisor or team be paired with the firm to provide knowledge and guidance of Gallaudet, ASL, and Deaf culture. To do so otherwise is to risk a large part of what Gallaudet is vanishing from whatever conclusions are reached. Gallaudet isn't your average, everyday university; even among the Historically Black Colleges (of which Howard University is one), there's dozens of them. Despite large programs, colleges, or divisions at other schools, Gallaudet is the sole four-year liberal arts university for the deaf out there. This, of course, means a unique constituency, and an outsider can't just waltz in and expect to understand Gallaudet's environment, culture, and mission right off the bat. Since we don't, to the best of my knowledge, have any deaf people working for such firms, it's important that any future personnel searches involving outside agencies have an advisor or advisors working with external consultants of any kind.
The Final Candidate Pool
One suggestion I have for when the process reaches this stage is to restructure how public presentations are arranged. The public presentation schedule back in April upset quite a few people, and in retrospect, I agree. Dr. Weiner was given just a few days to prepare, Mr. Stern a bit longer, and Dr. Fernandes benefited by having, if I recall, two weeks before her presentation.
My humble proposal is that next time, ALL the candidates be allowed a week prior to the beginning of the presentations. The applicants then should be scheduled for the following week-- say one on Monday, one on Wednesday, one on Friday (or one on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday-- whatever works best). If there is another candidate or two with home-field advantage, such as Fernandes and Weiner were last time, I'd schedule them FIRST. There also needs to be increased oversight on the part of the search committee and the Board as well-- the fact that none of the candidates were to be present at each others' forums, nor their representatives, is a boundary that needs to be respected. Many people saw staff members from Fernandes' office taking copious notes at both Dr. Weiner's and Mr. Stern's presentations; as I previously said, Fernandes should have been reprimanded at the very least, and probably should have been disqualified.
I'd also advise the BoT next time to pay more attention to the search criteria. Rob Voreck, aka Private Investigator, did a great job breaking down how Fernandes failed to meet the desirable elements outlined at the beginning of the entire search. The most critical point listed was
Build community through open, responsive and visible communication that encourages reciprocal trust both internal and external to Gallaudet;
Anyone with half a brain could see even before May 1 that Fernandes was a divisive candidate, that she didn't have the support necessary for the job even before she was chosen, and that reciprocal trust was lacking. The fact that the BoT played ostrich and ignored all the warning signs the community, both at Gallaudet and outside, were sending is beyond me.
- - - - -
There's more I'd like to touch on, and some thoughts I'd like to share on the various groups involved, but I think this will do for now. Whether anyone with any real power to do so reads and follows the above advice is unknown, but I hope that the rest of you at least begin to understand that the denial of Fernandes' promotion is just the tip of the iceberg; one battle has been won. The real work is still ahead.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 11:52 PM
<< Home