Tent City: Since Black Friday Continued

In my last post, I discussed a couple of letters, the kind of letters I believe could turn the tide. Tons of letters are coming in by the day now, from all walks of life; most are from alumni, but some are coming from "big-name" deaf people-- Jack and Rosalyn Gannon, Merv Garretson, Frank Turk, Robert Davila, Yerker Andersson... But one letter that surprised and heartened me was the letter from Dolores Huerta. Huerta, the co-founder (with Cesar Chavez) of the United Farm Workers, is well-known and is a hearing person with no ties to Gallaudet. It is people like her that will add weight to the calls for the denial of Fernandes' promotion (this is a tack I'd like to see more people take up; talk about her promotion-- focus on why she should not be promoted. Emphasize her actions at MSSD, Kendall, the votes of no-confidence by the faculty, etc., etc. These are the kinds of things that will get people's attention, and truly make the case for denying Fernandes the presidency).

One thing though that I think the protesters, FSSA, etc., need to admit is that language/identity politics are a part of why people are against Fernandes. It's already out there, and it continues to be widely disseminated. The Washington Post lately has finally been exploring the roots of dissatisfaction deeper, and others are following, but there is still a large segment of the public that continues to wonder why a deaf woman is being denied the presidency at a school with a majority deaf student population. It certainly doesn't help when people like Larry Fleischer make comments in the Los Angeles Times like this:

There have been arguments that Gallaudet needs a president who has been deaf from birth, said Lawrence Fleischer, chair of the deaf studies department at Cal State Northridge. "People want to see a leader there who really belongs to the community and belongs to them," Fleischer said. "Dr. Fernandes didn't have contact with the deaf community or deaf schools until she went to college." [Los Angeles Times, October 13, 2006]

I'll say one thing in Fleischer's defense- it's possible he said this as part of a larger interview, and that this unfortunate quote is the one that the reporter chose. Still, it doesn't help when this is the main perception that people have. Granted, later in the same piece, Jesse Thomas is quoted, and the point is made, that the concerns about Fernandes are larger than just her deafness. But to look at some of the debates at DeafDC and elsewhere, you wouldn't know it.

My suggestion? Admit it, but immediately follow-up by saying that it was one among many concerns, and that for protesters, faculty members, staff, etc., specifically, it is Fernandes' performance while at Gallaudet that has formed the bulwark of concerns about her promotion (See? Again, it's about her promotion; it's not about her deafness, it's about her promotion. Is she worthy of being promoted? No. Why not? Go from there...). Instead of letting Fernandes, the Gallaudet PR machine, and the media run away with this whole "she's not deaf enough" meme, create a NEW meme: "She's not worthy of promotion." When the media ask, "Well, why isn't she deaf enough for you?", simply reply: "She's deaf, she's one of us. She's a deaf person from a deaf family; that is NOT the issue. The issue is that she has performed poorly, she does not have the ability to unify and lead the campus. She is a living personification of the Peter Principle." Turn it around, and negate the issue immediately.

Fernandes has continued with this meme; one of the latest efforts is an open online discussion with The Washington Post. While she deftly avoided any mention of the problems that she created while head of Pre-College Programs and the votes of no-confidence, in addition to other issues that protesters have brought up, she came across as reasonable to a national audience.

Some of what she said is correct, or logical. For example:

Washington, D.C.: The thing I'm sure you find frustrating about the students' position is how little they're willing to compromise. They keep saying they want you to come and negotiate with them, but what's the point when all they want is your resignation? Have you seen any evidence that they're actually interested in having a dialogue with you, as opposed to just making demands?

Jane K. Fernandes: To date, they have held firm to two non-negotiable demands. There is no fall back position and no room for negotiating.

She's correct: the two demands are non-negotiable, so logically, there really isn't any room for negotiations. That said, she has been able to breeze past quite a few examples of mismanagement on her part, the search process (which in my eyes and the eyes of many others, was suspect at best), and the fact that she clearly does not have the support of a majority of the campus community (when a majority of voting faculty members issues a vote of no-confidence, not once, but three times, and a majority of students are manning the front gates daily saying they don't want you as a leader, that's pretty damning evidence). Leadership, Dr. Fernandes, isn't just about "making very tough decisions"; it's also about being able to lead. As the saying goes, if no one is following you, then you're not a leader. You're just taking a walk.

By contrast, LaToya Plummer, who also participated in an online discussion, gave rather vague, broad answers. For example:

Washington, D.C.: Your answers to the questions regarding the goals of this protest are still pretty vague - "issues' of racism, audism, and shared governance don't really get across what the real problem's are, or what the proposed solution would be. Is there anywhere else where the views of the protestors are explained in more detail?

LaToya Plummer: The issues are clear. A leader must be able to lead at any university. He or She must understand the concept of shared governance. He or she must have the ability to comprehend the issues occurring on campus and act to solve it for the best interest of the university. Neither Dr. Jordan or Dr. Fernandes are demonstrating quality leadership

"Shared governance"? Audism? Racism? Come on... I've met LaToya, and she seems smart. It puzzles me that the FSSA leadership, the student leaders, etc., can't piece together a solid narrative. As someone else rightly pointed out earlier in Plummer's discussion, students at most universities do not get to pick the university leaders/presidents. At best, they might have one representative on the search committee/hiring panel, or have some other minor role in vetting candidates. Audism? If the students at Gallaudet think they face audism (and I'm sure they do-- Gallaudet, for all of its wonderful benefits, is not immune from problems), wait til they graduate and face the real world. Boy, do I have stories for them... Racism is a huge problem everywhere, and one that society grapples with.

Again, if you're going to win, PR is half the battle. At the very least, the students need to have a coherent narrative. They need to be able to point people to sources, as the above quote demonstrates ("Is there anywhere else where the views of the protestors are explained in more detail?" To be fair, Plummer later does direct another query to the official FSSA site. But in typing up my latest posts, I noticed FSSA still doesn't have a clear mission statement or a narrative on their home page. Navigating through all the open letters was troublesome, at best).

Plummer did do a better job in the second half:

Silver Spring, Md.: Explain how this current protest is either similar or different to the protests in 1988 that resulted in Dr. Jordan's presidency at Gallaudet.

LaToya Plummer: you cannot compare the two. in 1988, the issue was about having a deaf president. In this one in 2006, the issue is about failed leadership

I still have concerns about how the students are detailing this failed leadership, but Plummer is on target-- the two are NOT comparable, and yes, the present one is about failed leadership. This is the kind of meme that needs to be pushed more often, and I'm glad Plummer said it.

Fernandes was also interviewed by the Post, in an article published October 20. In this article, Interim Board Chair Dr. Brenda Brueggemann states that Fernandes was "the most qualified candidate." Yes, compared to Weiner and Stern. Compared to Anderson? Rosen? Several others? No. The Presidential Search Committee, for whatever reasons, presented the BoT with a rather lopsided final pool, one that included a candidate with no Ph.D. and practically no experience in higher education. Ron Stern for Pre-College Programs? Hell, yes. For provost? Why not? For president? Something's funny here... That alone should have been a wake-up call for the Board and for the community at large. The fact that the BoT chose to ignore the nature of the final candidate pool and the fact that many campus community members chose to hope breathlessly that Weiner or Stern would be chosen is something both should regret, if they don't already.

The Post article notes another important fact: "Fernandes's appointment as provost without a full search..." This is another example of a fact that the protesters need to keep pushing. She was promoted to provost in a process that was also suspect. This is the first time I've seen this fact in such a prominent place in a public forum that wasn't deaf-centered; it needs to become part of the overall narrative (none of this, "she didn't publish our yearbook!" stuff; the average person that participated in the online discussions or reads about it in any of the newspapers and stations that have covered this don't care about that-- they can and will care about someone who was wrongfully promoted (again, there's that funny word! Promotion...).

The piece continues:

Fernandes said she believes she has become a lightning rod as deaf culture changes. As increasing numbers of children get cochlear implants, learn to speak rather than sign, and go to mainstream schools, she said, Gallaudet must adapt to the evolution in the deaf community.

Some see those changes as a kind of "genocide," she said...

Yes, to be fair, she has become a lightning rod. Yes, to be fair, quite a few people made hay out of the fact that she isn't fluent in ASL and that she isn't as attuned to Deaf culture as some would like. But there's a couple things wrong with this picture. First, these changes have already been happening, and will continue to happen, regardless of whether she's president or not. Even during my day at Gallaudet, there were already students there who had cochlear implants, or actively used them. This was before Fernandes was even hired for her first job at Gallaudet. The brouhaha over Brueggemann's speaking at Gallaudet? Jimmie Dixon delivered the undergraduate speech using his voice [in 1998, I believe; correct me if I'm wrong...]; there certainly wasn't the level of consternation that there was for Brueggemann. A double standard when it comes to Brueggemann, perhaps, but Fernandes wasn't even provost when Dixon attended Gallaudet. These changes weren't at Gallaudet exactly at the moment when she was promoted to the presidency; they've been happening for a while, and over some time now.

Second, I don't care for the word "genocide" here-- yes, some changes are happening, and people will have to live with them. Some of these changes aren't acceptable, such as the threats to the residential schools, and people will need to educate legislators, parents, educators, and others as to why the schools should remain among an array of options for deaf children. Yes, cochlear implants and mainstreaming are changing the face of deaf America. But you know what? In the end, there will always be deaf people. There will always be people that come to Gallaudet or the community later in life, ready to learn sign, and to expand their horizons. Whether they are truly welcomed, and to what extent they stay in and are involved in the community are larger, broader questions than just governing Gallaudet.

While the leadership of Gallaudet has a dual role at times, the essential function remains: to lead a university (regardless of its unique constituency). If Fernandes is not welcomed as a leader, then she needs to realize that and step aside. 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.

Now an interesting part of the article comes up. The Board has maintained that it merely has an advisory role, and has deferred to Jordan (and by extension, Fernandes) during this time. However, Fernandes clearly states in this article, "The Board needs to make it clear to the faculty, students, staff and alumni that they don't run the University, the Board does..."

Oh? The BOARD runs the university? Then where is the Board? Why isn't the Board meeting now, instead of waiting til the end of the month? Why isn't the Board realizing that perhaps it is incumbent upon them to make some difficult decisions about the consequences of their choice? As Ray Cotton states, "I realize they're volunteers, but there is a set of responsibilities that comes with being a trustee. You can't walk away from that."

So far Fernandes has controlled the dialogue; while she has been visibly missing at many crucial junctures this month, she certainly hasn't missed the opportunity to meet with the press. The students need to take a lesson from Fernandes; it wouldn't hurt to develop a set of memes, a timeline of Fernandes' performance at Gallaudet, and a compelling story.

Above all, it needs to be a simple story: the tale of one woman's promotion, and why she should NOT be promoted.