Tent City: Since Black Friday
Since Friday, October 13, the protest has both moved forward and stagnated. Regardless of the rejuvenation among the protesters, events since have lurched back and forth; in the end, it's still a stalemate.
The arrests electrified the community at large, and led to even more support nationwide. Quite a few people who had declared their neutrality or had condemned the protests/supported Fernandes changed their tack. A growing group of alumni gathered on campus grounds, and the number of letters addressed to Fernandes and the Board skyrocketed-- many were open letters, and can be viewed elsewhere (the FSSA site, for one, has collected quite a few, with all-star names sprinkled among a sea of others; many are from alumni).
I'd like to use this post to discuss a couple of these letters, as well as examine some of the statements made recently. I've pretty much abandoned trying to write a history of what's going on; for one thing, I'm just way too overwhelmed with what's happening-- there's a new event or incident every second, and there are others that are providing quick blurbs and updates (and again, for the record, here are the sites I recommend; they're the ones I check constantly. Elisa, MishkaZena, DeafRead, and of course, the Matt Drudge of the deaf blogosphere, Ridor. I also check Bay Area POV on Gally fairly often. Stick with those sites, you don't really need to go elsewhere. For opinion pieces (there are quite a few!), you can find them on DeafRead or at DeafDC). Second, I don't think, aside from a small core of loyal readers, that anyone particularly cares what I have to say at this time (the lack of comments definitely testify to that!).
That said, let's start with the letter from the Clerc Center Staff. The letter was initially distributed October 13, but got lost in the shuffle of the events of that day. FSSA picked it up and posted it on October 18. You can see it here.
I am both happy and sad to see this letter. First of all, I think it is a very good letter, and it outlines a lot of what I already knew, way back in April, when I first had doubts about Fernandes. My wife, an MSSD graduate, told me about what happened at MSSD and Kendall when Fernandes first came on board. MSSD is supposed to be a *MODEL* program; more than that, it's a high school. A lot of the programs that were cut are programs you'd find at many high schools (Driver's Ed and Career Development, for starters!). To just arbitrarily change things overnight is not only disruptive, it also diminished the educational experience for many students. Furthermore, the changes and problems at Kendall were unnecessary; Jamie Berke's experience just highlighted some of the more serious problems. (Since I wrote this, Berke, who has set up a blog separate from her role at About.com (a wise move on her part), has posted her meeting with another parent of a Kendall student, which reaffirmed her own disastrous experience.)
This letter, Berke's post, and what I've heard through talks with others just reaffirms something that I've been puzzling over for ages: if Fernandes screwed up Pre-College Programs that bad, why promote her? Other than the Peter Principle at work, I can't think of any other reason. She really should not have made it this far up the ladder as it is.
But one major problem I have with the letter is the fact that no one put their names to it. As I've said before, some people really are going to have to step up to the plate here-- career/academic suicide may be necessary, but no protest is ever truly bloodless (there are exceptions to the norm, yes, but that's true of everything-- there's *always* an exception, but usually this isn't how it works that the silent majority saves the day). Another problem I have is that it isn't backed up by documentation, dates, etc. It would be too long to do so in the letter itself, but there's nothing stopping its authors from setting up links on another site, or appending to the letter, or something similar.
Another letter that wended its way from the pen of its author to the public was Jim Macfadden's missive to I. King Jordan. Macfadden, a Gallaudet graduate who runs a successful consulting business, wrote a letter to Jordan prior to Black Friday. His original intent was to allow Dr. Jordan time to respond before making the letter public, but the events that subsequently unfolded led to the release of Macfadden's correspondence.
It's an excellent letter, and again, my only regret (as with the Clerc Center letter) is that this letter wasn't sent in April or May, but only now, in October. Macfadden first points out Jordan's attributes (his affability with people-- despite his reputation now, Jordan has always been quite approachable. I never saw Jerry Lee around at all, but Jordan was often visible; many people recall seeing him running around campus in the morning during his exercise/training sessions. These days he may not be accessible, but once upon a time, he was).
Macfadden then continues by stating how Fernandes terminated a friend of his (Ridor subsequently posted a letter from said former employee, long-time MSSD librarian Kitty Fischer); he continued by sharing another anecdote about how Fernandes ignored a major contributor. His letter concludes by recounting how Fernandes used her staff to violate an agreement among the finalists during their open campus presentations; given the visibility of her staff at these presentations alone, she should have been reprimanded (and probably disqualified as well). Instead, she was promoted.
I agree with Macfadden's sentiment: "Her performance as Provost and prior is dismal. To be promoted while receiving censure from the faculty is a disgrace to Gallaudet."
Why the hell was she promoted???? The presidency is essentially equivalent to CEO of a company. You do not promote someone who makes horrible personnel decisions, depresses morale, makes unnecessary and damaging overhauls, ignores major contributors and stakeholders, and manipulates the hiring process. You do not promote someone who has repeatedly received votes of no-confidence from the university faculty. This letter alone should give Jordan and the Board pause; the fact that they chose to ignore these facts is puzzling and, frankly, unconscionable.
But most of you already know this. What bothers me is that there aren't more of these letters. What bothers me is that people waited until now to step up and say these things. What bothers me is that there isn't more documented, hard evidence.
I know some of it is that a lot of incidents are of the "he said, she said" variety; that's understandable, but it's still important to share. Some of it is the fear of retribution. Back in May, I could understand this; but in the last few weeks, its become a weak, flimsy excuse. If Fernandes isn't promoted, then the threat of reprisals diminishes. If the Board of Trustees is replaced (and more and more, to my mind, I think a number of them need to reconsider their affiliation. This is now definitely a CRISIS-- *where* is the Board???), the possibility of repercussions dwindles even more. Besides, if this woman is truly that difficult to work for, honestly has this many problems, why would you want to work under her? Why would you want to sit back, keep your mouth shut, and possibly spend the next ten to twenty years under her rule? Believe me, once she's installed, and the university is firmly under her guidance, you may end up axed anyway, for one reason or another. You may end up leaving anyway, for one reason or another. Why not make a stand now, when it truly counts?
The arrests electrified the community at large, and led to even more support nationwide. Quite a few people who had declared their neutrality or had condemned the protests/supported Fernandes changed their tack. A growing group of alumni gathered on campus grounds, and the number of letters addressed to Fernandes and the Board skyrocketed-- many were open letters, and can be viewed elsewhere (the FSSA site, for one, has collected quite a few, with all-star names sprinkled among a sea of others; many are from alumni).
I'd like to use this post to discuss a couple of these letters, as well as examine some of the statements made recently. I've pretty much abandoned trying to write a history of what's going on; for one thing, I'm just way too overwhelmed with what's happening-- there's a new event or incident every second, and there are others that are providing quick blurbs and updates (and again, for the record, here are the sites I recommend; they're the ones I check constantly. Elisa, MishkaZena, DeafRead, and of course, the Matt Drudge of the deaf blogosphere, Ridor. I also check Bay Area POV on Gally fairly often. Stick with those sites, you don't really need to go elsewhere. For opinion pieces (there are quite a few!), you can find them on DeafRead or at DeafDC). Second, I don't think, aside from a small core of loyal readers, that anyone particularly cares what I have to say at this time (the lack of comments definitely testify to that!).
That said, let's start with the letter from the Clerc Center Staff. The letter was initially distributed October 13, but got lost in the shuffle of the events of that day. FSSA picked it up and posted it on October 18. You can see it here.
I am both happy and sad to see this letter. First of all, I think it is a very good letter, and it outlines a lot of what I already knew, way back in April, when I first had doubts about Fernandes. My wife, an MSSD graduate, told me about what happened at MSSD and Kendall when Fernandes first came on board. MSSD is supposed to be a *MODEL* program; more than that, it's a high school. A lot of the programs that were cut are programs you'd find at many high schools (Driver's Ed and Career Development, for starters!). To just arbitrarily change things overnight is not only disruptive, it also diminished the educational experience for many students. Furthermore, the changes and problems at Kendall were unnecessary; Jamie Berke's experience just highlighted some of the more serious problems. (Since I wrote this, Berke, who has set up a blog separate from her role at About.com (a wise move on her part), has posted her meeting with another parent of a Kendall student, which reaffirmed her own disastrous experience.)
This letter, Berke's post, and what I've heard through talks with others just reaffirms something that I've been puzzling over for ages: if Fernandes screwed up Pre-College Programs that bad, why promote her? Other than the Peter Principle at work, I can't think of any other reason. She really should not have made it this far up the ladder as it is.
But one major problem I have with the letter is the fact that no one put their names to it. As I've said before, some people really are going to have to step up to the plate here-- career/academic suicide may be necessary, but no protest is ever truly bloodless (there are exceptions to the norm, yes, but that's true of everything-- there's *always* an exception, but usually this isn't how it works that the silent majority saves the day). Another problem I have is that it isn't backed up by documentation, dates, etc. It would be too long to do so in the letter itself, but there's nothing stopping its authors from setting up links on another site, or appending to the letter, or something similar.
Another letter that wended its way from the pen of its author to the public was Jim Macfadden's missive to I. King Jordan. Macfadden, a Gallaudet graduate who runs a successful consulting business, wrote a letter to Jordan prior to Black Friday. His original intent was to allow Dr. Jordan time to respond before making the letter public, but the events that subsequently unfolded led to the release of Macfadden's correspondence.
It's an excellent letter, and again, my only regret (as with the Clerc Center letter) is that this letter wasn't sent in April or May, but only now, in October. Macfadden first points out Jordan's attributes (his affability with people-- despite his reputation now, Jordan has always been quite approachable. I never saw Jerry Lee around at all, but Jordan was often visible; many people recall seeing him running around campus in the morning during his exercise/training sessions. These days he may not be accessible, but once upon a time, he was).
Macfadden then continues by stating how Fernandes terminated a friend of his (Ridor subsequently posted a letter from said former employee, long-time MSSD librarian Kitty Fischer); he continued by sharing another anecdote about how Fernandes ignored a major contributor. His letter concludes by recounting how Fernandes used her staff to violate an agreement among the finalists during their open campus presentations; given the visibility of her staff at these presentations alone, she should have been reprimanded (and probably disqualified as well). Instead, she was promoted.
I agree with Macfadden's sentiment: "Her performance as Provost and prior is dismal. To be promoted while receiving censure from the faculty is a disgrace to Gallaudet."
Why the hell was she promoted???? The presidency is essentially equivalent to CEO of a company. You do not promote someone who makes horrible personnel decisions, depresses morale, makes unnecessary and damaging overhauls, ignores major contributors and stakeholders, and manipulates the hiring process. You do not promote someone who has repeatedly received votes of no-confidence from the university faculty. This letter alone should give Jordan and the Board pause; the fact that they chose to ignore these facts is puzzling and, frankly, unconscionable.
But most of you already know this. What bothers me is that there aren't more of these letters. What bothers me is that people waited until now to step up and say these things. What bothers me is that there isn't more documented, hard evidence.
I know some of it is that a lot of incidents are of the "he said, she said" variety; that's understandable, but it's still important to share. Some of it is the fear of retribution. Back in May, I could understand this; but in the last few weeks, its become a weak, flimsy excuse. If Fernandes isn't promoted, then the threat of reprisals diminishes. If the Board of Trustees is replaced (and more and more, to my mind, I think a number of them need to reconsider their affiliation. This is now definitely a CRISIS-- *where* is the Board???), the possibility of repercussions dwindles even more. Besides, if this woman is truly that difficult to work for, honestly has this many problems, why would you want to work under her? Why would you want to sit back, keep your mouth shut, and possibly spend the next ten to twenty years under her rule? Believe me, once she's installed, and the university is firmly under her guidance, you may end up axed anyway, for one reason or another. You may end up leaving anyway, for one reason or another. Why not make a stand now, when it truly counts?
posted by Mr. Sandman | 8:32 PM
<< Home