Mr. Sandman's Sandbox

Blogger: Ave et Vale

2006-11-15T21:47:00.000-08:00

You know, nothing is forever. Everything is finite, even the universe. So it stands to reason this blog is impermanent as well.

Now, before you start wondering, no-- I haven't decided to quit blogging. I know there's been long stretches of silence, moments of herky-jerkiness, where I've backposted and filled in the void. But generally, I've managed to keep this blog going for nearly two years. Throughout it all, I've enjoyed the platform I currently have.

But life is not just ultimately impermance; it's also about change. It's time for me to make a change. This is the last post I'll be doing here at Blogger. While I don't plan to eradicate this particular address, I won't be saying anything here anymore (with the exception of responding to any comments that come in following this particular post-- I'll still respond to you, my readers!). Instead, I'm setting up shop over at DeafRead. The new and improved Sandbox can be found at Mr. Sandman's Sandbox.

The name remains the same; all the entries have been imported and moved; my particular brand of rants and raves won't change; the general lack of comments probably won't change either (just my luck!). It's just the URL and the supporting platform, which will be WordPress.

I'll miss the combination of tan and cream, the old-fashioned font styling, and Haloscan. But I think it'll be fun regardless-- I'll still be spouting my particular brand of wisdom for you to appreciate or ignore, as you see fit.

So-- ave et vale. Hail and Farewell.

But considering I'm not "dead," but only moving, a better closing might be:

The Sandbox is dead; long live the Sandbox! *grin*

He's a Breast Man

2006-11-13T20:05:00.000-08:00

Congrats to Matt Daigle, of Sioux Falls! He just won Mothering magazine's contest for an international breastfeeding symbol. While I was torn between the second and third choices in the finalist round, Daigle's symbol is similar to quite a few international symbols that I'm surprised someone else didn't draw it/think of it earlier. As it is, Daigle gets credit for it, although he's turned over all rights and has placed it in the public domain.

For an all-too-brief interview and a look at the winning design, go here. It's great that we have deaf people from all walks of life not only endeavoring to achieve equality with their hearing peers, but also achieving success and showcasing the fact that deafness is not everything, but just an aspect.

BoT Forges Ahead

2006-11-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

Since November began, there hasn't been a lot of news coming from Kendall Green (although the post-mortem in the press is another matter!). But the past few days saw press releases from the Board of Trustees indicating it's full steam ahead.

On Saturday, November 11, BOT chair Pamela Holmes released a statement regarding the BoT's meeting and the fact that they heard from a number of representatives, "including students, faculty, university staff, representatives from the Clerc Center, and alumni. Also, prior to the meeting, the Board had an opportunity to meet with representatives from a parent group. We heard from the constituency groups their ideas about what characteristics an interim president should have and what the selection process should be."

I'm not sure who they met with exactly (they obviously heard from Alex Zernovoj and Noah Beckman, as per the Washington Post article yesterday), or for how long, but the fact that they are *listening* indicates a sea change from previously. This is a good sign; while the students cannot ever expect to wield real influence in choosing a president (and they shouldn't expect to)-- no student body anywhere has that much power-- it is imperative, especially given Gallaudet's unique constituency and alumni, that the Board listen as much as possible to the campus community and its affiliates.

This morning, the BoT sent out another memorandum, this one outlining the creation of the Interim President Selection Advisory Committee (IPSAC), and the Board's intentions. I was impressed by the intended makeup of the IPSAC:

1 student, SBG
1 student, GSA
1 student, International Students Association
1 student, Coalition of Students of Color
2 faculty
2 University staff
1 Clerc Center teacher
1 Clerc Center staff
2 alumni
2 administrators
1 member of the Board of Trustees

Past overrepresentation by BoT members has been corrected, alumni are included (which I think is very important), and the students cannot complain that they aren't being represented. Given the (very!) compressed schedule as presented, the IPSAC is going to have to be on their toes and present on-time and fully engaged in all the meetings that are necessary between now and the conclusion of their duties. I wish them luck.

I notice the BoT is being more careful this time-- no ranking of candidates is required, and they seem to have absorbed the lessons of the protest. They're being both proactive and protective at the same time-- smart move, IMHO. They know the eyes of the deaf community will be watching them, and they know the press is going to follow their next few moves carefully. I really don't envy the BoT their job right now.

It's also clear the BoT is not considering Dr. Jordan as an option, which I think is a very wise move-- his political capitol has been spent a thousand times over, and while a lot of people out there want him out now, most seem to have taken the tack (and one that I previously advocated) that it's best to just let him quietly serve out the remainder of his term-- a matter of weeks at this time.

The interim president has my sympathies, whoever that person is. I (and the rest of you!) will be very curious to see who submits an application. Given how last time turned out, the community should be grateful if more than two or three people apply. The job is tough to begin with, but to be on the hot seat in the wake of Fernandes? That may be asking for a bit too much. I wish the successful applicant a LOT of luck.

The 18-month time period seems sufficient time enough to prepare to develop satisfactory criteria regarding the attributes the next permanent president must have, to solicit campus and alumni input, and to allow some of the necessary reforms to begin, if not fully implemented.

I'm cautiously heartened by the Board's moves thus far. There's still far more that they need to do, or encourage the interim president/permanent president to do (for example, re-organizing DPS/DOSS-- I still find it appalling that many can barely communicate with students, staff, and faculty in ASL; and repealing the "Guidelines for Expressive Activities and Assemblies"-- Mishka Zena (Elizabeth) pointed this out as well). I just hope the rest of the community steps up to the plate with equally appropriate moves and dialogue. Those of us on the outside can do our part by minimizing the second-guessing (of which I've done my share), the speculation, and the gossip, and instead participate in the dialogue in our own way.

Off to the Races... Again

2006-11-10T23:21:00.000-08:00

Well, as you know, I'm a political junkie. I recently looked back on my various posts and realized about half of them are in a political vein. Even those that deal with social commentary are about political issues, or topics that crop up in politics fairly frequently.

So you can imagine what life was like here Election night-- constant checking of various sites, talking with friends, and the like. It was definitely an improvement over 2000, 2002, and 2004. *grin*

While I wouldn't characterize the Dem's win as a sea change, I wouldn't exactly buy into the "normality" of the election cycle. Yes, the midterm election in a President's sixth year (assuming they serve two terms) tends to favor the opposition party, and there have been elections that were far more devastating (the 1958 election for example, when the Republicans lost 48 seats in the House, and 13 in the Senate), but I think it was very clear the public wasn't buying the hogwash coming out of the White House. If anything, support for the Iraq war has dropped substantially over the years, and it's pretty clear to me and to anyone with half a brain (and yes, there are quite a few people in this country with no minds at all) that most folks want out of the Middle East.

Corruption definitely played a part: Masturgate was recently followed by the Holier-Than-Thou's having a scandal of their own, thanks to "Pastor Ted," who has since been disavowed by such Holier-Than-Thous as Lou Sheldon, who curiously admitted that he and others had known about Ted's *ahem* personal life for some time now. So far it doesn't seem like there's going to be the same uproar about this concealed information as it was for Foley and his House buddies like Hastert and Reynolds (both of whom were re-elected-- Hastert's return was expected, but I'm disappointed the folks in Buffalo didn't see fit to toss Reynolds out on his ass-- guess the annual lake-effect snows froze their mental processes permanently...). This was all in addition to Abramoff, which definitely had a pronounced effect on such folks as Bob Ney, and here in California, Richard Pombo.

This last is a stunner I'm personally happy to have happened-- Jerry McNerney won in an upset over Pombo, and turned out one of the most stridently anti-environmental politicians I've ever known. In one particular instance, Pombo wanted to sell off 15 national parks; the resulting outrage prompted his staff to say it was all a "joke." (yeah, right)

Har har har. I don't particularly find it funny. Our parks are lands that should be held in stewardship permanently, not auctioned off to corporate interests. He wasn't a big supporter of the environment in many other ways, so I'm very happy to see him sent packing.

Regardless of the outcome of this election though, I think the Dem's hold on the Senate is precarious, at best, and I'm not holding my breath for a lot of change to be effected in the coming two years. What I'm hoping for is some renewed common sense, and some checks and balances (finally!) on Smirk's agenda.

What both bothers and delights me though, is that as of November 8, the next election began. The front-loaded calendar means in just a matter of months, we'll have to wade through tons of stuff about Clinton, McCain, Obama, and a host of others. We're off to the races again, and this go-round won't end until November 5, 2008. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens, as I think that will either point to real change, or to the continuation of a lot of things that started over the last few years. Whether it bodes well or not, we'll find out. As they say, to be continued...

Wifey

2006-11-05T21:06:00.000-08:00

Our book group met once again, this time in the heart of the ethnic enclave of Jewish Los Angeles-- Canter's, the venerable deli on Fairfax, near the Farmer's Market. While there are other equally good delis out there (Nate'n Al, Jerry's, Factor's), Canter's is to my mind the grande dame.

The selection (book, that is!) this time was Wifey, by Judy Blume. I read this ages ago, but my housemate hadn't. She decided it would be a good read for the rest of us, but didn't realize it was going to be a bit more racy than the average Judy Blume book. The rest of us rapidly assured her it was NOT a "chick" book, nor was it necessarily what it appeared to be.

Wifey is the story of a Jewish housewife (thus, the choice of our venue) stuck in a less-than-ideal marriage. While the book is definitely a product of its time (it was published in 1978), it's amazing how well it has held up-- a lot of the themes are definitely issues we deal with today. Over pastrami on rye and other deli faves, we caught up with each other as well as dissected to death Blume's work.

I had originally been introduced to the book by an old friend/flame; however, all I remembered at this time was all the sex in the book (bad, bad me!). After re-reading it though, the book turned out to be far more wistful and thoughtful than I realized. While it isn't the deepest tome out there, it certainly provided more than enough fodder for our group.

Our next read and meeting will be next year, and I'm looking forward to it already. Right now, though, I need to pay attention to the wifey who's patiently waiting for me to stop writing and start giving her the attention she so richly deserves...

Gallaudet: Public Perceptions

2006-11-04T23:20:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the revocation of Fernandes' promotion by the Board of Trustees, the Deaf Blogosphere (or DeafBlogLand, if you will) celebrated and conducted an online assessment of the conclusion of the protest. Not to be outdone, the Corporate Media weighed in with its own postmortem-- but it wasn't very pretty.

While our internal community's retrospective was congratulatory and focused on the work that remained to be done, the outside world seemed to be tut-tutting at the turn of affairs at 800 Florida Avenue NE. Whether that bodes well or not, I'm not sure, but it does mean that in addition to the on-campus issues (audism, racism, sexism, institutionalism, dwarfism, Papism, ad nauseam), the campus community and the deaf community at large will have to fight an even larger (and to my mind, far more important) battle: the public relations image of Gallaudet, and by extension, the deaf community.

For better or worse, Gallaudet represents the deaf community (or at least, a very visible portion of it!); this can be positive, as it was in the wake of DPN, or when an alumni succeeded and attributed their accomplishments to their studies at Gallaudet. But it can also be a distinct drawback; if I had a dollar for every person I've talked with who said that they encountered skepticism in job interviews or outside contacts regarding their Gallaudet degrees, I could take a nice weekend trip somewhere (Jamie Berke, over at Berke Outspoken, talked about enrollment, and the subject of public perception emerged in the conversation she quoted). Like it or not, what happens at Gallaudet does impact (fairly or not!) public perception of Gallaudet alumni everywhere, and by extension, the signing deaf community at large.

A recent incident in my life exemplifies this: the Thursday before the Board capitulated to student demands, I had an obligation at my temp job that required an interpreter. The interpreter was new to me, and I to her-- as we chatted a bit and got to know each other, the inevitable question came up: "What do you think of Gallaudet?" I shared my stance, but quickly learned that the interpreter was against the protest. Now, bear in mind, this is someone who has had a long association with the community, views deaf people as equal to hearing people, understood Deaf Culture, signs ASL, and as a minority, understood how minority deaf people feel and where they're coming from. Yet she couldn't support the protest-- and this was largely because her perception was that the protest was based on identity politics.

For many of us who were not on campus or were not in touch with people who were on campus, it's very easy to view Gallaudet through the prism of the media, of second- and third-hand narratives, of information that that isn't and wasn't clearly explained and dissected. I spend way too much of my time tethered to my pager and to the computer, and in touch with people who are in contact with far more connected people than I. But this interpreter wasn't, and to be honest, she was far from alone. I've talked with tons of people out here over the last few months, and very few demonstrated they really understood and were able to sort through the various layers of issues, concerns, and elements regarding Fernandes, Gallaudet, the protest, and the state of the community the last 6-8 months.

I then explained to her why I supported the protest (with reservations, of course!); as I guided her through the timeline and explained each step of the way what various individuals and groups said and did, she started to understand. By the end of our conversation, she supported the protest, but agreed with me that FSSA had done a piss-poor job of PR, and that identity politics clouded everything.

Yes, identity politics. For that, we have quite a few people to thank. First are those idiots that verbalized and advertised their opposition to Fernandes based solely on her not being "deaf enough" or her (in)ability to sign ASL, her aloofness, her seeming disconnection to the pulse of the community, etc. Jeers also to Fernandes, Mercy Coogan, and the administration in general, who seized upon identity politics as the overarching narrative, and continued to push it in the media, at every opportunity. Personally, I'd like to see Coogan follow Fernandes and Jordan out the door; I really don't understand why Gallaudet couldn't have hired a deaf person to handle public relations-- it's not like they haven't before.

Finally, raspberries to the sorry individuals who collectively make up the Corporate Media-- while Susan Kinzie eventually wrote some balanced articles in her coverage of the protest for the Washington Post, quite a few others out there didn't do their homework, and merely seized upon what they considered to be conventional wisdom.

Some writers excoriated nearly everyone, and it doesn't come across as good: witness Marc Fisher's WaPo blog of October 30 ["Gallaudet's Grievous Misstep"], in which he takes the BoT to task, commenting "that they caved to the petulence and arrogance of the student protestors while sending only the mildest message of rebuke." His words paint the BoT as a bunch of ninnies, and the students as petulant and arrogant. Not a pretty picture. He also mentions Congress (which I think is NOT good-- remember, Congress is theoretically ultimately responsible to the voters and the citizens at large-- and if they think Gallaudet is a waste of money, they *will* tell their representatives so): "...the federal government, which uses taxpayer dollars to provide 70 percent of Gallaudet's budget... It will take a long time before Gallaudet's administration can regain any sense of control over the school; maybe they need some help from the entity that pays the freight."

The comments aren't much better either. Witness the words of Not my Tax Dollars:

If 70% of Gallaudet's money comes from the government and many students never really graduate (they jut linger around for years), where is the oversight as to how taxpayers money is being spent? Is Gallaudet a "true" university and is a degree from Gallaudet equivalent to a degree from any other university? If it is an accredited university, it certainly lacks guidelines that is applicable to other universities. It appears to me that my tax dollars is funding a free-wheeling commune. I say, shut it down unless it can be run as a real educational institution.

Let's hope people with the real power over the purse strings never read that...

But Fisher is in the minority-- most reporters and commenters merely repeated the basic facts, but they continued to select and highlight comments about identity politics. For example, in the New York Times article on October 30 [At College for Deaf, Trustees Drop New Leader], Diana Jean Schemo writes,

Dr. Chen Pichler said that protesters doubted Dr. Fernandes’s commitment to upholding the primacy of American Sign Language on campus, and that the next person selected would have to be strongly committed to reinforcing what is often referred to as Deaf culture — with a capital D — at Gallaudet.

While Dr. Chen Pichler mentioned that there were a host of other issues involved, the major quote was about-- surprise-- identity politics. It was only at the very end of the article (which is the first place that regional and local newspapers cut when they run out of room to publish the article in full-- I used to work in a newspaper composing room, and you'd be surprised at how much gets left out of the original article, even at the paper where the story originates) that Schemo mentions a crucial fact: "In a faculty vote several weeks ago, 82 percent of the faculty demanded that she step down." [Schemo's subsequent article, on October 31, was an improvement, but still danced around ASL, identity politics, and other factors that had nothing to do with Fernandes' mismanagement of Pre-College Programs and her actions as Provost, to say nothing of the problems during the Presidential selection process]

Back to the Post: the paper's editorial of October 31 [Gallaudet's Loss] again stressed disapproval of the students' actions-- while this is just the Post, the paper is rather influential in our public discourse, and is read by millions daily. The editorial's authors condemned the students: "...what triumphed was lawlessness and the principle that a university president should be chosen on the basis of popularity." [Obviously, the writers didn't read my posts about the fact that ultimately, the issue was the promotion of Fernandes, and the facts showed she wasn't deserving of promotion] The editorial went on to point out the lack of public relations on the part of the students [i.e., FSSA]:

When students launched their protest against president-designate Fernandes in the spring, many of them stated the objection that she was "not deaf enough." Though deaf, she grew up speaking and lip-reading; she did not learn sign language until she was a young adult. That protest theme didn't play well beyond Gallaudet, and it was dropped from public discourse; students and faculty soon were reacting angrily if it was ascribed to them. But the protest movement never came up with a convincing alternative explanation for their anti-Fernandes passion. All that was left was a series of relatively petty complaints about her executive style as provost.

I don't agree with the editorial at all, and I think the editorial's authors didn't fully do their homework (and obviously didn't do a good job of talking to Kinzie or reading her work; the disconnect between the editorial and news departments is common at many, many newspapers), but fairly or not, this is how the Corporate Media views the protests, the students, and Gallaudet as a whole.

Susan Kinzie's article, co-written with David Fahrenthold, on October 31 [At Gallaudet, Peace], discussed the aftermath of the protest, but quoted Dr. Janet Pray: "It's very dismaying to think what the future will be here. The board of trustees has sent a message that if you don't like a decision the board makes, you can just throw a temper tantrum . . ." While Pray was noted to be an administrator and Fernandes supporter, the notion that the students/protesters were throwing "a temper tantrum" isn't the kind of image Gallaudet or the deaf community needs.

So far, a lot of the problems stem from officials, professors, and staff members who have been quoted on Gallaudet. But it doesn't help when Noah Beckman, in an otherwise excellent interview with Newsweek [Being Heard] , closes by saying that he cut class [yes, Beckman, among others, was probably exhausted and needed a bit of downtime-- but is that really something you want to share with the world at large? What does that say about the emphasis placed on academics and personal drive?]. The beer chugging during the celebrations didn't help either-- luckily, it doesn't seem like the fallout from that landed in the national media [with the exception of Washington Post Express], but it certainly made an impression in the deaf blogosphere, as evidenced in DeafDC's coverage of the incident making the Express.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Luckily, there are some of us that are battling back in public. Aside from his unfortunate final comment, Beckman gave a good interview to Newsweek, and Kelby Brick's Op-Ed piece in the Baltimore Sun was sorely needed. It's going to take far more than just a bunch of interviews or some columns, or even blogs like the one I'm writing now. As my conversation with the interpreter demonstrates, we're going to have reclaim our public image, both as deaf people and as alumni, bit by bit, piece by piece, person by person. We're going to have to work harder at being ambassadors on behalf of deafness and deaf people than we ever have before.

Holiday Retrospective

2006-11-03T22:43:00.000-08:00

For most people (including myself!), THE holiday to recover from has always been Christmas. It's my favorite holiday, but it's also the craziest time of year for lots of folks, yours truly included.

Still, we're a few weeks away from that, despite what the retailers have been telling you since the end of August (YES, I actually saw a couple of stores start putting out holiday decorations and items the last week of August. It's slowly increased since then, and started being out in force this past week, at the end of October. Yoo hoo? Anyone heard of Fall? Halloween? Thanksgiving? I remember when I was little, stores and businesses actually had Thanksgiving and harvest-themed decorations and goods on display. Now it seems like we figuratively jump from Labor Day and summer to Santa and Christmas. Sheesh), and there are other celebrations and things to do.

As it is, the last few days have worn me out, from walking down Santa Monica Boulevard from Doheny to La Cienega and back, and then hanging out at the old Plaza and Olvera Street. Still, it was a fun time, and I'm looking forward to next year. We enjoyed dressing up this year, but we have a killer costume concept for Halloween 2007. Never too early to start planning... *grin*

Anyway, I thought I'd present a retrospective of sorts, through pictures, of the last couple days.

Let's start with the annual festivities in WeHo. These gentlemen to the left are representative of the ladies of WeHo. Somehow, I don't know why, gays really get into the spirit of things so much better than we straights. There's almost always several crews of fashionably, exotically, or outlandishly dressed "women" parading the street, and these ladies are no exception!

This is an example of one of the more visible costumes during the night-- quite a few people were on stilts, platform shoes, or other types of height-enhancing contraptions as part of their costume. I don't know what the hell this is supposed to be, but it was cool enough we snapped a shot of this guy, and his pal in front. While there was considerably less near-nudity this year, there were quite a few people exposing plenty of ass, legs, and other limbs. I wasn't able to see them, but my walking buddy said she spotted a male-female streaking duo, and there were a few others that left precious little to the imagination...

Every year, there's always a bunch of folks as a group concept, and this year was no exception. Last year was better in my opinion, but there were quite a few themes and groupings in place for the big show this time around.

This is one of my favorites: the cast of major characters from "Sleeping Beauty," one of my favorite Disney films! Cruella De Vil (or Katherine Harris, take your pick) managed to sneak in there, but seeing as how it's all Disney, it's okay by me.

There always seems to be a fair number of monarchs presiding over the festivities, and this year was no exception. As you can see, Neptune flip-flopped his way from his nearby Pacific grotto to wander the streets and grace us with his presence.

The guy on his left, however, seems somewhat lost. Then again, there were a lot of people looking like that-- overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of costumes: left, right, behind, in front, coming towards you, already walked past you...

Just like little kids do, adults tend to follow the crowd, and Halloween is no exception. Every third partier we saw was a pirate, and it got old pretty quick. However, we thought this bad-ass dude was a bit more clever than most. People, may I present.... Davy Jones' Locker!

Politics and current events spark creativity in some, and more mundane outfits in others. Here we saw the marriage of a popular book/movie with political affairs, as The Man in The Yellow Hat ferries (In)Curious George through unfamiliar waters for Georgie... the Boystown of West Hollywood.

Then again, politics doesn't always have to be so serious, or so snide. As you can see here, the girls are really going all out for Arnie! Wonder if he'd love to pat their asses, comment on their tits, or maybe fondle them a little. Who knows...

Of course, that's not all we saw, but these represent some of the more interesting and unusual costumes we saw. We got pictures of just about everything we wanted to. Unfortunately, a couple of topical costumes, drenched in black humor, couldn't be captured. My one regret was not getting a snapshot of "Steve Irwin," with a *very* realistic stingray plastered across his khaki shirt, which was surrounded by blood. But hey, we can't win 'em all...

On All Souls' Day, we stationed ourselves in the heart of Los Angeles, in the oldest Europeanized area in town, where we toured the handful of altars, observed the Novenario, and watched the dancers, as they celebrated the next stage of life.

As we began to circumnavigate the old Plaza, we were greeted by this spectre, surrounded by decorations and and lights. A very spooky beginning to the evening...

Here's an example of an altar. This was one of the more elaborate ones, and was quite celebratory as well as mournful. The woman whose life is being remembered was a long-time doctor in East Los Angeles, who died of cancer not long ago. Her family not only decorated the altar with colorful skulls and bright lights, they created a homage to the departed woman, with pictures from throughout her life. In the front, you can see they've put out her favorite foods and drink, as they welcome her back -- after all, once she crosses the veil, she'll be hungry and thirsty.

What was especially nice (and quite a few of the altars do this), was the inclusion on a separate table of a biography, in both English and Spanish, of the doctor. I was able to get a sense of who she was, and why she was being remembered. Personally, I think it's a wonderful tradition.

The saddest part, though, was the altar set up yet again for the murdered and vanished women of Ciudad Juárez. It's been more than ten years, and there has still been no resolution. May these women rest in peace.

There were more people this time (at least it seemed so!) than when we went to celebrate Dia de Los Muertos previously. Because of the crowds, and because of the seeming disorganization of the participants, it took forever before we could see the processional, and even longer before we actually got to see the dancers in action. Here, Señor Death (or one of his minions), toasts oblivion as he undertakes the Dance of Death.

From the Land 0f Make-Believe to the Shadows of Darkness, it was an enjoyable time. Now I've got to start figuring out where I'm going to gain 5-7 pounds come November 23...

El Día de Santos

2006-11-01T23:44:00.000-08:00

Once again, Halloween transitions overnight into Dias de Los Muertes-- the Days of the Dead. Today is All Saints Day, and tomorrow is All Souls Day-- the days when the veil between the living and the departed is most fragile, and the quick are said to commune with the dead. It's a Latin American tradition, and one that has taken hold over the years in the United States, as more and more Latinos settle in los Estados Unidos.

In the past, we've gone to Olvera Street to help celebrate this holiday; last year, I decided not to go, but discussed a little bit about Dias de Los Muertes. As I get older, these few days on the edge of October and the start of November take on a more special meaning for me, as more and more people I once knew are no longer living. While I enjoy the parade, the sweets, and the atmosphere when I go to these celebrations and festivals, the meaning behind the Day of the Dead has started to permeate my thoughts, and I reflect, commemorate, and celebrate the friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and relatives that are no longer here.

Sometimes I think other nations and cultures have a healthier attitude and approach to death than we do. Here in the States, we've clinicalized and sanitized death to the point that it has become rather removed. I've never seen death naturally, in the home or in another environment; for me, death is something that happens in hospitals. In America, if someone is sick, whoosh! Off to the hospital, off to the intensive care unit. From there, it's a quick transition to the funeral home, the crematory, the cemetery. There's not much sense of natural transition, of a connection between the dying person's life and the state of transition that they're entering. Once the person is dead, people's reactions differ. Some choose to remember them, speak of them, embrace them still. Others refuse to speak of the dead, and to them, they are completely dead.

In Mexico, the attitude and cultural values surrounding death are so different. My great-aunt in Mexico visits my great-grandfather's grave during Dia de Los Muertos, and keeps his memory alive. To her, he isn't so much dead as he is simply just part of another world. He is still a part of her, still a part of life-- it's just that he physically isn't there anymore. Regardless of whether there is actually a next world or not, I find it a more healthy perspective. Even if a person is truly gone, they leave something of themselves with us. Sometimes it's positive, sometimes negative-- often, it's a mix of both. Remembering everything is what keeps them human, what keeps them with us.

To me, a person is not truly dead as long as there is someone still alive who remembers them. Within the strands of memory, we can see them, we can hear them (I know for us deaf, that may not be possible, never be possible-- but I've been told by hearing people that sometimes they dream of the dead, and they distinctly "hear" their voices just as they were when the speakers were alive), we interact with them. Sometimes this remembrance is private, personal, of a commemorative nature; sometimes it's a celebration, as Dias de Los Muertos expresses.

Once the last living person who remembers a dead person themselves die, then that person is truly dead. The same is true for an event, or historical occurrence. Right now we still have many people who remember World War II; the number of those who remember the Great Depression or the Roaring 20's are fewer. Those who can clearly remember or actually participated in the Great War are scarcer still, and the pool of those humans around the globe who were present in the year 1900, when Queen Victoria still sat on the throne, is miniscule compared with the total population (but their numbers have grown over the years-- we seem to be developing a larger pool of centenarians than ever before). There's a great site chronicling some of these long-lived people-- good way to kill a little time, and muse about the lives some of these people led.

But I digress. To me, many people in my life who have died are not truly dead; they are just around the corner, or beyond the hill. I can't see them, but I know they're there. Perhaps today and tomorrow, during these Days of the Dead, they are with me, just as I am still with them.
-----

Viva el Amor Eterno

I do not fear death
as I know those who have died before me
will welcome me with their loving embrace. My senses will be awakened by the sweetness
of the Dia De Los Muertos yearly celebration. I shall be remembered for eternity,
as my decedents will be preparing
and adorning their altars in my honor
and for other beloved. There will be a sense of excitement
as they will be creating my favorite foods,
bringing me gifts that my soul has inspired
as they welcome me back. At my altar,
there will be the lovely aroma of the copal,
and a glass of water that will quench my thirst
when I arrive from my long journey.

The salt and sweets will remind me of
the bitterness and sweetness of life. I will see my family spending the day
lovingly cleaning my grave
and adorning it with zempasúchil (marigolds),
baby breath, candles and more. There will be great day of
laughter, music, and poetry.

I yearn to hear their stories of my life
that they will tell their children
so they may know who I am. Yes, it will be a joyous occasion
as I will be reunited
with my dear family and friends! Thank you, gracias.
I know I will not be forgotten. As your memories of me will continue
from generation to generation.
- Ginette Rondeau

Eye of Newt, and Toe of Frog

2006-10-31T18:00:00.000-08:00

Gallaudet may have dominated this blog and many, many others over the past month, but Gallaudet isn't and never has been the center point of my world. As I told friends a couple weeks ago, "When all this is over, I don't want to hear the word 'Gallaudet' again for about a year." The actual protest has ended (so far!), and my thoughts will be turning to some of the larger issues broached by the protest. So while I might still talk about deaf-related issues, I'll be focusing less and less on Gallaudet proper over the next few weeks.

While this doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to stop commenting on or analyzing the events of the last six months, it does mean I'm going to start blogging again about politics, social issues, and *gasp* my life.

Those of you who have just joined are welcome to stay. I view my blog as something of a conversation between myself and the world-- if it wasn't, I'd just keep a journal or diary privately for my own benefit, and that'd be that. So feel free to comment, to read what I have to say, and share anything you like (just be sure to link or give me credit, eh? *grin*). If you'd rather do something else with your time, that's okay too.

Today's October 31-- Halloween! For a time, I thought Halloween was something that would be out of my life, at least until I had kids of my own. I fondly recall the costumes my mother made for me when I was little, and enjoyed helping with the trick-or-treaters as I got older. But I didn't think Halloween was going to be personally something I'd enjoy on the same level again.

Wrong. Since I moved to Los Angeles, I've started a few new traditions that make this time of year interesting and exciting. One is an annual Halloween party thrown by a friend, and I've come to look forward to this bash. This year's party lived up to the anticipation. Another annual ritual is going to West Hollywood to view the Halloween festivities. I did this for the first time last year, and enjoyed myself so much I'm doing it again tonight, as soon as we finish dinner. Last year our camera was enjoying a vacation from California climes, and was hanging out in Washington, D.C. This year the camera's within reach, so if I spot anything truly outrageous tonight, I'll share what I've seen with the rest of you.

On that note, Happy Halloween! Fire burn, and cauldron bubble...
- - - -
[Housekeeping] I'd like to quickly note a couple of things as well, before I take off:

1) I know my identity is now an open secret, and it doesn't bother me, but I'd still appreciate it if commenters would refrain from using my name in the comments box. One of the main reasons I'm using a pseudonym is because I've been looking for work on and off for some time. While I don't particularly care if the Deaf-world knows who I am, I *do* care about prospective employers. The fewer people with the power to make my life joyous or miserable that know who I am, the better off I'll be.

I don't ban commenters, like certain bloggers do; I won't edit the general gist of what you have to say, ever (unless you do something extraordinarily stupid and illegal, like make a death threat). But I will edit out my real name. Just so you know...

2) I've noticed here and elsewhere on tons of other blogs that people are posting e-mail addresses-- often to allow the bloggist to contact them. While I have no problem with that here, I'm betting that just like me and everyone else, you don't want spam. Spambots and scammers have been known to troll blogs, message boards, and even comments to harvest addresses. I suggest that if you're going to post your own e-mail address, or someone else's, that you write it like this: mrsandman(at)blogger(dot)com. Another option is: mrsandman@NOSPAMyahoo.com.
This ensures I (and others can contact you using your address, but it makes it harder for a machine to collect names and addresses, and inflate your inbox in various annoying ways.

Tent City: Aftermath Part II

2006-10-30T20:35:00.000-08:00

Last night I discussed some possible ideas for how to handle the transition, and what I thought the Board of Trustees should do next. Now I'd like to examine yet again each group involved in the protest, and where I think they might (or should) go from here (I previously examined the actors in Framing the Stalemate: Intermission, where I explored what each party had been doing over the summer, and in Framing the Stalemate: What Now, Gallaudet?, which discussed what each faction needed to do in the wake of the initial stage of the protests in May).

I. King Jordan and Jane K. Fernandes

The outgoing president and the outgoing President-Designate both wrote rather gracious letters in the wake of the Board announcement, in my opinion, although quite a few people sent virtual boos their way, including a loose cannon in Arizona. Jordan, of course, is still sitting in College Hall and living in House One. As I said yesterday, I think it best that he serve out his two remaining months and then exit, hopefully far more gracefully than he's been the last few months. While the hecklers during the SAC re-naming ceremony behaved poorly (a better tactic would have been to just NOT show up at the ceremony at all-- at times, a person's absence says as much or even more than their presence does), Jordan hasn't exactly been a role model or viewed as one over the last month (and indeed, before that).

I'm not sure what he'll do in his retirement-- if he really cares about shoring up his reputation, he could apologize for his part in this mess. While this won't rehabilitate him, it might help heal some of the wounds that he and others have caused over the last 6-7 months. Most likely though, he'll probably vanish from the scene once he's handed over the keys to his office and home, and for most of us, that will be it. So, Dr. Jordan-- one final soliloquy if you like, and then exit, stage right.

Dr. Fernandes, on the other hand, may be a bit more problematic. She's still young, and probably isn't ready for retirement. Additionally, she still retains tenure at Gallaudet. Personally, I think she's persona non grata with most people at Gallaudet, and if she's wise, she'll vacate her office and not look back. She's lost her promotion, and given the circumstances, I highly doubt the Board will offer her her previous job as provost back (if they did, they'd be fools to, given the rancor of the last few months, not to say the last few years), so as far as career advancement goes, she's finished-- at least at Gallaudet.

I must confess, I feel somewhat sorry for her. While I think she was harsh and autocratic, and she screwed up Pre-College Programs majorly, I think her role the last six months has been rather minor compared to Jordan's and the Board of Trustees' roles. She was as much a victim as a perpetrator-- a victim of a mentor who was short-sighted enough not to realize what a community was trying to tell him, and a Board of Trustees that was AWOL most of the time. She was a perpetrator in that she conspired with the Office of Public Relations, Jordan, and other supporters to continue to push a false meme: she wasn't wanted because "she wasn't deaf enough." As I said previously, for someone who professed to love Gallaudet so much, she sure had a strange way of showing it. Gallaudet is now viewed by many hearing people as a school which harbors an intolerant minority, a regressive student population (regardless of the degree of truth to this). Sure, some young people will continue to aim for Gallaudet, and enroll there. But how many will be turned off? More importantly, how many parents will say to themselves, "Hmmm... maybe Gallaudet isn't where I want to send my child." The protesters bear some blame for this as well-- I'll explain more about this later.

One of the main reasons I feel sorry for her is that, as a deaf person, she is going to face discrimination should she choose to leave Gallaudet for good. I don't care how many of you hate her, think she's totally vile, have "suffered" under her, etc. She's a terrible administrator, she's not a warm person, yes; but she's still deaf. Finding employment is not always easy, even for those of us with advanced degrees. Gallaudet was and is one of the few places where we face anything close to a level playing board when it comes to employment. If she had tried harder, had listened harder, had reached out more, perhaps she could have realized early on what the community was trying to say, and declined her appointment to the presidency. If that had happened, she might have been able to stay as provost (and even if not, she might have been welcome in one of the Academic departments-- if not in the Department of ASL and Deaf Studies, then over in the English Department (where she'd be a better fit-- after all, her terminal degree is in Comparative Literature)). More likely though, at this point, she's done at Gallaudet, which is probably best as far as the campus and its community is concerned.

I don't know where she'll go at this point; she's gained enough notoriety she'll probably score a few interviews. But the flip side of the coin is that same notoriety may make some prospective employers more reluctant to consider her. I just hope that wherever she goes, she doesn't plan on a job in administration again; she's proven to be inept at that occupation. I have no idea what will happen next for Fernandes; but it's possible this isn't the last we've heard of her.

The Board of Trustees

At the beginning of this entire mess, I was perplexed; I couldn't understand why the Board made the decision it did to extend an offer to Fernandes, but felt that the only thing they were guilty of was a lack of common sense. It was very obvious to even the most casual observer who had some knowledge of events at Gallaudet that Fernandes was NOT wanted, and that the BoT risked reaping the whirlwind should they choose her.

But... I was willing to cut the Board some slack. The only facts I had that troubled me were what my wife and other MSSD graduates shared regarding Fernandes' tenure there, and Jamie Berke's recounting of her confrontational experience with Fernandes over her son's education at Kendall. While it was obvious she had screwed up in her first job at Gallaudet, I initially wasn't seeing any concrete evidence from dissenters about Fernandes' time as provost, or why she should be denied the job. I had some questions and reservations about the final slate the PSC submitted, and a few other nagging doubts. My main reason in May for wanting Fernandes to either resign or to be removed was that she had already proven herself divisive even before being offered the job; I saw no good coming out of her promotion if she stayed.

By October, my views had changed-- while I still felt a major reason for the need to have Fernandes step down was due to her divisiveness, there were quite a few other reasons, as slowly but surely people started sharing information. My views also changed about the Board as well. While Jordan was quite visible during the month of October, and Public Relations under Mercy Coogan churned out tons of statements and press releases, Fernandes was practically nowhere to be seen, and the Board was barely responding to anything as well. I now felt that the BoT was equally culpable for the events since May 1 (and before, really), and that things would have to change.

Where the Board should first start, if if hasn't already done so in private, is to examine itself as a governing body, and assign blame within, where it is warranted. Why did the Board accept a lopsided final pool? Why did the Board choose Fernandes, when it was clear as daylight that it would provoke a firestorm? Why did the Board then issue sporadic statements, offering tepid approval of Fernandes (obviously, they already realized that maybe, just maybe, their decision wasn't the right one...?)? Why didn't the Board accept more responsibility and assume a more active role when the protests assumed steam again on October 2? Why did the Board remain silent as the administration misstepped repeatedly? Why did the Board issue a supportive letter practically at the same time they condescended to permit a token representative have all of five minutes to make a statement? Why did the Board do practically nothing about the arrests on October 13 (they certainly could have reined in Jordan or whomever proclaimed the actual orders for the arrests)? Why didn't the Board speak up or try to find another approach to handling the fiasco at the Brentwood gate? Finally, why did it take nearly a whole month for the Board to finally meet and make the decision they should have made at the beginning of October, if not earlier?

Personally, I think the Board collectively failed in its responsibilities, period. It appears that the only way to remove a Trustee is by the majority vote of the Trustees themselves-- but regardless of the bylaws, I don't think the Board members as a group should remain as trustees.

While I don't think another protest is warranted, I think part of the reforms at Gallaudet need to include a gradual reconstitution of the Board, as individual terms expire. The goal should be to include more alumni representation (I can't recall right now who said this first, but I know I read somewhere out there in the blogosphere about having at least 51% of the board be alumni-- the original author/poster mentioned that a majority representation of alumni on college and university BoTs is common at many other schools). While some board members obviously are representative of different constituencies within the deaf community (witness Bill Graham, the founder of ALDA), only 6 of the 17 current trustees are alumni. I think this has to be a priority for the university in the months and years to come-- the reconfiguration of the Board.

Second, I think the Board, either through its own internal desire or through external pressure (though I suspect it will be a combination of the two), needs to follow through on its letter it issued in the wake of the end of the academic year and Commencement, and instigate and nurture a more open relationship with the campus community and its various constituencies. It would be hollow and hypocritical not to do so otherwise. This means that the arrogance they showed Tara Holcomb, Noah Beckman, et al needs to cease, and a warmer, more genuine relationship needs to develop between the Board and the campus at large. Regardless of the maturity and chronological age of the students, they still represent the next generation of alumni-- a powerful community that the Board obviously wants a good working relationship with (money, anyone?).

The BoT also needs to reassess how they establish various working committees, such as the Presidential Search Committee. Was it really necessary to have four members of the committee be trustees? I think it would have been far better to have a broader mix of people involved, so that as many opinions and perspectives could be considered in preparation for one of the Board's most important duties: selecting a leader.

The Board could also spend some time reassessing how the campus functions, how the administration works, and how to best ensure appropriate participation from the various members of the campus community. While this doesn't mean allowing the students, or the faculty, or the staff to run the university, it does mean forging a working partnership whenever possible. I'm not one to advocate bureaucracy, but it might not be a bad idea to establish an advisory council that would have the responsibility to work with the Board and advise when and where necessary. This council should have one representative from each of the four main groups: one student, one staff member, one faculty member, and one alumni. In addition, the SBG president should be a part of this council as well. This advisory board should attend all board meetings, should have constant contact with the various factions on campus, and the Board should take advantage of this council and communicate with them about various issues as they arise.

I'm not sure if this should be anything more than an advisory board; voting rights, and all that may not be the best idea. But there needs to be a way for the BoT to have the means to be continually aware of what's going on on campus, and this seems like one way to do it.

Another idea could be for the BoT to set aside a bloc of time during its campus visitations to host an open forum, where anyone can stand up and share their opinions, suggestions, or concerns about Gallaudet. This would place responsibility on all shoulders: the Board would have the chance to listen to the wider campus community, and any person with any affiliation at Gallaudet would have the opportunity to speak up (or otherwise have no one to blame but themselves for not saying anything). In other words, a dialogue needs to emerge here-- and not just the promise of one, or the hint of one, but a real conversation. This is necessary if healing is to happen.

One more idea for the Board to consider: my fellow alumni, Neil "Jake" McDevitt, has made an excellent suggestion: a revamping of the current Crisis Management Team, and the need for a liaison who has both crisis management knowledge and internal knowledge of campus. I told Neil he's an obvious choice for such a position, but it doesn't necessarily have to be him-- it could be another alumni or deaf person who has the needed knowledge and experience.

The Students

I have mixed feelings about this group, probably because I was once a student myself. I know from personal experience just how fickle young students can be, how absorbed they are in their own lives, their own growth and development, and the blossoming of their journey through life as they experience their first real taste of freedom and self-determination away from their families.

...And you know what? Ideally, that's how it should be. Now that the protest (as a means to remove Fernandes) is over, the majority of them should be allowed to go back to being students, which is their sole reason for being at Gallaudet in the first place. But that doesn't mean they get to skip out on their responsibilities in what happens next. As I stated above, students will need to be involved. They'll need to engage the Board of Trustees, and extend a hand in reconciliation. They'll need to actively participate when offered the chance to do so; that includes campus committees at all levels. SBG needs to become more engaged; some years there have been excellent SBG presidents and administrations (and a number of the really good leaders have gone on to become leaders in the community at large) -- other years, it's pretty much an academic-year party planning committee. Now that the students understand more clearly the stakes and internal operations of campus, maybe there'll be a stronger desire to ensure that Gallaudet runs smoothly for everyone-- students, staff, faculty, and other employees.

Most of all, the students need to be patient; change isn't going to come overnight, and a protest isn't warranted or necessary each and every time there's a campus crisis. This is true for the alumni and the larger deaf community as well-- protest and the tactics that come with it should always be a last resort. None of us really need to go through this again each time there's turnover at College Hall, or any time there's other problems that emerge (the protest about English at Gallaudet in the early 90's is one example).

Staff/Faculty

I haven't really discussed this group much at all, and there really isn't much need to do so. However, I do want to mention two items I think are important.

The first is that there needs to be increased respect and a new working relationship with some of the more misunderstood and least-respected groups on campus: PPD and DPS. A lot of students take PPD workers, cafeteria workers, and other similar employees for granted. That's the case also in the larger world, as well, both deaf and hearing. That needs to change. They're cleaning your homes, offices, and communal spaces; they're serving you food, cleaning your bathrooms, and making sure that you all live and work comfortably, regardless of what you're personally doing. A more cordial relationship needs to be forged with DPS as well. Otherwise, misunderstandings, mistrust, and hostility from individuals on either side can lead to a larger collective conflict, one that can and has ended in tragedy in the past.

But, again, the other side of the coin is that these employees need to learn to sign and communicate more effectively. While this probably isn't necessary for the cafeteria workers, and is less of a priority where PPD is concerned for the most part, it is crucial for DPS. This was highlighted most tragically more than 15 years ago, when Carl DuPree died. While his death was an extreme example of failure, there have been numerous misunderstandings and hassles over the years due to the inability of DPS officers to fully develop receptive and expressive signing skills. This is an issue the BoT and administration needs to urgently revisit, as soon as possible.

In the past, deaf and hard-of-hearing students and alumni have served or been temporarily employed by DPS/DOSS, such as Dean Prentice, Kurt Kornkven, and Neil McDevitt, among others. I'm not sure what the current practice is nowadays, but it seems like a good time to revisit the idea of hiring more security officers who are capable of fluent communication and straddling both the deaf and hearing worlds. While a number of officers/guards are going to, out of necessity and for obvious reasons, be able to hear, I don't see why a larger percentage can't be deaf or hard-of-hearing. At the very least, it wouldn't hurt to perhaps do outreach among hearing children of deaf adults, some of whom might be interested in such a career, or among sign language students who may want a more firm schedule and regular hours than an interpreter has.

The second thing I want to mention is the need for the faculty to take a more proactive role in strengthening educational standards. While some teachers are excellent, and many make a concrete effort to push the students to the limits of their potential, it is sadly the case that all too many are "settled" in their careers, and have accepted a marginal threshold of performance, justifying it by saying that "that's just how the students are." If Gallaudet is truly going to want to improve its performance evaluations as administered by such entities as the federal government, then administrators, faculty, and students all need to work together to make that happen.

Yes, students-- you too. You might sit around complaining that Gallaudet offers a lackluster education, and to an extent with some teachers and departments, that may be true. But the reality is, you only get as much out of your education as you put into it. If a professor or instructor dumbs down the curriculum, or doesn't challenge you enough, and you accept this simply to avoid having to do any real work or accepting it because "that's just how it is," then you're equally complicit in your educational failure. When you have an excellent teacher and you underperform, it may be due to any number of factors-- not everyone is good in every subject, and not everyone is ready for college, or willing to accept that maybe they fucked up (I know-- I've been there. I had some excellent teachers while I was at Gallaudet, and I didn't always take advantage of the opportunity to truly learn). But when you have a subpar teacher, and you take advantage of that to either complain or just to accept it as it is, then you're allowing Gallaudet to maintain a substandard educational quality.

So-- if you're a faculty member, then you need to examine yourself and your career: why are you at Gallaudet in the first place? Why did you even become interested in Gallaudet to begin with, especially given its unique culture and population? Do you still care about your job, or are you burned out? Do you want to improve yourself, your students, your department, or are you satisfied with maintaining the status quo?

Alumni/Deaf Community

These two groups are both inextricably entwined with Gallaudet, and starkly independent as well. The majority of the alumni do not work at Gallaudet, and a large number have not been on campus in years, perhaps decades. Yet they still maintain bonds with other alumni, keep themselves updated on news regarding Gallaudet, and in some cases, send their children and other relatives to Gallaudet. But at the same time, most of us have moved on, and we have lives and responsibilities of our own that have nothing to do with Gallaudet. There are some issues and concerns at Gallaudet that involve all of us; there are many more than are solely internal campus problems, and should remain so. For all of its vaunted reputation as a "Deaf Mecca" and the heart and soul of the deaf community, it is still, at heart, simply a university.

What the alumni and the community need to do is to help the students, other groups on campus, and onlookers at large do is separate the various issues and concerns from each other, and address those that have larger implications for all of us as a whole, while permitting administrators, faculty, and staff to tackle those that are the sole province of academia.

At the same time, we must not become complacent: for example, there are only a handful of GUAA chapters, and quite a few that are inactive or not very energetic. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area GUAA was recently revived as a response to the recent crisis; it's time for us to stop being reactive, and start being proactive. Jennifer "JAC" Cook's presentation on "Deaf Think Tanks" at the NAD conference in Palm Desert is an example of proactiveness. There are quite a few issues that were raised the last several months that need to continue to be discussed, such as the rift between those of us who sign and those of us who don't. Broader issues such as employment, captioning, and accessibility are areas where broad coalitions can and should be built.

Thornier issues such as education need to be re-framed and restructured, rather than played out with the same old arguments. For example: rather than insisting that the residential schools are the only way to go (which provokes resistance among people who think mainstreaming or other options are better, and encourages their political allies in power (such as state legislatures!) to reconsider the existence of such schools), instead re-frame it as a viable option that is available pending individual consideration and evaluation of the deaf child as an individual. This really leads to a larger discussion that is best saved for another time, but I wanted to use it as an example.

While I think the concept of Deafhood is great, and there may be great promise in exploring and interpreting Dr. Ladd's work, I'm disappointed that it was so intertwined with the protest. It needs to be separate, and the concepts within need to be deconstructed and disseminated to a larger audience. One thing, though, that I thought was thoughtful that came out of the Deafhood workshops at NAD over the summer was David Eberwein's exhortation that we need to start "thinking outside the box."

Yes, it's time for all of us to start "thinking outside the box." It's time for all of us not to sit back, not to simply go back to our everyday lives, but after a short period of rest and recuperation, to harness some of the energy that was spent the last several months, and start using it in ways that will create positive outcomes. The protest was reactive; now it's time for us all to become proactive.

Tent City: Aftermath and Possible Solutions

2006-10-29T23:52:00.000-08:00

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:

"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.

Tent City: What Now?

2006-10-29T15:41:00.000-08:00

It's official: Jane K. Fernandes was immediately removed as President-Designate of Gallaudet University, and will not be assuming the Presidency outright come January 1, 2007.

The key information is at the very beginning of the communique:

Today, we announce with much regret and pain that after serious deliberation in a special, all-day Executive Session of the Board of Trustees, we have voted to terminate Dr. Fernandes' appointment as President-Designate (currently effective) and President (effective beginning January 1, 2007) at Gallaudet University.

This message from the BoT was followed by one from Dr. Jordan, in which he states in part,

“ In my Town Hall speech last November I said there is more that unites us than divides us. I think we lost sight of that for a time and we must work together to refocus on the core values that unite us. We should not look for a resolution to the struggle of recent months in terms of winners and losers. If we do, Gallaudet and our students will be the losers.”

Dr. Fernandes issued a very brief message of her own as well:

“It is with deep regret that I heard the Board’s decision to terminate my contract.

“I love Gallaudet University and I believe I could have made a significant contribution to its future. I hope that the Gallaudet community can heal the wounds that have been created. I trust that we all want a stronger, better, more inclusive Gallaudet where ASL and Deaf culture have been and always will be at the core of academic and community life.”

A final message made its way through official channels-- another statement from the BoT:

"The Board of Trustees respects the right of people to express their views in a peaceful manner. However, individuals who violated the law and Gallaudet University's Code of Conduct will be held accountable. We expect the University to honor its long tradition of respect for each other and property and to return to normal."

What this all means of course, depends on the conversations and actions of the next few days, and beyond.

As far as the presidency goes, that will be the most sensitive issue, and one I'll discuss at length soon, in addition to some ideas about how to change the process so that we do not have to revisit this issue again.

For the students/protesters, it's incumbent that they clean up every inch of their various posts, Tent City proper, and any other area that they inhabited over the past month. I have no doubt they will do it, but it would demonstrate a show of good faith on their part to return campus to normal.

While Dr. Jordan demonstrated his disappointment, the portion of his statement that I quoted above is one I agree with: while there will be a natural, human urge and desire to celebrate in the wake of the Board's announcement, it's vital that in the days, weeks, and months to come that people minimize the talk of "winners" and "losers." Despite whatever "unity" there may have been on the ground at Tent City and among the protesters, the protest was a divisive one that split the community at large in many ways.

In some ways, the protest was beneficial in the long run: it forced all of us to have conversations that were either new or old, but had never been resolved, or compromised. Its incumbent upon all of us now to continue those conversations, but to inject rationale and logic among the energy and passion, to come to conclusions and results that will benefit us in the long run. Otherwise we run the risk of the only tangible outcome being the denial of the promotion of a divisive person.

While many may not see Dr. Jordan as a leader anymore, he is still the president until December, and perhaps beyond, depending on how the Board tackles the now immediate problem of determining the next president. That means that despite whatever dislike there is for his words and actions of the last few months, there needs to be some bridges rebuilt-- it's not just a question of human decency and healing, it's also a politically savvy move. By coming to the table, you ensure some degree of influence; by shunning dialogue, you risk being painted as an extremist with a narrow perspective and set of goals.

The final message from the Board of Trustees was clear: there will be repercussions depending on what laws or regulations have been broken. I assume this means that there will be action taken against those who were arrested, anyone who damaged University property, and other such acts. For example, the idiot who broke a window at College Hall will definitely need to face the consequences of his actions. I just hope that those who face discipline are facing it because what they did was serious enough to warrant such action, and not as a retaliatory move. This is where I'm a bit concerned-- I hope those on the ground who are rational enough to think it through will discriminate between definite legal (and logical) punishment and acts of malice and retaliation. People will need to accept the former, and should protest the latter. Of course, it remains to be seen how this will turn out.

For now, we are on the threshold of a door-- behind us are the events of the last six months, and in front of us are the problems we face: how to determine immediate campus leadership, and how to overhaul the search process. For the internal campus, there are a host of other issues, such as minimizing the damage from Fernandes' tenure at Gallaudet over the last 11 years, ensuring that appropriate procedures and policies are in place (GallyNet-L simmered over the summer with heated debate over internal Gallaudet issues that are going to need to be resolved), and most importantly, correcting academic problems and failures (such as making sure that the next time a PART Report or other similar assessment is released, that it is a glowing one for Gallaudet), so that Gallaudet can be what it should be: an educational beacon.

For the community at large, we are going to need to address the divisiveness, the age-old split between the oralists and the manualists, and how best to reconcile these issues while still maintaining the independence of ASL and cultural values. There will also be a need to continue the ongoing process of a community changed by outside forces, such as mainstreaming, cochlear implants, and similiar factors, and learn to accept or tolerate them while fighting for the basic rights that all deaf people should have, such as the right to an equitable education.

No, these topics will not go away overnight, nor will they be resolved immediately or by a series of committees-- it will be a long, internal and external struggle for each and every one of us. But each of us will need to do it in order to benefit all of us in the long run.

Tent City: Bulldozing the Opposition

2006-10-26T20:13:00.000-07:00

By now, those of you who have been paying attention to the Tent City Protest (and with even more national and international Tent Cities popping up, it's my belief that this name is very appropriate, rather than "Unity for Gallaudet" or "Gallaudet United Now," or any of these other monikers with "unity" in them-- I'm sorry, but it's still my opinion that this whole affair isn't unifying; it's tragic, on many different levels), know about the events of yesterday, Wednesday, October 25.

Others have done a better job of recounting the drama that unfolded at campus yesterday-- the most immediate account that summarizes the confrontation best is the account from Dr. Kathy Wood, a long-time faculty member.

What bothered me a lot about her account was that DPS didn't help direct the ambulances; no one she encountered took any responsibility or tried to be even remotely helpful; and that aggressive acts were perpetrated against the students, regardless of whether their presence there was warranted or not.

This bit especially bothered me:

one group of men railed passed a student (I interviewed this student) with a metal pipe, ramming him in the knee. This student was later seen at SHS and was told to find a ride to Suburban Hospital to get an X-Ray for a possible fracture.

As Wood explained, these are 3"-5" diameter metal pipes-- whacking someone with one of these, whether in the knee or elsewhere, is assault, pure and simple. Dragging and pushing at a gate, resulting in injury to people, is also assault. The use of the bulldozer was out of proportion; as Joseph Rainmound put it, "You use a bulldozer on lumber, wood, inanimate objects. Things you do not respect or care about. We are lucky the damage was minimal."

Yet again, communication is a big issue (when it shouldn't be!). As Wood states,

When a concerned parent called the 877 number at the Provost’s office at 12:30 today and asked for an update on the emergency at the MSSD gate, the person answered that she didn’t know. That “something about the gate being blocked” was going on. When the parent said she needs details, the person told her to call DPS.

That's totally inappropriate, and I agree with Wood-- why doesn't the Provost's office have all the information necessary? It's 12:30 p.m.-- the bulldozers, PPD and DPS personnel, etc., were at the Brentwood gate around 8 a.m. It's now 4 1/2 hours later, and the Provost's office has to refer it to DPS? Pretty shoddy information-gathering, IMHO. Additionally, it's been said that there weren't interpreters present yesterday morning-- also, as anyone who attended Gallaudet knows, DPS/DOSS has a poor history where comprehension and expertise in ASL is concerned. To the best of my memory, PPD wasn't much better, for the most part. It's not just ironic- it's sad. Why is a university whose raison d'etre is unfettered access to communication in an educational setting so utterly lacking in communication???

In her closing comments, Wood asks, "Did IKJ order this sort of roughing up or, worse, did he not order it and these are rogue officers and staff working on their own?"

Jordan, Fernandes, et al, have made the point often in the last few weeks that the students will have to expect to be held responsible for their actions. I agree-- they will have to figure out how to make up any coursework they missed, they need to be responsible to clean up after themselves and to prevent (or at best, minimize) any damage or vandalization to Gallaudet property. Those who were arrested will have to face any consequences of that action.

But by the same token, the admininistration needs to demonstrate some accountability on their part. The arrests, as I've said earlier, were a CHOICE on the part of Jordan and whoever else was making that decision. Choices have consequences, whether good, bad, or mixed. The decision to employ a bulldozer and security and maintenance personnel to secure a gate also has its consequences. When you're a university administrator, and your charges are students in their teens or barely out of them, you're functioning to a degree under the shield of in loco parentis. While most universities and colleges no longer assume this function, some of the duties still remain: protecting and preserving the safety of the students (and like any employer, also protecting faculty, staff, and other employees). This means ensuring that regardless what happens and what the issue is, that people do not undergo harm, that their safety is not jeopardized.

Aside from the appalling manner in which the impasse at the gate was resolved, it's incredibly bad public relations for the university. You'd think in the aftermath of Black Friday, the powers-that-be would have rethought some of their strategies for handling this crisis. Guess not.

The students/protesters do need to realize that civil disobedience always carries with it the threat of injury, violence, and yes, even death. Very few protests in history have been completely peaceful or devoid of verbal conflict and potential physical confrontation; DPN, as much as some would like to emulate it, was a remarkable deviation from the norm (with the exception of John Maucere's injury, I suppose). How that historical civil rights event unfolded was contrary to a long history of dissent worldwide. While I'm sympathetic to Brian Morrison's injury, when you say that you are "standing there peacefully holding the gate with my arms," it doesn't matter how tranquil you're being; you hold a gate, or help to form a human barricade and there's a bulldozer or opposing group against you, you assume the risk of injury. It doesn't excuse the actions taken by the administration, but the protesters do need to understand that the act of protesting itself carries with it some risks, and those risks include bodily harm and perhaps even worse.

However, I find the official university line for why the actions of yesterday morning were warranted to be flimsy and disingenuous. In the Washington Post article on the use of the bulldozer, Mercy Coogan said "the front-end loader was used because it would have taken hours for employees to remove the student camp by hand."

Why do the employees need to do it? When it's time, the students will do it themselves. If it was truly necessary to have the gate free of protesters and debris, then the administration can certainly reach out for a separate negotiation regarding the gates (although I gather this has already happened-- as for the logic of why an agreement might not have been reached, see below).

There's a separate, yet inter-related issue at play here. Although the immediate crisis/confrontation yesterday morning was between those operating the bulldozers/removing the tents and the protesters, the real behind-the-scenes issue was a power play on both parts. The university wanted free access to all gates. Ultimately, this needs to and will happen. Gates that aren't open are barriers to the flow of traffic on a campus. The underlying goal, of course, is to quell the protests.

In contrast, the students want to maintain control of the gates in order to continue their protest. They also want to maintain maximum visibility.

What I don't understand is, why this even needed to happen at all. From a strategic point of view, the administration "won" on October 13; even if the 6th Street gate is the only one that's totally "free" of cars, students, and other barriers, it's still a gate that allows anyone to enter or exit campus. On the other side of the coin, if the 6th Street gate is truly open and is not being directly barred, then the protesters don't really have control of the entire campus. Since the Brentwood/MSSD and Kendall/West Virginia Avenue gates lead to a high school and an elementary school, respectively, and are of no real value unless the entire campus is secured, it seems counterproductive to waste time and energy maintaining vigils at these gates.

My personal opinion is the students should relinquish control of these gates, and the administration should make more effective use of their so-called highly effective "Crisis Management Team" and plan a better way to ask students to be responsible, to move, or whatever is needed. Should there be a need to re-secure campus again, I'd use cars, people, and tents on the grassy area and right at the drive that leads behind the dorms (Dorm 5, Clerc, Benson), so that the gate for Kendall remains open, but the Gallaudet portion of campus is closed. People, cars, etc. at the entrance to the Parking Plaza (assuming it doesn't completely fall apart-- that's another issue that should be important to the administration/Board of Trustees than insisting that Fernandes remain!), and along the parking lot/knoll leading behind Cogswell (to me, it'll always be Cogswell-- this renaming the dorms "Ballard Complex" merely papers over the tragedy, and dishonors the history of the buildings) and up to the gates. Voilà! You've effectively blocked off access to the main campus, College Hall, etc., while allowing access to Kendall/MSSD.

Regardless, the bottom line here is that Jordan and Fernandes, and by extension, the university, failed in its mission when it chose to risk the safety and security of the students by using a bulldozer and allowing campus personnel to use metal pipes in clearing the gates. Despite the administration's rationale (and its duplicity and disingenuousness in claiming that the incident was "nothing" and that "no one was injured" or that it was minor-- a possible fractured knee is NOT minor, and having your toenail torn off isn't exactly a superficial cut requiring only a band-aid), the ends do not justify the means. The same is true for the protesters.

Removing the Rose-Colored Glasses

2006-10-24T19:52:00.000-07:00

The election that looms just two weeks from today is increasingly being seen as a referendum on the war in Iraq, and by extension, on Smirk. Despite the Grand Old Perverts' attempt to prevent the election from being nationalized, nearly every pol worth their salt has run away screaming from the administration, and quite a few are facing tough questions about how they're going to handle Iraq, among other issues (like, oh, say, the economy, health care, stagnant wages, the environment, and other weighty topics...). It certainly doesn't help that the army announced earlier this month that it looks like we'll have troops there until, oh, 2010 at the earliest. Anyone want to bet that a lot of soldiers, especially National Guardsmen, are going to be thrilled about that prospect?

It's gotten bad enough that in the face of the increasing bloodshed, our dear Smirk has finally started to take off his rose-colored glasses. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, he admitted that there could be a basis, perhaps, for a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq.

No kidding.

While I'd agree that there's a lot of differences between the two (for one thing, Vietnam was a civil war-- unless there's a humanitarian reason to do so (a good example would be Rwanda, which was a tragic failure on the part of the rest of the world, not just the U.S.), staying out of another country's internal problems is the best move.), there's definitely the major similarity of a powerful country poking its nose where it's not wanted. There's also the similarity of not understanding the nation or people well enough to read the political, cultural, and social situation.

But if you really want to try to compare Iraq and Vietnam, I'd skip doing a surface comparison, and instead look at the words and thoughts of some of those who were intimately involved in Southeast Asia. There's a lot to be learned just from listening to the people living in a country that is being ravaged.

A timely example is the obituary of Pham Xuan An, a Vietnamese journalist who was also a Viet Cong spy. He died recently at 79. At the end of his obituary in the Los Angeles Times were the following two paragraphs:

In 2001, An was asked what the biggest mistake was the United States had made during the war. He replied: "Look, some of the influential Americans I dealt with were beautiful people. They were very smart. They weren't ignorant about Vietnam. But being smart and making the right decisions are different things.

"The big mistake the Americans made was not understanding the Vietnamese history, culture, mentality. They were so sure military strength would win the war, they never bothered to learn who they were fighting."

Déjà vu, anyone?

Exercising My Rights

2006-10-23T22:56:00.000-07:00

Tonight we cast our ballots for the general election, using absentee ballots. It was a pretty straight-up decision for me for most of the races and propositions. But far more important for me was using a paper ballot. I do not trust the machines, and this article published yesterday just reinforces my belief that we need to fix voting procedures in this country. As I type this, there's a Washington Post article being published in tomorrow morning's paper about potential voting problems in the upcoming election. There's possibly ten states that are anticipated to potentially have problems come November 7 and beyond. Maryland is one of the states listed, and that's troubling given the problems they had in their recent primary. It's not comforting when you think about what happened in Maryland happening in at least nine other states, just over two weeks from now (yes, Election Day is just two weeks off!).

The press has been asleep at the wheel for the most part, and politicians are either taking advantage of this (see: Florida 2000, Ohio 2004), or they've actually been worried enough to advise people to vote absentee. This Editor & Publisher article discusses whether the press has been proactive enough in covering voting problems. For a good overview of some of the problems with Diebold et al, go to the excellent site Black Box Voting. It'll scare you, but at least you'll be more informed-- which to my mind is good. An informed citizenry is a responsible citizenry.

For my part, I'm leery about using any machines that don't have paper trails. I'm just glad that California will be allowing anyone who asks for a paper ballot on November 7 to receive one. Still, I think I'll skip the rush and vote now. If you're registered to vote, then VOTE! If you're not registered, then don't plan to complain to me a year from now how lousy our government is.

Tent City: Since Black Friday Continued

2006-10-22T23:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Tent City: Since Black Friday

2006-10-21T20:32:00.000-07:00

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?

Rent-A-Judge: Coming Soon to a Court Near You!

2006-10-15T21:45:00.000-07:00

While scanning this morning's Sunday L.A. Times, a front-page story attracted my attention: "Call of the West: Rein In the Judges." I was immediately concerned. In the wake of an increasingly emasculated Congress and an Executive branch that is seeking ever more unchecked power, I've looked to the courts as a final bastion in the triad of checks-and-balances that our forefathers enshrined in the Constitution. Where congressional representatives can be thrown out of office, and the president is by law (thus far!) restricted to a total of two terms, judges are theoretically removed from the political process, and therefore are independent to a large degree from the political process.

This could change, as early as this fall. As the article states,

South Dakota's ballot contains the most radical provision: It would empower citizens to sue judges over their rulings.

and

Other proposals would... give Montana residents the right to recall judges over any "dissatisfaction."

This is extremely dangerous. If I don't like how a judge ruled, I could sue him? If I'm dissatisfied with a judge, I can recall her? These are small, rural, fairly conservative states. But precedents have a way of spreading. What happens if a larger state like Texas or Florida decides to imitate South Dakota and Montana? What about New York, or heaven forbid, here in California??

For one thing, our courts could conceivably be clogged with even more challenges and lawsuits than ever before. Personal vendettas or narrow political battles could be focused on one or two targeted individuals. Even more insidious is the potential for politically motivated targeting of a handful of jurists in an effort to change the makeup of an entire court, such as a state Supreme Court or High Court. Additionally, it would cause judges to become extremely sensitive to politics, where ideally and historically, judges have been above such concerns.

"Judges are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. They are not there to do the popular will," said Doreen Dodson, a St. Louis attorney who chairs the American Bar Assn.'s committee on judicial independence. "They are accountable to the law and the Constitution."

I agree- that's how it *should* be. The law is and should be the primary concern of any jurist-- to inject pure politics would pervert rulings and potentially stack the deck in favor of a small, highly motivated group, whether on the right or the left, to the detriment of the populace at large.

South Dakota's law is an example of how extreme this could be:

Under the amendment judges in the state could lose their jobs or assets if citizens disliked how they sentenced a criminal, resolved a business dispute or settled a divorce. "We want to give power back to the people," said Jake Hanes, a spokesman for the measure.

So if I got divorced, and I didn't like how the settlement went, I could conceivably sue the judge? That's frightening. I'm not sure I want "the people" to have that much power. If we're going to go in that direction, we might as well invest EVERYONE as a judge, and make our own decisions, and let everyone operate their own court. But that wouldn't work-- it'd lead to chaos.

Not everyone is going to like every verdict that is or was ever passed down. I certainly don't approve of some of the hacks that have been appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years. But the vitriol aimed at judges in the last few years, especially from the Right (anyone recall Ann Coulter's suggestion that someone poison Justice Stevens? Or Tom De Lay's pronouncement that "judges will answer for their behavior"?), worries me. So do these initiatives and proposals, many championed by right-wingers. If we're going to go this route, I fully expect to see ads in a few years for rent-a-judges. Don't like a verdict? Go judge shopping! While you're at it, use that copy of the Constitution you've got for toilet paper, or firewood, because we aren't really going to have that country anymore-- the checks and balances we've had for so long will be out the door.

Tent City: Black Friday

2006-10-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

The seizure of the entire campus echoed the DPN movement 18 years ago; while the campus landscape had changed quite a bit since then, its borders hadn't. The campus was still surrounded by the same gates that made it possible for students to hold campus grounds (unlike many colleges, which are open and easily accessible to anyone).

Unfortunately, DPN solely concerned civil rights; the Tent City Protest on the surface involved a wide range of issues, but at its heart was about the lack of trust between an administrator and the students and faculty. Some of this trust was grounded in personality conflicts; some of it was about identity politics; and some of it was about perceived or actual instances of conflicts and mismanagment on Fernandes' part. In the background was a questionable search process (regardless of what happens with Fernandes, the protesters and their supporters MUST push for an overhaul of the search process. There remain too many questions, in my opinion, that need to be answered) that was the impetus for some to initially protest or voice concerns.

Because there was no real unity on the central reason for the protest (despite the moniker "Unity for Gallaudet," the split I saw in the community in May and over the summer, and the sniping and personal attacks I've seen on GallyNet-L even unto the present does NOT indicate "unity" across the board. If there was a clear central reason, the FSSA could've and should've made this the centerpiece of their home page online. That they hadn't well into October justifiably raises the question of whether emotions and rhetoric have overtaken logic in many quarters), and because it was clear that this was a stalemate that had no foreseeable end, the decision to occupy campus had almost immediate repercussions.

The main one was that the college was closed; but because Gallaudet is unique in having both a high school and a K-8 program within the gates, securing the campus boundaries meant MSSD and Kendall were closed as well. Intially, the wrath of many was focused on the protesters. Quite a few previous supporters or fence-sitters urged the protesters to reconsider their actions.

One was Jamie Berke, whose original posting about her experiences dealing with Fernandes as a parent of a Kendall School student influenced the thinking of many people, including myself. In two consecutive posts, Berke articulated the feelings of many supporters, fence-straddlers, and opponents of the protest (see here and here (she may have since taken down these posts, since they are at About.com; she has set up a separate site for her own posts at Berke Outspoken)). Like Berke, many frustrated parents resented their children missing school, and in turn, their having to stay home or make alternate arrangements for the kids.

I knew that during DPN (from my own personal experiences) that the protesters had closed the gates by MSSD and Kendall, but that there seemed to be an understanding at that time why it was necessary, and there was no real criticism, compared to the Tent City protesters. Initially it looked like the students were the ones who made the choice to block access to MSSD and Kendall; in their campus-wide letter, the "dissenting students" stated, "[u]ntil further notice, Gallaudet University is closed and all gates are blocked. This includes MSSD and KDES and this letter is out of courtesy to communicate with them."

Soon, however, it emerged that the administration may have made the final decision to close all the campuses, and that the protesters would have willingly allowed MSSD and Kendall pupils to go through. Regardless of who was ultimately responsible, it did not look good for the protesters, and even though the backlash may have been less, it didn't reflect well on the Gallaudet administration either.

By Friday afternoon, October 13, it didn't look good for the students at all-- not only were numerous parents upset with them, FSSA indicated that the students had unilaterally seized the entire campus. This possible schism did not bode well for a successful conclusion to the protest. Additionally, what other available steps were there for the protesters? Peaceful demonstrations gave way to seized buildings, then a campus held hostage. The next logical step would be violence, and anyone with any sense of logic, no matter how emotional, knew this was a boundary that could not be crossed.

But then, the administration, in possibly a necessary short-term solution on their part, but with disastrous long-term implications, made the next fateful step-- one that I think was a monumentally stupid move, one that had irrevocable consequences, and one that guaranteed the survival of the Tent City Protest.

The administration, whether ultimately Jordan or Fernandes, ordered the arrests of the protesters. The order ostensibly came in the afternoon, around 2 or 2:30 p.m. But the arrests finally came after dark, around 8 p.m. By now, most, if not all, of you know exactly what happened, and have seen the pictures, videos, and followed the news. A number of popular blogs crashed under heavy traffic while reporting almost instantaneously events as they happened; the arrests attracted local media. For recaps, check Tayler Mayer's blog, Y3, starting with "live blogging," and going back; Elisa Abenchuchan, whose blog also crashed, related her personal experience here; the well-known site run by Ridor had updates as well, before his site too crashed; numerous others, including MishkaZena (who, next to Elisa, has relatively balanced up-to-the-moment reporting on what's going on; while no one here is impartial, these two women are doing their best to get facts out, compared with a lot of other sources. Ridor does fine overall, but as I've said before, he's the Matt Drudge of the deaf blogosphere- he relates information, but adds quite a bit of personal asides and opinions!), also have information, relayed eye-witness accounts, and the like. DeafRead also aggregated a number of blogs that shared the information globally that night. For good photos, go to eyeth studios.

A total of 135 people were arrested, including Tim Rarus, one of the famed four leaders from DPN. While it was very clear that the students knew what was going to happen, and they were prepared, thanks to Suzy Rosen Singleton, Kelby Brick, and others, the final decision to arrest the protesters lay with the administration.

The backlash, naturally, was immediate. Where some were speculating the protest would be over by Homecoming, or a little after, now there was near-universal condemnation of the administration, in particular Jordan and Fernandes. While the general public may still have been bewildered by events, people within the Deaf community understood immediately what was happening, and most people had a very visceral reaction (and not a positive one, at that!). Animosity against Jordan, Fernandes, and their compatriots rose, and within days, numerous letters were sent to the administration and the Board of Trustees. Dozens of alumni flocked to Washington, D.C. Donations poured in, sentiments of support were sent from around the globe, and once again, the FSSA and students found themselves with a golden opportunity to capitalize on a turn of events to their benefit.

Personally, I was appalled at the arrests. Even if they were wholly justified (and I felt they weren't completely justified-- after all, it was a Friday night, for one thing-- couldn't the administration have tried negotiations yet again, or at least allowed a little time for both sides to back down?), it was a very bad public relations move-- someone at the EMG PR offices didn't earn their paycheck that night.

Meantime, those of us in the deaf blogosphere (or DeafBlogLand, as some might term it *grin*) began to do our best to educate the deaf community and the public at large what was going on. Allison Kaftan wrote an excellent piece summarizing some of the rationales behind the protest (and it is one of the best pieces I've seen on Tent City Protest so far); Joseph Rainmound over at Deaf in the City wrote an article that was cross-posted at DailyKos; his follow up pieces garnered support, and possibly donations from hearing people. While the initial responses at DailyKos were quite mixed (and reflected the failures of FSSA and the students to clearly articulate the origins and reasons behind the strike), Rainmound was able to concisely explain the background for people who had little, if any, knowledge or understanding about Gallaudet and deaf people, let alone deafness.

Such mixed reactions were apparent in Marc Fisher's blog at the Washington Post; as "Cliff" stated in his response to Fisher's post about Gallaudet,

I've been following The Post's excellent and informative coverage of the events at Gallaudet. Unfortunately I still don't get it. The President says it is because she is not deaf enough. The student leaders say that is not it; that it's because the board did not involve the students in selecting the President and that the President herself is autocratic. Now you provide another explanation that is well though out. I still don't get it. I've decided that you have to be deaf to understand the issues. I hope they find some common ground between whatever their positions are, which I don't understand.

Even though quite a few of us checked in and responded and educated people as much as we could, comments like this one made me cringe:

If students are truly concerned about being dependent on third parties to mediate their communication, they need to make a commitment to fluent lipreading and speech, not protest because Fernandez learned to communicate verbally before she learned ASL...

Again, it comes back to language, and communication. Yes, language and communication IS a part of why the students are protesting, but it's not everything. These comments are yet another example of how much work all of us are going to have to do, now and in the aftermath of the protest. It's one of the things I hate sometimes: having to constantly educate others, when I should just be expending my energy and efforts on ME.

Regardless, Black Friday irrevocably doomed Dr. Jordan's reputation in the short-term, and perhaps long-term. Deaf people are remarkably forgiving as a group, and as human beings. But one of the few things that will cause ostracization is collective betrayal in any form. I don't see the welcome mat being rolled out for Dr. Jordan anytime soon...

Dr. Jordan's missive on October 14, in the wake of the arrests, said in part,

Having said that, I also want you to know that last night was one of the saddest of my life. After a week of fruitless negotiations we were forced to reopen the campus with the help of the Metropolitan Police. I want to be clear that we did not choose to arrest the students, they chose to be arrested. But the result was the same.

I disagree, Dr. Jordan. You were not "forced": No one stood there and held a gun to your head and told you you had to arrest the students. You are correct; the students chose to be arrested, but you also chose to arrest them. It was a CHOICE on both sides. The students positioned themselves in waves; they understood what was about to happen, and they made the choice to remain where they were. You, in turn, had the choice to order the arrests or to back down and consider other alternatives. It was a CHOICE. Just as the protesters will have to live with the consequences of their actions (a misdemeanor on their record), you will have to live with the consequences of yours. From what I'm seeing, that means your name is mud, and will be for quite some time.

Dr. Jordan continued:

We need to work together to heal the rift that separates us. We need to work together to address the issues that confront us. We need to accept our next President Jane Fernandes and help her as she leads this University we love to new heights. Encourage your sense of fair play to surface and give Jane Fernandes the respect that is due her and the opportunity to bring us all together in pursuit of academic excellence.

I agree with your first two sentiments-- we are going to have to undergo healing. We will have to work on a number of issues-- some of which are wholly internal topics, and some of which overlap and concern the deaf community and Deaf-world at large. However, I think the protesters and their supporters have made it clear they do NOT accept Jane Fernandes as the next president. As I have said all along, the sole issue of the divisiveness which her appointment has caused is alone an excellent reason to deny her appointment. As I type these words, it does not seem that you or Dr. Fernandes has wholly accepted this yet. For the sake of everyone, I hope you do soon.

As far as respect, I agree-- but respect is a two-way street. I haven't gone and called you names, spit or spilled anything on you, and neither have many others that I know of. I don't call Dr. Fernandes "Fernie" or other, more disrespectful names. I don't pretend to know either of you well enough to assume what's going on in your minds. But I have made it clear, as have many others, that this situation is intolerable. For the good of the campus, the community, and the future, it is imperative that Dr. Fernandes either be removed or herself decline the position as president. While there was considerable hesitation last May, the events of the last two weeks have crystallized opinions for a lot of people, and Black Friday just sealed the deal.

Tent City: Revival

2006-10-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

[This is an extremely long post; my apologies! However, I believe it is a good, if lengthy, summarization of the events from October 2-11 regarding the protests at Gallaudet University.]

On Monday, October 2, "Tent City" was revived on the slope facing Florida Avenue NE, and protesters again gathered around the front gates. This time, media attention focused rapidly, rather than after a slow swell of events leading to a confrontation or new development. However, at the outset, not much was different from May; the same people, the same issues, the same location. What HAD changed was the effect of the various letters, directives, meetings, and speeches over the summer. The cumulative effect was to harden positions on both sides. No one seemed genuinely willing to admit any mistakes on their part. Because of this, in retrospect given the events of this week, what followed was a train wreck just waiting to happen.

While FSSA and other "official" groups still couldn't somehow manage to draft some sort of reasoning behind their decisions to protest, individuals here and there started to post in various forums their rationales for supporting or actively participating in the protest. The best I saw was the October 2 letter from Tara Holcomb. While her brief discussion of "oppression" was rather vague, didn't clarify anything, and was strongly based on emotion, her next two reasons started to coalesce a narrative together: the lack of shared governance, and Fernandes' failures as a leader. One point she made is one I've referenced ages ago, back in May, and one that quite a few people have mentioned, but that no one seems to get the media to sit up and notice: Gallaudet faculty passed a vote of no confidence in Fernandes. I have no idea if this is wholly the fault of the student leaders, or the media; I suspect a bit of both. In today's climate, the media in general has a tendency to be lazy when it comes to actual reporting. While the Washington Post, via Susan Kinzie, has done a fair job of covering the story, the media as a whole could have done better.

It is facts like these that needed to be sewed together into a narrative back in May, and so far no one has really done a good job of it. Problems with Fernandes while she was head of Pre-College Programs; problems with Fernandes while she was provost; the no-confidence votes taken when Fernandes first began as provost, and when she was selected as president; the curious unbalanced makeup of the pool of finalists; the unwillingness of the Board of Trustees, Jordan, and Fernandes to truly listen to the sentiments coming from the community; and most of all, the divisiveness that has erupted since. Taken together, they paint a picture that isn't a very pretty one.

But I digress; as of October 2, Tent City was back. Despite the rhetoric by the Board and Fernandes, the students via Noah Beckman in his role as SBG president stated "There have been no public speeches, no open forums, and no contact with the student body. Jane Fernandes said that this will be solved through dialogue, and building bridges. Dialogue and Bridges have yet to be established. We have a problem."

Whatever dialogue (if any) was attempted was most likely stymied by the intractable positions taken by both sides: the students would not end their protest, and Fernandes would not resign. In addition to this impasse, it is to be presumed that the Board and Fernandes either did not want to attempt building "bridges" until after the protests had ceased, or perhaps they never intended to try to heal the divisions. In any event, the actual or perceived (it really does not matter) lack of genuine discussion and attempts at reconciliation did not make the task easier for either side.

Late Thursday night, October 5, the students, independently of FSSA, decided to occupy Hall Memorial Building (HMB), where most classrooms and department offices are located. This decision was made partly in the wake of the use of fertilizer on the front lawn where Tent City was located. In the aftermath of student complaints about the use of "earth juice," and their attempts to confront Jordan in College Hall, the students decided to move Tent City to an area closer to and around HMB. From here, it was but a short step to taking over the building entirely. This unilateral move took everyone by suprise. Unfortunately, it exposed an apparent schism within FSSA, and created potential new opponents of student tactics. Among those who were disturbed was a group calling themselves "Concerned Students." This coalition made it known that they were distressed about being unable to attend classes and obtain an education. One of their number, Bobby White, wrote a guest post at DeafDC. Far from spurring the troops and garnering more support, the protesters were seen as having made a monumental blunder.

But the administration didn't do itself any favors either. For example, the administration's efforts to control the narrative and maintain media focus on their side of the story spiraled into an ongoing meme. Even as the seizure of HMB gained national attention, University spokeswoman Mercy Coogan continued to spin the notion that the protest was all about Fernandes' "not being deaf enough": Coogan said the complaints about Fernandes arose out of the question of whether she was "deaf enough." This quote, part of a CNN article, concluded with Coogan stating, "the university is committed to "visual communications," and that those who work for the school are expected to know some level of sign language."

I've already addressed this quote elsewhere, but again, why is simply knowing "some level of sign language" acceptable? The administration should know better, especially since its president and president-designate are both deaf. As deaf people, they knew that no communication is 100% accessible to deaf people in general, and that Gallaudet was one of the few places where deaf people should have a guarantee of 100% communication accessibility. Additionally, in her internal communications to the campus community, Fernandes made it clear she knew there were several issues at hand: audism, racism, etc. So why pretend that she had no idea what the fuss was about? Why pretend that it merely boiled down to identity politics? The administration as a whole should have taken the grievances presented by the students, FSSA, and the community at large seriously; instead, they decided to play a public relations game, hoping that by borrowing tactics perfected by professional politicians (especially those serving in the current federal administration), they could control the narrative indefinitely and wear down the protesters.

Another blunder on the part of the administration was the fateful decision to send in campus security, ostensibly to deal with a bomb threat, into HMB. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) was known as DOSS in my time, and I still think of them as DOSS. DPS entered HMB on Friday, October 6. The history of troubled miscommunication between DPS and the student body has been a long one, and an especially low point was the death of Carl DuPree in 1990, when DOSS (as it was then known) used a chokehold to detain DuPree in the wake of a confrontation DuPree had at the English department concerning his progress with his English courses (I'm not finding a full link for it here, but Judith Treesberg (mother of Esme Farb), wrote an article about the tragedy for The Nation; additionally, MishkaZena, a "reporter" on the current events happening at Gallaudet, has a fairly accurate summary of the event posted at her blog). DuPree's death occurred at a time when students were highly critical of the English department and Gallaudet's approach to teaching English, which is an issue that still hasn't been fully resolved either.

One of the controversial points during the subsequent grand jury investigation was the fact that DOSS employed officers who had minimal signing skills. Despite the hiring of security officers such as Dean Prentice and Kurt Kornkven, the majority of DOSS/DPS personnel since has continued to be filled with people who have extremely basic to limited ASL skills.

The failure of DOSS/DPS and the administration to learn from this tragic history resurfaced in a new confrontation at HMB, where students reported being pushed, manhandled, and targeted with pepper spray. The videos and vlogs that spread the story throughout the community were mixed; one, obviously taken by someone who probably received a failing grade in a TFP (Television and Film Production; I have no idea what the courses are called now, or that they are even taught. I vaguely recall the entire TFP department was closed a while back) course, is not all that convincing. Another one is slightly better (although I can't find the link I had now). Whoever manned the cameras did a better job of holding it steady, and you can see DPS restraining students. While it's not a replay of the Democratic National Convention in 1968, you can see that as DPS becomes aware that there is someone taping them from behind (and others taking pictures), they suddenly back off. A bit suspicious, no? As for the pepper spray, a special edition of the campus newspaper (PDF link), The Buff and Blue, shows a DPS officer purportedly aiming a canister at students.

As someone who has protested for various causes over many years, I have seen pepper spray used (although luckily I've never been directly hit!), and believe me, it takes a while for the sting to go away. A few people commented on this at GallyNet-L as well-- I'm surprised no one has taken photos of actual people suffering from the pepper spray attack, or posted a redacted medical form after being treated for pepper spray. Still, based on the photo, student testimonies of rough treatment, and my own personal experience with DOSS/DPS officers who couldn't sign to save their life, I'd have to say that I lean towards the student account of what happened, regardless of the administrations denials that there was any mistreatment or use of pepper spray. Additionally, as Joseph Rainmound says over at Deaf in the City, the use of pepper spray against deaf people, who rely on their eyes not just for orientation but communication, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Regardless of whether students actually were maced or not, sending in officers with severely limited communication skills and practically no background/experience in civil disobedience situations into an occupied building held by protesters was not only a PR blunder, it was an extremely stupid move by whoever ultimately authorized it, whether it was Jordan, Fernandes, both, or someone else. DC police would have been a better choice for such a task.

But I must say that if it was I who was coordinating student/FSSA strategy, I wouldn't have bothered with HMB. While it seems like a very defensible building, it does directly interfere with academics, and doesn't really do anything to further the protest goals. My opinion on this is in retrospect, of course, but I think it would have been wiser to not relocate Tent City to HMB, but to surround College Hall instead. While there's less of a lawn or comfortable area for tents, it would have been more appropriate both in tactical and symbolic terms-- instead of surrounding the faculty (of whom a large portion were sympathetic, if not actually actively supporting the students), the students could have made their presence *extremely* visible to the administration daily, and demonstrated to the media their encircling a recalcitrant leadership. Classes would not have been disturbed, but Fernandes and Jordan would have definitely had no way to avoid the protesters. But-- it didn't happen, and at this point, c'est la vie.

In the meantime, a proliferating number of sister "Tent Cities" sprouted up all over the nation, from the SF Bay Area to St. Augustine, Florida. The increased visibility, support, and anger emanating from the alumni and the deaf community just highlighted the deepening chasm between the administration and its various constituencies.

Meanwhile, the Board of Trustees issued a response to the events of October 6, thus beginning a period over the coming week of charges of increased demands, revoked demands, failed communication, and overlapping events that were totally at odds. In the letter released by Dr. Brueggemann, the BoT stated that "[w]e were in the process of considering the protestors’ request for an independent review of the selection process, not our decision, when we were advised that the protestors have taken that demand off the table. It is difficult for the Administration to negotiate when the students make two non-negotiable demands." The letter then reiterates full board support for Dr. Fernandes as the next president.

If this is true, I wouldn't have taken the demand for an independent review off the table-- it may not have resulted in the immediate desire to see Dr. Fernandes step down or be removed, but it would have led to something that needs to happen anyway: an overhaul of the selection process. But the BoT, in speaking of "non-negotiable demands," demonstrated yet again their unwillingness to realize the building opposition among students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the deaf community at large to the ascension of Dr. Fernandes to the presidency.

During the BoT's time at Gallaudet at the end of that week, a ceremony was held to rename the Student Academic Center the I. King Jordan SAC, and naming an art gallery in the Washburn Arts Building after Linda Jordan, Dr. Jordan's wife. While I agreed with the renaming of the SAC after Jordan, I was and am completely opposed to the renaming of the art gallery. Apparently a number of people agreed with me, because during the ceremonies, liquid was thrown at Dr. Jordan in front of the public and his family.

Such immature behavior turned off quite a few people, including myself (since the events of Black Friday, the name of Dr. Jordan has been chipped off the SAC). The combination of these events-- the inability of the protesters to settle on a simple message and craft a logical narrative/reasons for asking Dr. Fernandes to leave, the treatment of Dr. Jordan in public, the unilateral takeover of HMB, and the apparent indecision about which demands to present to officials left a lot of people, including myself, thinking the protest was in disarray. Many of us were still sympathetic to the overall goals, but also felt that perhaps things were getting out of hand.

Indeed, a number of alumni and other concerned deaf individuals I spoke to at that time either were not interested at all in the protest (including a well-known deaf alumni, child of deaf alumni), were sympathetic, but abhorred the protesters' tactics, or were fully involved in the protest and active supporters, but acknowledged that too many mistakes had been made. The divisions were spreading beyond campus, and threatening to weaken overall support for the protest. A few people privately divulged to me that they agreed there was a very real possibility the protest would fail, even though they hoped that that wouldn't happen.

By October 10, it was clear the students themselves were unclear about what exactly they wanted. Rather than keep their priorities simple and their message clear, they submitted an appended list of additional items to the original two requests (the re-opening of the search process, and no reprisals); a list that totaled 23 separate demands. While some of these propositions were reasonable, or were goals that seemed plausible, they really should have been tabled and brought up AFTER the protest was over. To suddenly petition the administration with an expanded laundry list and then set a deadline (one that in my opinion, was way too short), was rightfully denounced by the administration. The frustration was apparent in a letter released by Dr. Jordan, in which he stated,

I was looking forward to announcing a peaceful resolution today to the campus building takeover. We actually had a signed agreement this afternoon with the president of the Student Body Government. He has since rescinded his signature. We have been negotiating in good faith... and each time we thought we had arrived at an agreement, the dissenters changed their demands.

The students countered this by stating that SBG president Beckham had either never signed such an agreement, or had signed "under duress." Regardless, it did not look good to renege on a signed agreement (it's one thing to back out BEFORE signing anything, but to default on a signed document after the fact is not acceptable, ethically, morally, or legally.), and the 23 demands depicted (whether rightfully or not) a student leadership unable to consistently maintain their original stated goals.

The chaos led the Washington Post to issue an editorial, "Standoff at Gallaudet: The wrong way to shape the university's future," which admonished the protesters and concluded that it was time to give Fernandes "a chance." Events at that point conspired to prod both sides, still locked in conflict, to give negotiations yet another chance. In a press release on Wednesday, October 11, it was announced that

In response to the HMB lockdown, a negotiation team has been established between the University administration and the Student Body Government. We, the representatives on the team, agree to confer with each other so as to arrive at an agreement on matters that are brought to the table.

We are pleased with the progress made tonight and look forward to positive outcomes that will serve in the best interests of the University.

In the wake of the planned negotations came an announcement early the next morning that would change the dynamics of the protest completely. Early the next morning, I received the following message, relayed to me by a friend:

If u are up...... The students have locked down the campus.

In yet another unilateral move, the students, led by members of the football team, decided to secure the gates and seize the entire campus. Over the next 48 hours, the Tent City Protest would take another irreversible turn, on its way towards a yet unforseen (but in my opinion, rapidly approaching) conclusion.

Tent City: No Longer A Time to Frame

2006-10-11T19:27:00.000-07:00

The majority of my posts concerning Gallaudet in 2006 have been prefaced with the overall title "Framing the Stalemate." I initially picked that title because I felt that FSSA in particular had done a terrible job with public relations, but that there was still time to re-frame events. Thus, "Framing the Stalemate."

To date, FSSA has completely failed as far as PR efforts go. To be fair, no other group or individual has been doing an exceptional job either. Jordan and Fernandes continued to rely on the mighty machine of the Gallaudet Office of Public Relations, and continued to insist that the protest was born of identity politics, and their continual refrains to the press consisted of "this is all happening because Dr. Fernandes isn't considered 'deaf enough.'" While the administration is correct that there was a fair amount of identity politics behind the rationales of many, and while it is/was true that personality conflicts played a role, especially at the beginning (witness the ongoing meme of "She didn't say 'hi.'"), there were/are larger dynamics at play here. The fact that Jordan and Fernandes chose to ignore or minimize those concerns means that while they may have won the PR battle with the larger public (which, whether you like to admit it or not, is crucial), they weren't winning internally, with either the campus community or the deaf community at large. Thus, while they had the upper hand with PR efforts, they weren't completely winning the war, but merely an ongoing battle.

At this point, it's too late for FSSA to re-frame issues from the beginning of the search process to the present date of this post (October 11). Therefore, there can be no real "framing the stalemate;" now it has become all about Tent City and the events unfolding on Kendall Green. The events of October thus far, from October 2 to the moment I'm writing this, offer new opportunities to turn the tide and "win". But in the end, really, there are no winners here. As the next post or two illustrates, this has turned into a tragedy for all involved. Nevertheless, the key goals remain the same, and MUST take place for anything positive to be immediately gleaned: either Dr. Fernandes resigns, or the Board of Trustees asks her to resign. There really is no other option.

Addendum: The original title was also about how I "framed" the entire story, and what I felt needed to be done. A double purpose, so to speak.

Framing the Stalemate: Entr'acte

2006-10-09T21:03:00.000-07:00

When last we left our intrepid band of actors, most of them had screwed up in one way or another over the summer. No one group (with the exception of the alumni) was totally blameless. Unlike DPN, Tent City Protest has proven to be divisive for all involved. What was and is especially hurtful was the divide between different groups of deaf people. While there's always been a gulf of sorts between those who consider themselves culturally deaf, those who were oral, and those who were late-deafened or hard-of-hearing, the last thirty years has brought new groups to the fore-- a strong core of mainstreamed deaf, those with cochlear implants, and as people lived longer, a growing cadre of deafened elderly citizens. Many people from within these groups offered their opinions, argued about issues, and in some cases, attacked each other or patronized certain subgroups. Ancient debates and conflicts that had lain dormant under the surface re-emerged.

Some of this was to be expected. Each generation seems to "rediscover" some of the same topics over and over, and re-hash them out. But this time there was a new urgency. It's only been a couple of generations since deaf people faced restrictions and barriers: no captions for television or movies, no professional interpreters, no legal protections, limits or bans on driving, discouragement of intermarriage with other deaf people, and numerous other boundaries established by a hearing majority within society. Today's college-aged deaf have a plethora of technological, social, and legal advancements to benefit from. While many places globally are still mired in the past, the deaf of the United States (and to a large extent, Canada) are living in a golden age of deafness. While the storm clouds of gene therapy and other scientific advances are on the horizon, many deaf in this country have it better in many ways than any generation before.

Yet there were and are still issues to confront, injustices to change, and wounds to heal. For example, in the post-DPN world, under- and unemployment remains a huge barrier. Low literacy rates continue to haunt educational programs nationwide. Communication and attitudinal barriers still exist.

But for the citizens of Kendall Green, the immediate, looming issue was Jane K. Fernandes, and by extension, I. King Jordan and the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. Many secondary issues also littered the landscape: audism, racism, sexism, and a host of other isms. Additionally, as best seen through the posts at GallyNet-L over the summer, there were a host of internal problems at Gallaudet as well.

The big challenge that existed at the beginning of our tale in May, the challenge that remained at the end of the summer, and the challenge that still lives today as I type this, is to separate and deal with these issues individually as much as possible. Some of the internal conflicts on campus do not concern the external community at all. Some of the various "-isms" concern everyone; audism is arguably the most widespread, but racism and sexism are national and even universal issues. The problem that faced FSSA (and that they *still* face) is to separate the various issues, gently pull them apart, sift under layer after layer, and expose the foundations of the grievances they have.

Let's look at racism, for example. Quite a few people at Gallaudet claim that the problem is that there must be racist motives involved in the selection process; otherwise, why was Glenn Anderson discarded in favor of an all-white pool? My answer to this is similar to the one that Kristi Merriweather made on GallyNet-L over the summer (and recently again on DeafDC): If Ron Stern or Steve Weiner had been chosen, would anyone be that concerned about racism or the lack of ethnicity in the final candidate pool? I strongly doubt it. I'm white, so maybe I don't "get it," but I don't see racism as the real issue here, and it pains me every time "diversity" is brought up. I see the real problem (and quite a few people noticed this right away, including me) being the fact that a candidate survived to the final round with only a M.A., compared with a number of applicants with Ph.D.'s.

Let's look at it this way: if Glenn Anderson had been a finalist instead of Ron Stern, and Jane Fernandes was chosen over Anderson and Weiner, would there still be an outcry about racism? If so, does that mean that a "person of color" must always be in the final pool? Does it mean that Glenn Anderson should have been picked outright? What if Dr. Anderson turned out to be a mediocre president (I doubt he would have, but this is for the sake of argument)? Would it be okay anyway simply because he's black? Let's look at it from another perspective: What if Dr. Anderson wasn't black? Would there still be the same outrage?

You could apply Judaism to the same argument using Weiner, or sexism with Fernandes (not a problem now, as she WAS offered the job). While I'm all for diversity, and given two equal candidates, I'd prefer to see the one from an underrepresented group given a chance, I still think in the end it needs to be as much of a meritocracy as possible.

This is one of the reasons Fernandes was chosen, of course-- she had the best qualifications on paper. But there was something obviously funny about the process once the final three candidates were announced. I'm just disappointed there wasn't more of an outcry then, and that people waited until after the announcement of Fernandes to do something. It makes reversing the Board's decision that much harder.

I could analyze audism, cultural deafness, and the vagaries of identity politics in the same manner. But no matter; a new semester, a new school year has begun, and in a sense, everyone got a second chance, sort of.

I. King Jordan's memorandum of August 27 kicked off the school year. In his message, he stated that he would divide the responsibilities of provost with whomever was chosen for the interim slot. Again, why is there a need to do so? He stated that Dr. Katherine Jankowski and Deborah DeStefano as heads of the Clerc Center and OES, respectively, would report to him. What was wrong with the two women reporting to the interim provost? What was wrong with the two women doing their jobs on their own for a few months? Another layer of bureaucracy is not always needed, and I'm sure that their respective divisions could have survived a few months without a titular leader to report to.

Jordan also addressed the PART report. This is one area where no one did a satisfactory job of explaining exactly what the report involved; I must have seen the question, "What is PART???" in every third or fourth GallyNet-L digest. Even I'm not completely clear on what's involved. What I DO know is this: if the PART report, even after reassessment, shows a dismal performance on Gallaudet's part, then no matter what explanations the administration makes, Fernandes must take responsibility for her share of the blame; as provost, she is responsible for the internal workings of the university. The BoT should also have taken the report into consideration (and if they did, one wonders why they chose to reward failure. My partisan retort would be, "Maybe they're taking lessons from the Bush administration."), and balanced it against the strengths and weaknesses of the other candidates. To be honest, I think it would have been perfectly okay with most people if the Board had simply announced, "We're sorry, but none of the candidates were acceptable. We are re-opening the application period and asking Dr. Jordan to remain through the end of the 2006-07 school year."

Jordan also addressed the events of May 2006, stating,

I recognize that there are differences within our community and, in particular, that some of the differences expressed in May remain. I respect completely and uphold the right of any member of the university community to express disagreement with any action or decision made by the University. At the same time, as president, I also have the responsibility to make sure that one person or group’s exercise of the right to freedom of expression does not deny others their rights nor create unsafe conditions.

But, but, but... Dr. Jordan? Your guidelines of June 28 very clearly shows you do not respect the right of free assembly. A contradiction here, it seems...

Dr. Fernandes also weighed in a week earlier, with her "Letter to the Campus Community" on August 21. In addressing the numerous rationales for protest and grievances that surfaced during the Spring semester, Fernandes remarked

I know there are differing perspectives on how best to achieve this goal but I am convinced that honest, open dialogue and staying focused on the best interests of the University and our students will lead to a resolution of those differences. President Jordan has said on many occasions that there is more that unites us than divides us, and I firmly believe that to be true.

She is correct; there are "differing perspectives," and this was very evident on GallyNet-L, some of the major (and minor) blogs, and in the community at large over the summer and even now. I'm amazed at the amount of thoughtful responses and considerations many people have made. I'm also appalled at the amount of viciousness and closed-mindedness there has been on the part of a number of individuals, from former faculty members to students to community members. Emotions are getting the best of a lot of people; while passion is necessary to maintain a protest and to persevere during a period of social unrest, there also needs to be a certain amount of logic and compassion as well, and unfortunately, it's not happening as often as I would like.

Dr. Fernandes' overall response in her letter was not one of a leader, but that of a bureaucrat: one of her proposed solutions is to "lead a Blue Ribbon Panel on governance and diversity to begin meeting early in the fall semester." Where was this "Blue Ribbon Panel" before? Will it really solve anything at this junction? A committee isn't what's needed at the moment. New layers of bureaucracy will not solve the problems within the current bureaucracy. Instead, Dr. Fernandes demonstrated how little she understands (or actually, how little she is willing to reveal she understands) about the one common goal among the mixed messages from all quarters: "We do not want Jane Fernandes as the next President of Gallaudet University." If she truly has been following events in all forms since the search process began, she should know by now that her presence is truly divisive, and that removing herself is the key to begin addressing some of the lingering issues such as governance and diversity.

The announcement of Dr. Michael Moore as interim provost on September 1 was greeted as welcome news from many quarters, and silence from others. The fact that faculty leadership also recommended Dr. Moore boded well for an interim provost who could try to hold the campus together as best as possible during a time of unrest.

On another front, Dr. Brueggemann announced the formation of a Presidential Transition Team on September 8. While BoT representation was rather heavy (an anticipated four members: the BoT chair, two current members, and a trustee emeritus) compared with the representatives from the other campus constituencies, there was again an attempt in both fact and spirit to include and incorporate a sense of varying perspectives and shared governance. While the makeup isn't perfect, it was a step forward on the part of the Board. Left unsaid, however, was the fact that the Board again chose to ignore the fact that it was decidedly in the minority in its support for Dr. Fernandes, and that any attempt to move forward with the installation of Fernandes would be met with skepticism and rejection from many quarters.

The response from the SBG was problematic; on one hand, it was logical for the SBG president, Noah Beckman, to state that since the SBG did not recognize Fernandes as the new president, it therefore followed that participating in the transition team was not possible. However, the SBG decided to defer to the Student Congress in the matter (for the record, Student Congress voted on September 20 to decline sending a representative).

I had mixed feelings about this decision; on one hand, I agreed that it made no sense to confer even the perception of legitimacy and acceptance if the student stance indeed was anti-Fernandes. On the other hand, shutting themselves out of any dialogue left them exposed to the possibility that decisions would be made that would be unacceptable, but that the students would have no choice but to abide by them, since they didn't even avail themselves of the opportunity to participate. Additionally, the chance to interact with faculty, staff, and other people from across campus may not have tactically been a good short-term move, but could have offered dividends for a long-term strategy: by forging new ties and weighing in on decisions, there existed (and exists) opportunities to potentially make new allies, sway opinions, and steer the conversation towards other issues that WILL have to be dealt with eventually, whether anyone likes it or not. It's a difficult balancing act, and people older and wiser than college students have stumbled badly in similar situations.

Still, it is to the students' benefit (and FSSA's as well) that they start developing a two-pronged strategy (and the sooner, the better!): the first, of course, is the resolution of the current crisis (and for the administration to act like ostriches and pretend there is no crisis whatsoever is not only not helpful, but also extremely short-sighted). The second is to plan for the dialogues, the committees, the forums that MUST take place in the aftermath. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of healing to be done. Additionally (even as I type this, it still remains a possibility), there is always the potential for the students to lose their immediate battle. There exists the very real possibility that come January 1, 2007, the protest will have failed, and Fernandes will assume the presidency. A divide and conquer strategy is not advisable; there needs to be an ongoing dialogue with all affected constituencies to determine how the campus will act, how people will come together and work, with or without Fernandes.

FSSA was still missing in action; many expected the resumption of Tent City, or at least the re-emergence of FSSA in August. When that didn't happen, some assumed it would happen with the actual start of classes. That too didn't happen. August turned into September, and the weeks dragged on. FSSA still didn't have a mission statement on the home page of its web site, nor was there a coherent explanation for how everything began, what had happened, and where FSSA was going. There was no real summary of what FSSA had done the past three months. A small suggestion for FSSA: try developing a mission statement, and link this to a timeline, which should also be on your site. Not only will it provide clarity for people with no prior knowledge who are visiting your website, it also might clarify a lot for you as well.

On September 22, seven FSSA faculty members met with Dr. Fernandes; while most with a sense of the politics of the situation knew nothing was likely to come of the meeting, it represented yet another opportunity for Fernandes to understand what was going on, for the faculty to assess Fernandes' stance, and for both sides to try to initiate some sort of conversation that could eventually conclude in some concrete and positive results for both sides. However, one major flaw that has bedeviled both sides quickly became apparent: the biases of one-sided reporting. Jared Evans posted about this at his blog, and I agree with him (and by extension McConnell. Like Jared, this is probably a rare moment of consensus, which will most likely be repeated seldom, if ever); for all of us to truly assess what is going on, there needs to be accounts from both sides, or even better, transcripts/tapes. I've personally had a difficult time stitching together my commentary, simply because a large amount of the information available is being filtered through a handful of outlets, all of which are biased to some extent (some more than others!).

As far as the letter goes, the veracity can be determined immediately from the title of the letter: "Impressions from our meeting." These are personal opinions, mixed with a re-telling of a private meeting between seven individuals and an eighth person. It's difficult for those of us who were not there to know exactly how questions were phrased, what specific questions were asked and what answers were given. While I personally believe Dr. Fernandes "knows" far more than she admits, this letter is way too partisan to admit as incontrovertible evidence of anything.

That said, these meetings do aid both sides in understanding just exactly how wide the gulf is, and what has been breached, and what can be repaired (if anything). So even though I will not rely on these seven individuals solely, I do give credit to them for trying to establish common ground of sorts with Dr. Fernandes.

By September 30, there was definitely a sense of tension, both within and without campus: as the saying goes, everyone was waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was not an intermission, but rather an interlude-- as an entr'acte. This was still part of the entire drama, a period that served as a backdrop to the events to come.

Framing the Stalemate: Intermission

2006-10-08T20:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Framing the Stalemate Revisited

2006-10-06T23:19:00.000-07:00

I've been meaning for quite some time to do an update on Gallaudet, but somehow I kept putting it off. Despite little things here and there, the situation remained frozen; oh, sure, little things happened here and there, but during the summer and entering the fall, it's been pretty much the status quo.

Not this week. Certainly not today.

There's so much going on at 800 Florida Avenue NE, and so many rumors, stories, tidbits and half-verified and unverified facts flying through the air, via pager, blogs, vlogs, IMs, and good old-fashioned face-to-face conversations, that I need a little time to sort it out. I don't operate on pure emotion, but I also don't require complete logic. I function with a healthy dollop of each-- I find it's what makes us human. The events of May stirred passion in me, but the trained historian, the strategist in me, needed facts. I needed the truth, or as much of it and as close to it as I could get.

This time, I'm not really sure what to say. On one hand, I've said on my blog and in private that FSSA had a lot of work to do, and in some ways, I've been disappointed in what's happened since May 1. At the same time, I have a lot of disbelief and frustration in the communiques and actions emanating from the administration.

Because I'm not doing this in "real-time," I'll be exploring my thoughts, my feelings, and my (unsolicited!) advice regarding the events of this past summer leading up to tonight, and I'm sure, over the next few days. In order to do this, I'll be more likely than not commenting on events after the fact. If you want "on-the-spot" live "reporting," there's quite a few websites you can go to, if you haven't already. I particularly recommend two in particular: DeafRead, which is a recent and VERY welcome addition to the deaf blogosphere, and is a good central station to sort through recent posts from all over cyberspace-- naturally many of these posts of late focus on the events in the 20002. The second is a compendium of blogs that was started last May, and has been added to since. Peggy at LoveMyBostons has done a great job of developing a great list of (solely) protest-related blogs.

My past posts on this topic are here, here, here, here, and here. I'll get started on blogging the latest later, tomorrow or Sunday most likely. But before I go, I'd like to revisit some portions of my last major post on this subject, on May 17.

...no one's really won here. The so-called "unity" is only present on one level: for those who are/were physically present at Tent City and campus grounds, protesting. Even on campus, not to mention outside in the rest of the world, cyber and otherwise, there have been differences of opinion, splits, and arguments and debates raised that will not go away overnight. I'm sorry, but that doesn't meet the definition of "unity."

For all of this, I blame the BOT. The Board is supposed to oversee the president, so if Jordan was truly pulling the strings, then the BOT allowed itself to be manipulated. Additionally, the BOT (and Jordan) *knew* prior to their announcement that all interested stakeholders (students, staff, faculty, and alumni) did NOT want Fernandes. They *knew* she was divisive and that there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that threatened to explode into a protest (which it did). If they truly cared about the university and ensuring a smooth transition, they haven't shown it. What were they thinking?!?!?

Sadly, the above section hasn't changed. I still can't say with certainty that there's "unity" in the community (despite a certain website's subtle claim to the contrary). The BoT certainly hasn't improved at all, especially considering today's events. As for Fernandes?

The best way to being the healing would be for her to decline/resign the presidency. She knows by now that her appointment is divisive, has caused the protests (regardless of who started what), and has led to splits in the community, both at Gallaudet and outside. These rifts will not heal overnight, and she so far hasn't shown that she is the person to lead the healing. But like it or not, regardless of what happens, the next move is really hers. As a friend of mine put it, she is the catalyst here. She said in the NYT, "It is absolutely essential I stay." I'm sorry, Dr. Fernandes, but it isn't. You are and should be expendable for the good of the community.

This also hasn't changed. Despite the actions/reactions involving the students, DPS/DOSS (I know they're called DPS now, but to me, they'll always be DOSS), the BoT, the Jordans, it really is Fernandes' move. She is still the catalyst: it's not essential that she stay; she is not the only person who can lead Gallaudet; but, sans action by the Trustees, she is the final arbiter at the moment on whether she stays or goes. Unfortunately, she seems unable or unwilling to recognize that the best legacy she could provide to Gallaudet would be her immediate departure from the scene.

Act I was May 2006. The Intermission was the Summer/Early Fall. October 2006 is Act II. My critique is forthcoming...

A Story to Tell (Masturgate Redux)

2006-10-05T18:07:00.000-07:00

"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have — in my view have — put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense," Hastert said.

This quote from Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-IL) struck me as a bunch of garbage. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but what "story" do you have to tell?

The story so far is this: Either A) you were completely out of the loop, in which case, at best, you're guilty of gross incompetence and should be removed as Speaker, or B) you were completely in the loop, in which case you are complicit in protecting a man who under any other circumstances would be in jail right now and probably facing a lynch mob. By aiding and abetting this coverup, you should be removed as Speaker.

Those are the only "stories" that count. Pointing fingers at the Democrats doesn't work. As far as we all know, there's NO evidence the Democrats were responsible for sharing this information with the rest of us (which is something you should have done way back when, anyway). Whether it was six months ago, a year ago, or last week, the minute you learned of Rep. Foley's misbehavior, you should not only have called him on it, but you should have taken care of the problem immediately. Instead, it's out here, festering, and it's on YOUR doorstep, *not* the Democrats'. Maybe you and your crew need to learn the meaning of the word "accountability"...?

The "timetable" also isn't important. Sexual misconduct and predatory behavior doesn't hew to a timetable, and you shouldn't be either. As it is, the latest is that Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff, informed you, Mr. Hastert, of this situation three years ago. That's 2003, in case you're chronologically impaired. As far as I can remember, there wasn't any crucial election back then, so certainly no reason not to have taken care of the problem then.

Oh, and the subsequent behavior from Foley, Reynolds, et al doesn't impress me either. So far we have Foley saying he's an alcoholic. I come from a line of alcoholics, and to the best of my recollection, none of them tried to fool around with minors. Then we have the revelation that Foley is gay. This old chestnut, a favorite of the Right, doesn't work either. Yes, Foley is without a doubt gay, but gay= child molester doesn't fly. My personal experience is that of all the people in my life that I've known who were molested as children, the vast majority were girls molested by men (and usually family members, at that). The Catholic Church and media-hyped stranger abductions notwithstanding, the majority of molestations in this country are committed by family members and people familiar to the victim.

So we have finger-pointing at alcoholism, gays, and the Democrats. Such convenient targets. But nowhere have we had any personal responsibility. I'm sure quite a few right-wing bloggers will try to point to sex scandals involving Democrats, which there are a few of. But again, that's trying to equivocate the matter, and lead people down the road to a straw man. Each scandal is unique to the people involved, and should be dealt with on its own. The fact of the matter here is that we have a Congressman who was known among the rank and file of the Congressional pages to be "overly friendly," a legislator whose own chief of staff (Fordham) ran interference to prevent public exposure, a person in a position of power whose superiors looked the other way, and merely rapped him on the knuckles. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) said he brought the matter to Hastert's attention, and later defended this decision by saying that acted responsibly by bringing the matter to his supervisor's attention.

Uh, no. The responsible, NORMAL thing to do would be to run, not walk, to the police. This is what the average person would do, and it's a very easy responsibility to understand-- which probably explains the low poll numbers the Grand Old Perverts are experiencing right now. This situation isn't a great example of "family values"-- a political party putting its political future ahead of the moral and ethical responsibility to protect minors under your care. It's also inexplicable how Hastert, a former high school wrestling coach, wouldn't understand how to protect high-school age minors, and wouldn't understand how easy it is to influence individuals of that age and maturity level? Makes you wonder...

SO... Mr. Hastert & Co. Care to revise your story?

Masturgate

2006-10-04T20:08:00.000-07:00

Unless you've totally disconnected yourself from news of the outside world, you're aware by now of the latest Washington scandal du jour.

One thing I've always hated in the post-Watergate era is the press' uncreativity in naming new outrages and scandals-- with the possible exception of ABSCAM, nearly every political mess since 1974 has had "-gate" appended to it. C'mon guys-- you're supposed to be writers. Display some imagination, willya?

But as I trolled for news of this latest fiasco for the Grand Old Perverts, I ran across a clever appellation to describe the Foley scandal: Masturgate. The brilliance of this simplicity... "Masturgate" it is.

What seems like an eon ago, we as a nation were forced to endure, thanks to Kenneth Starr and his henchmen, nauseating details about creative uses for cigars, and a host of citizens who were previously unaware learned that "thongs" are not a formal name for flip-flops, but something you'd shop for at Victoria's Secret. My lifelong Republican grandmother began her journey towards the political center around this time-- she confided to me the whole thing was "pretty nauseating," and not something a Midwestern farm girl at heart needed to know.

Again, I think most of the nation is collectively nauseated-- this time by the revelations surrounding Mark Foley's inappropriate behavior. Wisely, Foley resigned. Unwisely, the Perverts decided to try to sweep everything under the rug. By now, any politician worth his salt should know it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. For example, Smirk brazenly admitted he broke the law by flouting FISA-- he said it on NATIONAL television that he was operating a "secret" wiretapping program. So far, legislation was until recently on track to retroactively approve Smirk's illegal activities. Had he instead tried to cover it up, I imagine impeachment proceedings would be on the agenda instead (and they should be anyway, but that's not my point).

So when it came to light that Mark Foley was actively IM'ing Congressional pages and inquiring as to their private habits, their anatomical gifts (or lack thereof), and whether they might be interested in *ahem* going out for ice cream (to be followed by creative exploration of "cherries" and "whipped cream" (my bad)), what did the House leadership do?

Deny, deny, deny. (Notice this is one letter removed from "Denny, Denny, Denny." Concidence? You decide.)

When it came to light that the same House leadership knew in advance that Foley had a little problem with keeping his eyes and thoughts from straying, what did the House leadership do?

Deny, deny, deny.

When it became even clearer that there were a host of questions about how *long* Hastert and crew have known of this little "problem" and that it was turning off the country, as well as their "base," did these gentlemen do the right thing and cry, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa"? (You'd think they'd have learned something from watching how badly the Catholic Church has been handling this for the past several years.)

No, no, no. (You can tell I was raised on MAD magazine-- all those helpful primers!)

Instead of making this big, bad mess go away, what do we have?

We have MASTURGATE.

You think we can get Kenneth Starr to take sabbatical from Pepperdine and write a sequel to the Starr Report?

To be continued on the 6 o'clock news and in porn shops everywhere (pending XXX title, to be released: "The Foley Artist: Congressional Sound Effects")...

A Moral Rubicon

2006-09-28T16:07:00.000-07:00

Our nation once stood as one of the most admired countries in the world. Our nation advanced the ideals of progress, human achievements, and concepts of justice, liberty, and freedom for all. Our United States of America, from July 4, 1776 on, was a model for other nations, individuals, and peoples to examine, dissect, and emulate. From the French revolutionaries in 1789 to Símon Bolívar to the colonial founders of Liberia, America has stood as an ideal to aspire to.

The last few years, however, this proud history and legacy has been tarnished. It is difficult to say today, speaking in the year 2006, but I believe future historians and peoples will look back and say that September 28, 2006 marked the beginning of the end of the American Republic.

To the casual reader, this may seem an alarmist, drastic statement to make. But I disagree; for yesterday, the House of Representatives, and today, the Senate of the United States of America voted to permit the President to determine when to use torture. While torture is still not officially codified, it is now more or less government policy, despite the earlier grand show of protestations by John McCain & Co. The restrictions on torture thus far only apply to the military, but not to the CIA. The fact that the final decision is being left to the executive branch places far more power than should be allocated into the hands of just one man. For several decades, no U.S. president or government has had any difficulty following or defining what was permitted and what was not allowed under the Geneva Conventions-- through several undeclared wars and conflicts, from Korea to Vietnam to Grenada to the Gulf War, and up until very, very recently. All of a sudden, there is now a rush, a mad dash to "clarify" what has up until now been clear to generations of leaders and Americans.

Our legislators voted to abrogate habeas corpus, a right that has its origins in Magna Carta, the document King John signed at Runnymede in 1215. Since the 13th and 14th centuries, the Great Writ has emerged as one of the cornerstone protections in Western civilization. As of today, both houses have decided that the detainees we have at Guantanamo and elsewhere cannot avail themselves of the ability to use habeas corpus in their attempts for redress. Habeas corpus is protection for individuals against the state. Right now, only non-citizens are being barred from this ancient legal right; but this leads to a slippery slope. Who's to say which group of people will be limited in their use or rights under habeas corpus next?

Finally, the amendment of the War Crimes Act of 1996 was also a package of the bill that has passed in the halls of Congress. Originally drafted and legislated to define war crimes as violations of the Geneva Conventions and issued to protect American nationals abroad from suffering at the hands of others, it is now being revised to provide retroactive immunity for any and all persons for post-9/11 actions.

Taken all together, these are the desires of the current administration: the wish to be able to use whatever means necessary to elicit information; the ability to escape punishment for past violations of federal and international law; and the opportunity to erode a foundation of our legal system. The fact that Congress has complied indicates a legislative body not only complicit in weakening what this country stands for, but willing to diminish its own responsibilities to conduct oversight. In this nation, we supposedly have a balance of powers: the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches all have checks and balances. Today is a step towards radically and permanently altering the structure of our government.

As I've stated before, perceptions are very important. It's not just a matter of good public relations (something the U.S. needs a giant shot in the arm of); it's a matter of reciprocal treatment. You think other nations are going to say, "Oh, we'll just keep following the Geneva Conventions, now that the United States has decided to alter the playing field to its advantage"? Most will, but some decidedly won't. It'll be a game of, "You're doing it, so it's okay for us to do it too." Allowing torture is not just wrong on a basic level of human rights; it's also wrong because at some point down the line, some unlucky soldier, diplomat, or government representative may needlessly suffer because some nation, government, or group has decided that it too can afford to ignore international protocols. It's not about coddling terrorists or prisoners; it's about providing equal protections across the board.

Additionally, I've commented on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The portions concerning habeas corpus are the one part of this odious bill that I think will ultimately be defeated, or at least retarded; the Supreme Court has made it clear that there are fundamental legal rights and protections that Bush and his cronies cannot tamper with. Still, the fact that our Congress thought it was okay to limit habeas corpus depresses me, makes me sick to my stomach. The path to tyranny, throughout history, has been marked by actions such as these: the abrogation and termination of the rights of the individual versus the rights of the state.

Finally, the evisceration of the War Crimes Act infuriates me. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al have stated that they view the Geneva Conventions in a dim light; indeed, Alberto Gonzales called portions of the Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete." Yet they are obviously perfectly aware that what they are doing is wrong. If the acts permitted under this government are legal, then they have nothing to worry about. Why fight it out in the courts? Why try to amend and change laws? I grew up believing immunity was something granted only to criminals; why does our gummint need immunity? For a better opinion piece on this matter, see here.

It isn't just those of us on the left or in the center that harbor serious doubts about the events of the last few days. Even Andrew Sullivan has come out stating that this "kind of political pressure... is breath-taking and shameless."

There comes a time when every nation faces a turning point in its history. A time when a nation either grows, expands, and rises beyond its past to new heights; or a point where it plateaus, or in many cases, begins to slowly stagnate, and eventually fall. In the case of our United States of America, over the last few days, we've faced a crossing that will place us on an irreversible path. I fear that today we crossed a moral Rubicon.

A Deaf Literary Salon

2006-09-24T19:01:00.000-07:00

As you already know from numerous previous posts, I have a Thing for Books. There's five bookcases here, and an additional 20-odd boxes of books in storage. We're rapidly running out of space, but to me, books are treasures. They transport you to other places, times, and planes of existence. Books aid the imagination, and believe me, the imagination is a wonderful thing.

But I don't know that many folks in my life who are as crazy about books as I do. My once and future walking partner is definitely one, and I've met kindred souls throughout the years. Thus we were delighted last year to be invited to a book club. Although the invitation was extended a while back, we didn't have the opportunity to experience the group until this summer.

Our first foray into the club was in July, when a small but hardy group of us met to discuss Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist. I had only vaguely heard about the book, but was looking forward to reading something new. While I wouldn't herald it as the best book ever, or in my top ten, it was an enjoyable book, and definitely provoked discussion. The session leader who chose this selection also picked our meeting place, a wonderful Spanish restaurant in the urban wilds of Echo Park (it was such a good restaurant that we've been back since, on our own!).

The responsibility for our next gathering fell to me, and I chose today for our small coterie to join spirits and minds once again. Since we were entering the month of September, with all that it brings-- fall, school, a return to the daily grind, I decided to go with a "back to school" theme and decided that we'd read The House of Dies Drear, by Virginia Hamilton. We would dissect said book at (yes) Chuck E. Cheese's in Burbank.

Our foray into juvenile literature was a great success. Hamilton's book is about a contemporary family, with the story's background focusing on the Underground Railroad. I had seen this book for years while growing up, but had never gotten around to reading it. When I did, I expected the book to be different than it was, but I ended up appreciating something different. It was the kind of book I would have read as a child (a book about historical events/themes), and worried the group would think I chose this book for that exact reason. But fortunately none of us had read it, all of us enjoyed it, and we certainly had a rather different atmosphere-- costumed mice, loud, flashy video and arcade style games, and edible pizza. My dark secret here is that I'd never gone to Chuck E. Cheese's before this.

I'm not sure what our next reading choice will be, but I'm glad to have the opportunity to participate in a literary salon composed of deaf members. It's gratifying to meet people I can discuss literature with, and it certainly demonstrates both the ordinariness and the potential of deaf people, a reality I wish a lot of parents, doctors, and other professionals would realize: deafness does not have to be a barrier. It's in the mind, and using the mind is the most important thing.

Ironically, I didn't realize when we met up for bland pizza, unlimited soft drinks, and skee ball that it was the beginning of Banned Books Week. This year's observance was the 25th anniversary. It's amazing the amount of censorship/attempted censorship that's out there in a supposedly free nation. Personally, I think it's idiotic; challenging a book will just result in more people who are curious about the book and willing to check it out and read it, compared with if they just said nothing. Some people will even take a perverse pride in reading banned authors; my grandmother's grandfather was an ex-Catholic who annually chose a book from the Index to give to my grandmother on her birthday. This defiance led her to be probably the most well-read child on her block.

If I had known about this beforehand, I probably would have picked a banned or controversial book. Still, suffice it to say, in spite of bland pizza and munchkins everywhere, our Deaf Literary Salon is fast becoming one of my most pleasurable outings.

Postscript: In the wake of my last post, there have been a couple of articles pointing to the seriousness of the healthcare situation in the U.S.; first, according to Reuters, 9 out of 10 Americans could not buy their own health insurance. Additionally, tuberculosis is in the news again, and it's not good news.

A Teaspoon of Medicine, A Dose of Reality (and a Lollipop)

2006-09-13T23:03:00.000-07:00

Every time I worry about things, or fret about the future, one thing I'm always thankful for (and need to remind myself!) is that I grew up with good health care. No matter how poor we were when I was little, or how hopscotch my benefits have been as an adult, I had a great dentist and a very good doctor. That's something not everyone has benefitted from.

I know in the near future I'll have to find a new dentist and a new doctor, and I do wonder if I can find good ones. But what really bothers me, when I sit and think about it, is how many people in this country do not have adequate access to medical services, how many people do not have medical insurance, and how many people do not have doctors or dentists at all.

One of the things many politicians don't talk about is reforming health care. By "reform," I'm not talking about cutting the public health rolls in regard to Medicare or other similar programs, but actually overhauling the system. HMOs are not the answer, and many people know it. Once upon a time, individual doctors ran their own practices, and could assume a great deal of latitude in terms of who they treated and for how much, the fee scales, and how to make allowances and still protect their bottom line.

Now, it's all done by faceless people in centralized offices who work according to pre-determined charts, formulas, and the like. Some procedures are approved; others are not. Premiums get higher by the year; co-pays go up in tandem.

While I'm not necessarily in favor of providing FREE health care for everyone (I think it should be a progressive system, akin to taxes-- the more money you have, the more you should chip in), I do think there needs to be a massive change; if not universal health care ( a single-payer system), then a new way of accessing medicine than the system that we currently have now. I also think our leaders and politicians not only need to be talking about this, but constantly coming up with ideas of their own.

That's why I'm disappointed in Herr Gropenfuhrer, who is currently the governor of my home state. He has in the last couple of weeks indicated he would veto health-related bills. The first was a bill championed by State Senator Sheila Kuehl that would have provided universal health care.

Today, he vetoed an employer health care bill, advocated by State Senator Carole Migden, that would have required companies to either provide health benefits for their employees or pay into a state health fund. Both times, he claimed it'd be too expensive, and wouldn't solve our problems.

Ok, fair enough. Let's hear YOUR proposals then, Governor. Because I can't really respect someone who talks a good game, but doesn't walk the walk. The problem as I see it isn't so much as one of who pays what, or who *should* pay what. The problem I see right now is two-fold.

1) the system we have isn't working. More and more people are underinsured or uninsured, including children. More people are using emergency rooms for non-emergencies, which in turn comes back to all of us, in higher bills, premiums, and taxes. People are paying through the nose because of high co-pays on pills, and sneaking over the borders to Canada and Mexico, either in person or on-line, to make sure they have their medications. When you have problems like these, that indicates that it's *not working.* That means you don't veto bills; it means you start talking about solutions, and crafting compromises.

2) disease doesn't affect one person; it affects many. When bird flu eventually strikes, or TB makes a resurgence (and in recent years, there have been troubling indications that TB cases are on the rise again), it's going to be difficult to localize and contain the spread of disease. In this era of globalization and rapid transportation, a disease that once took months, if not years, to spread from one corner of the globe to another will now take weeks, if not days. The increase in drug-resistant strains of bacteria and viruses means we are going to have to stay steps ahead if we want to manage disease. It certainly isn't going to help if people do not have access to doctors, to vaccines, to preventative health care.

When an epidemic hits, it isn't going to matter if you're rich or poor; it *will* matter if you have medical and dental care, and it will matter if you have access to medicines and vaccines. For some illnesses though, we have gone for so long without major epidemics that if one should arise, we're in big trouble. When your co-worker comes to work sick, she doesn't have a choice-- she can't take days off because she needs that paycheck. When your employee comes to work sick, he comes in that way because he doesn't have benefits, or the "benefits" he has aren't helping him to stay healthy. It not only costs your office/business in terms of productivity and profits, it also exposes you to whatever disease is being spread. A common cold today could very well be an outbreak of tuberculosis or something similar down the road.

This is why I'm not crazy about denying immigrants, both legal and illegal, health services. There may be legitimate reasons (or not) for barring them from a lot of services and benefits, but when it comes to health, I don't think any of us should be playing games with bacteria and viruses that could be simple- or not. This is also why I think we need to set our politicians straight-- not just Schwarzenegger, but everyone, from county officials up the ladder to Smirk himself. We need to have a national conversation about health care, and we need to come up with solutions sooner than later. No lollipops for our pols until they can stop just long enough from vetoing solutions that others come up with, and start coming up with solutions of their own.

Remembrance

2006-09-11T18:54:00.000-07:00

Today, of course, is September 11. There's so much out there on the web, I'm not sure I'd do any good by adding to it. Although it's our collective national tragedy, it has more meaning to New Yorkers and the denizens of DC who were there that day, those who experienced the pain firsthand.

Two places in the deaf blogosphere that I think are good places to remember and share are Ridor's blog, where he's posted his own memories of that day, and invited his readers to do so. If you feel a cathartic need to share with a community, I recommend heading over there, or a similar site.

A fellow lover of history has posted a lovely, haunting poem in remembrance of 9/11. To experience Der Abschied, go to Bellamoden.

In remembrance. 9.11.01

Mr. Sandman Wuz Here 9/9/06

2006-09-09T18:02:00.000-07:00

One thing that bugs me when I go to arboretums, greenhouses, conservatories, and the like is seeing how visitors treat the flora. Most people are respectful when it comes to flowerbeds, plants, and the like. But each time I see a solid tree, or a stand of bamboo, any number of idiots have carved their names, their girlfriend du jour's name, their kid's name, their alma mater's name, their gang's name, their parole officer's name, their birthdate, their social security number... you get the picture. I'll be admiring the scenery, ready to take a picture, and it'll end up with the background looking like a schoolyard or a bulletin board.

My traveling companion shares my sentiments. Her solution? As punishment for carving on a tree or bamboo, the perpetrator should be equally carved up.

Sounds good to me-- anyone got a pocketknife?

It's Definitely Fall

2006-09-08T22:47:00.000-07:00

As of last night, pro football season is here again. Time for me to start reserving my Sundays in front of the TV, and actively reading the sports page in the Monday papers again. Of course, I still cheer my beloved 49ers, even though most experts, forecasters, and pundits predict they'll be at the bottom of the heap this year.

That's ok-- I know Alex Smith is looking good so far, but has a ways to go. The team has shed quite a few old-timers and leftovers from the glory days in the last few years, and is a young team, ready to grow and move on. Now if they'd just hang on to a coach and let him grow as well. I swear, the NFL loves to devour its young, and cannibalize their own sometimes.

Like I said, we had our day in the sun-- the SF 49ers *were* the 1980s, and were a dominant team during the 90's as well-- the days of Montana and Young are legend. Speaking of legends, Jerry Rice finally retired. I have mixed feelings about that-- on one hand, the days of Rice, Lott, and Montana were the best years, and he spent most of his career with San Francisco. I can't begrudge him the chance to retire as a 49er.

BUT the man went and left the team-- not only that, he went over to the ENEMY. The Raiders. The Oakland/LA/Oakland again Raiders. There are two teams I have never been crazy about: the Raiders, simply because they're rude assholes, and crosstown rivals to boot, and the Dallas Cowboys. What can you say about a team where half the roster are felons or felon-wannabes? They're not as rambunctious or tinged with potential criminal elements as in past years, true, but I'm not a fan, nevertheless.

So while I'm glad Rice saw fit to retire as a 49er, there's a part of me that wants to deny him that-- a TRUE 49er would have stuck with the team through thick and thin. It isn't like he earned another ring by hanging out across the Bay, you know?

What do you think? Should I cut Rice some slack, and be happy that #80 came back for one final time? Or should I consider him to be an ex-49er, a fair-weather player?

As long as we're on the topic, who are YOU rooting for this year? What's your favorite team, and why?

Governmental Hypocrisy

2006-09-07T19:15:00.000-07:00

Gummint officials are funny people: they'll say one thing one minute, then the next they'll do a complete about-face, all the while claiming that what they're saying *now* is what what they *really* meant all along. There's a simple word that sums up the previous sentence: hypocrisy.

Our Farter-in-Chief has been running around the last week or two, giving speeches about "terra." His latest public missive concerns the transfer of fourteen (fourteen that we know of, anyway) suspects to Guantanamo from overseas prisons.

Overseas prisons? Yep, that's right. Smirk has admitted the CIA spirited captured individuals to secret prisons. These prisons are apparently located in European nations, which has EU members pretty ticked off (see here as well). The U.N. isn't too happy either, and nor are national and international organizations such as Amnesty. Seems there's a pesky issue that crops up every now and then, called human rights, and abuses thereof.

This isn't to say that the capture and interrogation of terrorists should cease; on the contrary, I doubt any sane person, Republican OR Democrat, in this country would advocate just letting them go. But as far as treaty obligations, military procedures, and a basic sense of humanity goes, there should be a bright line between interrogation and torture. When you have places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, with the abuses we've seen in those places the last few years, it probably doesn't stretch the imagination to picture the secret prisons as being, well, something quite a bit worse.

It's not just the fact that information obtained through torture could potentially be fabricated (if someone was torturing you, just how quickly do you think you'd say anything, *anything* to get your captors to stop? A romp through the history of legal jurisprudence, in this country and many others, will turn up cases where some were railroaded due to confessions elicited under pressure). It's also the perception of the United States as a nation of laws. If we ignore our laws, if we develop double standards, then how can we expect the rest of the world to follow our lead? How can we expect other nations to emulate our system? I've spoken of this before, here and here.

The United States is a republic, the oldest "democracy" presently existing. I also happen to believe it is the best and most advanced nation in recorded history thus far. We as a nation, and as a people, have a responsibility to ourselves and to the rest of the world to be the best we can possibly be. This isn't to say that we should be or we are perfect; no nation, group, or individual ever is. But we should definitely limit our contradictions, our conflicts of interest, our hypocrisy, as much as possible.

Back to Smirk's speech. The part I found the most amusing (not in a hilarious manner, mind you, but in more of a "mm-hmm, yeah, right" way) was his statement:

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture," Bush said. "It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

Perhaps he never formally authorized torture, and under a different leader, I'd applaud this restatement of basic values. But this is the same man who attached a "signing statement" to the McCain Detainee Amendment (a bill the White House fought tooth and nail to defeat), essentially declaring that Smirk feels that he has the right to insert a loophole in the bill, and allow torture if he chooses to do so. Mind you, this is a bill that states that torture is "against our laws" and "against our values." By issuing this amendment, Smirk is in essence tacitly authorizing the use of torture should he deem it so.

So you'll pardon me if I'm somewhat cynical about Smirk's latest pronouncement. This is an amendment that garnered the support of all but nine Senators (Wayne Allard (R-Colorado), Kit Bond (R-Missouri), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), John Cornyn (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)). This is an amendment that McCain, who is no stranger to torture, drafted using the same international standards and policies against torture that already exist. These aren't new rules he whipped up out of thin air, nor are they applicable to the CIA; the amendment concerns the Armed Forces only. It isn't even an extremely strong amendment; it was itself amended by the Graham-Levin Amendment, which allows the consideration of evidence obtained through torture, and expanded prohibitions against the use of habeas corpus by detainees. In essence, the bill is a toothless tiger. So it is hypocritical of Smirk to state he's against the use of torture when he, Cheney, and many others in the gummint fought against the amendment. It's hypocritical to then "accept" the amendment, but attach a "signing statement" which essentially invalidates the message contained within. It's hypocritical to subsequently piously state that he's against torture and would never authorize it. As it is, Amnesty International argues that with the various loopholes, torture is now more or less official U.S. policy.

To me, that means that not only is our gummint condoning torture in our names, it also means we don't have the standing to admonish nations like, oh say, China, for their human rights abuses. The Chinese, among others, know this, which is why our little lectures don't go anywhere.

Another interesting thing about Smirk's recent speech is his throwing down the gauntlet to Congress, urging that new rules be devised for the creation of military commissions to try the detainees at Guantanamo. This comes after the Supreme Court slapped the gummint's hand and issued a lecture of its own on the limits of presidential powers. As I previously stated in my post on the outcome of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,

Why coddle "terrorists," you say? There's no need to coddle them. Either they are prisoners-of-war under the Geneva conventions and long-standing international military tradition or they are terrorists. If they are terrorists, they are criminals-- at least that's how I see it. What do you do with criminals? You try them, you convict them, you sentence them. You don't hold them for months and years at a time without charging them. What do you do with prisoners-of-war? You treat them according to Geneva, and you deport/repatriate them as soon as you can.

In the same post, I agreed with Neal Katyal that the present-day military judicial system we have should work just fine. Why waste more time dickering over a new set of rules? Why inject a power struggle between the Executive Branch (which is trying to expand its powers and influence as much as possible) and Congress (which is trying to reassert its Constitutionally mandated powers and restore the balance between the branches of government), when you can just use a system that's worked just fine before?

At the end of the Second World War, an international tribunal sat at Nuremberg, to try and bring to justice the war criminals of Nazi Germany. These proceedings had international support, they were as transparent as possible, and above all, they were relatively speedy. The war in Europe ended in May of 1945; the Nuremberg Trials took place in October and November of that same year. While the Nuremberg Trials are not without controversy (for example, the proceedings convened and progressed under its own rules of evidence), it certainly could be used as a template of sorts for the present time.

Obviously, the "War on Terror" is not a "conventional" war, nor can it be said to have "ended." But this doesn't mean we should abrogate U.S. or international law and our values by detaining indefinitely the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere. It doesn't mean we should try them without allowing the defendants to know the precise nature of the evidence against them.

So far, Smirk's suggested course of action is meeting skepticism; even some GOP leaders aren't inclined to play ball. Lindsey Graham, for one, had this to say:

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

Graham is drafting an alternate proposal that would allow defendants access to all the evidence against them. I'm hoping Congress is smart enough to adopt Graham's proposal-- it'll allow the application of some basic judicial principles to whatever system is ultimately crafted to try the prisoners.

Additionally, Smirk wants the War Crimes Act of 1996 amended to provide cover for U.S. personnel. Although this change is to be supposedly aimed at the rank and file in the Army and elsewhere, such a change would provide protection for people like Smirk and his White House cronies. I'm outraged by this; I don't think that we should pretend we are morally superior the rest of the world, because we aren't. Secondly, I think setting up a double standard is a horrible idea. Why should we insist the rest of the world abide by international law and pay for their crimes, but we shouldn't have to?

Ironically, this legislation was initiated by a rather conservative member of Congress, Walter B. Jones (R-NC), who intended it to be used to prosecute those who tortured or abused U.S. troops. As R. Jeffrey Smith wrote in the Washington Post, "Jones and other advocates intended the law for use against future abusers of captured U.S. troops in countries such as Bosnia, El Salvador and Somalia, but the Pentagon supported making its provisions applicable to U.S. personnel because doing so set a high standard for others to follow." Again, there's that notion of a high standard. How can we punish others for violations of the Geneva Conventions if we don't apply the same rules to ourselves? It's called hypocrisy.

Finally, the U.S. Army has amended its field manual, and has incorporated Geneva Convention principles within, such as banning torture and degrading treatment, specifically including nudity and the hooding of prisoners. Even if Smirk wants to continue to be a hypocrite, at least the Army is starting to correct their past actions. There's still a long way to go, but at least it's a beginning.

Perceptions in Advertising

2006-08-17T23:11:00.000-07:00

NOTA BENE: the following links are NOT safe for work, kiddies, or other easily offended (or aroused) people. *YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED*

Although I've never been to Europe, or outside of the Northern/Western Hemispheres, I've traveled quite a bit in the United States. So I'm pretty used to how advertising works here in the U.S. of A. One thing that was kind of interesting when we went to Florida last month was the proliferation of billboards every few miles for either churches or gun shops. But the best juxtaposition was one that I'd seen every so often, an anti-abortion billboard, right next to another frequent contender: a billboard advertising vasectomies. Who says Southerners don't have a sense of humor? In the same vein was a bridal shop in Jacksonville, conveniently located right next door to a "pleasure" shop. Florida's an interesting state, that's for sure.

Over the years, I've also heard quite a bit about how Europe and Europeans are quite different from us Americans. Someday I hope to have the chance to see this for myself firsthand, but in the paper yesterday was a rather interesting article about advertising campaigns abroad.

A French clothing company, Shai, decided to launch an internet-based advertising campaign for its clothes. This by itself isn't unusual, but the tack this particular company has decided upon is rather, um, different.

As you'll see in this article, the company in question hired a few porn stars to model the clothes, while simultaneously practicing their trade. The initial article attracted my attention, but it did make me think. Just what are we prepared to accept as far as advertising? Obviously you'd never find this in America-- we still have a Puritan ethos that shadows much of what goes on in this country (for example, lots of movies will be shown in theaters with gratuitous violence, and get a rating of PG-13 or R, but show just a flash of frontal nudity, especially MALE frontal nudity-- bam! An R, or the box-office killer, NC-17. Kind of hypocritical, I think. It's the subject of an upcoming movie, "This Movie Is Not Rated," and I'm looking forward to seeing it). Will people actually pay attention to advertising solely on the model, or how much skin they show, or if they're slender enough? For example, a lot of women's clothing models are far more svelte than the average American woman these days. How realistic is that?

Am I going to buy underwear because the model looks good? Nah, I'm gonna buy it because it's a brand that will last a while, or is in colors I like, not because the male model has perfect, white (and maybe capped?) teeth, or has a healthy bulge where it counts, or looks like he'll attract any woman he wants. Are the women I know going to buy a bra because the girl in the ad looks like she's having fun? As far as my permanent roomie goes, she'd prefer to get a bra that will last for a while-- no cheap garbage, thank you (on that note, lots of women I've talked to enjoy Victoria's Secret for that reason-- their bras seem to last forever, I've been told!).

I'll buy a shirt or slacks because it looks good on me, not necessarily because it's in style, or the ad was flattering, or was well photographed. But I know subliminally, ads do have an effect on people.

SO... back to this ad campaign. As far as I can tell from the article, people agree with me. Most will be attracted to the ads because of the action, not because of the product. As the owner of Shai admits, it's not so much about selling the clothes, it's more about building a brand, and attracting attention. "The first goal wasn't to sell directly, it was to develop notoriety," said Alexandre Maisetti.

I have no idea how much notoriety will develop, but it's obvious Maisetti didn't work for or learn from Abercrombie & Fitch, which in recent years has developed a reputation (and been scolded) for catalogs that are rather revealing. Still, revealing isn't quite the same as X-rated material.

I decided to check out Shai for myself. Again, don't click this unless you've read the warning above! It was um, illuminating, to say the least. Some of the clothing is actually rather nice. I'm not sure about the conversion rate, but knowing Euros are worth more than our currency is these days, I think I'll stick to the stores I frequent these days. After viewing the models and the materials they were, um, hawking, I left feeling that Shai has definitely earned notoriety. But will that image be one the company wants to continue to tout? Will it eventually translate into profit down the road? Or will it merely be a gratuitous, shallow attempt at delineating a line between itself and other companies in a cutthroat market?

When you go to websites, read catalogs, and pore through ads in the Sunday papers, what attracts you? What sticks in your mind? Does a company's comportment and principles matter to you? Is the message attached to and touted by a brand worth your supporting the product? Where do you draw the line, if at all?

Nuptial Hiatus

2006-07-18T19:10:00.000-07:00

My brother-in-law, for whatever reasons, chose to have a wedding in Florida in July, and on the beach, too. As good siblings, my wife and I are headed off for the Sunshine State, hoping that it won't rain on my brother-in-law's parade, and that no tropical storms/hurricanes develop. Right now, Tropical Storm Beryl is off the coast of the Carolinas-- it's predicted to remain a tropical storm, which I hope is the case. Obviously my absence means I won't be posting, nor will I be participating in other blogs elsewhere while gone.

In addition, I'm sick. Been sleeping off and on all day, and hoping against hope I won't be totally wasted when I board the plane. Really wish this had happened AFTER I got back.

Finally, there's been a power outage at the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center, which is screwing with flights in and out of LAX, and has the potential to disrupt air traffic elsewhere. What fun.

So between tropical storms/hurricanes, my body rebelling, and the power outage, it looks like a perfect storm. Wish me luck.

Driving Commandments

2006-07-14T05:21:00.000-07:00

I am not a patient driver- this my wife knows. This isn't to say I'm a terrible driver, but I do not possess the grace and patience that others have. Part of it is that I get really pissed off with other drivers. I'm sure the rudeness, lack of skills, speeding, and all that present-day driving entails are not recent phenomenons. As long as there have been drivers, there have been self-centered, inept motorists, and there will continue to be as long as automobiles last (given the immediacy of Peak Oil, that could be sometime soon).

In the interests of reducing the chaos around me (and hopefully my tendency to approach heart attack-level stress), I offer these Driving Commandments:

1) I am your peer, your co-worker, your neighbor, the driver, who shares the vagaries of the roads with you in slavery to the Almighty Automobile. Thou shalt respect me, as I respect you.

2) Thou shalt use thy turn signal when you change lanes (note: that plastic stick on the side of the steering column isn't there for decoration; it has a function-- learn about and use it).

3) Thou shalt not run a red light.

4) Thou shalt not do 70 in a 25-mph-zone.

5) When two lanes merge into one, thou shalt not drive as far as you can, then demand to cut in (you wonder why there's always a long line in places like this? It's because people like you slow everyone else down by insisting you go first).

6) When driving on a highway or freeway, thou shalt not cut across three lanes simultaneously, at high speed.

7) Thou shalt not tailgate, nor expect me to speed up past the posted limit (you're five minutes late, and don't want the boss chewing you out? So? Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part).

8) Thou shalt not make a U-Turn in front of me, especially when it's not permitted.

9) Should you be stuck in traffic, thou shalt make space at an intersection or entrance; for thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's driveway, or thy neighbor's route home, or thy neighbor's right-of-way, or thy neighbor's wife in her brand-new Versace outfit driving her sporty Ferrari (I'm just saying, you know).

10) Thou shalt hang up and drive; for the Lord my Governor hath commanded it (I am not a fan of Schwarzenegger, as you may know, but I definitely agree with him on this one).

SoCal's Culinary Contributions

2006-07-13T22:32:00.000-07:00

L.A. is kind of a strange town when it comes to food. Unlike other places I've lived, here everyone eats out, and often. When I was growing up, we didn't have a lot of money, and both of my parents were (and still are!) good cooks, so we didn't eat out all that frequently. Maybe we'd get a pizza every so often, or a meal when we were out doing errands or shopping for the day. Usually we'd eat out a lot on vacation (that's a given, don't you think?), and especially when we moved; right before, during, and immediately after. In the town where I grew up, there were quite a few restaurants, but not that many of the fast-food type. There was a KFC (then known by its full title), a Dairy Queen which had been there forever, and a local drive-in joint. An old A&W stand was shuttered around the time we moved to the area, but that was about it. I clearly remember when the first McDonald's arrived-- it got front-page mention in the local paper, and was a Big Deal. The same was true of Taco Bell. Keep in mind this was the mid-to-late 1970s.

Visiting my Southern California relatives was a surefire way to go out for meals. My grandparents would never have been in the running for any Julia Child cooking awards, and my uncles were all part of the SoCal dining tradition-- work hard, long hours, then head off to a restaurant.

Fast-forward to today: the rural area and burg in which I grew up in is now a continually expanding city of nearly 80,000, complete with every chain which you've ever heard of: KFC, Burger King, Wendy's, Del Taco, Jack in the Box, and sit down restaurants and coffee shops like Applebee's, IHOP, and Denny's.

Back in the day, a road trip would take you past all kinds of local and individual restaurants-- (one that was nearby my old stomping grounds was the Milk Farm) some of these places still exist, especially on secondary, or "blue" highways. One road trip I took allowed me the opportunity to eat at the Snow Cap Drive-In in Seligman, Arizona, on old Route 66. This fun place was owned and operated by Juan Delgadillo (who has since died-- my road-trip buddy and I were fortunate to meet him), who kept it pretty much the same since 66 was the main route through the Southwest. You don't really find places like that anymore.

Part of the culprit is SoCal's culinary contribution to the world-- the fast-food restaurant. While I have yet to read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser or view Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me," I'm quite aware of the ubiquitousness of the fast-food joint in modern America. Our interstates, our superhighways, and the countless interchanges and off-ramps with the same restaurants over and over breed not only familiarity, but a constant sameness, an interchangeable identity that obscures the individuality of American towns and cities. Many of these chains, such as McDonald's, Taco Bell, Del Taco, and Bob's Big Boy, all started in Southern California. The founder of Burger King visited McDonald's original stand here in California before he went back home and started one of McDonald's rivals. Even with companies like Pizza Hut and Wendy's that started elsewhere, these types of restaurants owe much to Southern California, including the drive-through, which caught on like wildfire in this area's car-based society.

Fortunately, L.A. has far more than just fast food-- there are so many restaurants, it'd be impossible to eat at them all. There's also so much ethnic diversity, different kinds of foods I'd be hard pressed to find elsewhere (in one rural town near where I grew up, the classiest restaurant in town is a roadhouse famed for its steak-- the walls are adorned with hunting trophies of all kinds. This is pretty typical of a lot of smaller towns all across this country). Yet even in a town full of places like Spago, hole-in-the-walls with Peruvian food, Oaxacan cuisine, spicy Thai delights, and the like, there are still fast food restaurants on every other corner.

But even here, there are bits and pieces of history. In the Valley is one of the oldest Bob's Big Boy's still around, in Toluca Lake. Here's a great pic of the Big Boy himself. These reminders of an era long gone are what I appreciate best about fast food places-- the origins of our culinary traditions, such as the hamburger, the hot dog, ice cream cones, and other uniquely American foods. Big Boy was one of those fun kind of mascots-- when I visited the restaurant as a child, I was always given a Big Boy comic book. Sometimes I think the mascots were more fun than the food itself! In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, I don't remember the food at the Doggie Diner all that well, but I certainly remember with fondness its daschund mascot.

Several weeks ago, I spoke about vanishing bits of Americana such as the Philip's 76 ball, and I mentioned a nearby Taco Bell still having the old sign. A commenter asked if I ever took pictures of it, if I could share. Well, today I passed by that Taco Bell, and a Shakey's just down the street (Shakey's is a pizza chain that started in Sacramento-- not a great one, but one of the early chains nevertheless. While the original Shakey's restaurant has faded into history, there are still many Shakey's around the L.A. area. The one I speak of has an old sign still on top of the restaurant, with the Shakey's chef).

Here's the pics I took. Enjoy.

UC Stands for Unnecessary Compensation

2006-07-12T23:10:00.000-07:00

The cost of living (and inflation) goes up in many aspects of our lives: food, transportation, goods, services. Some of it is unavoidable, while in other areas, it's herd mentality-- x company raises prices, others eventually follow. You see this a lot with the airlines. United raises fares, no one complains, Delta, Northwest, American jump on board. At that point, you aren't going to see the fares decline markedly again.

Of course, this is somewhat of an oversimplification, as I'm sure the economists among my readers will no doubt let me know. But you get the point, yes?

In some arenas, though, some of the rise in prices and affordability is pure greed. We've seen it to some extent in the housing market. I remember a few years back my parents' neighbors tried selling their house for something like $50,000 above the going rate for that particular neighborhood, simply because they thought they could get it. Their asking price was more than double what they had paid for the home, just a few years earlier. It wasn't even a particularly nice home, to begin with-- small, on a concrete slab, with a horrible layout. A prefab post-WWII home in the suburbs, a starter home of the type a returning veteran would have bought with help from the GI Bill. But because the market was way out of whack, they tried angling for the most money they could get-- probably because they were moving to a McMansion in a newer area of town.

Eventually they had to lower their price substantially, as their house sat on the market way too long, considering it was during the time when the market was superheated. But their reasoning wasn't based on the rising cost of goods, services, fuels-- it was based on desire and greed.

One particular arena where pricing has gotten way out of hand is the cost of a college education. What makes it even more galling here in California is that historically, attending the University of California at any of its branches was tuition-free. You paid for your books, room, and board, and that was it. Getting in wasn't as easy, and never has been, but historically, a college education here in California was not priced out of reach.

That is, until the 1960s. Beginning in that turbulent decade, there still was no "tuition," but the UC Board of Regents started tacking on "fees." Eventually these "fees" reached the point where they became the equivalent of tuition.

Now, you might say, fair enough-- and I'd be the first to agree. It'd be nice if a college education was free, but it doesn't work that way. But I have always felt that a nation as rich as ours could definitely funnel more funding towards education, rather than, oh, say, missle defense systems, $700 toilet seats, and the like. But the last few years, UC "fees" have spiraled out of control, as the state gummint has insisted on balancing the state budget on the backs of the students, in a desperate attempt to avoid raising taxes. For four consecutive years, student fees went up, and up, and up... The state's portion for UC funding (and California State University (CSU)) has declined, from 50% during the early 80s to about 27% now.

Take for example my wife's "fees" for law school. The first year she entered, the "fees" for the school year was $11,000. Ok, it's law school-- we can deal with that and assume loans. It's a long-term investment in our future, right?

Well, by the time she graduated, just three years later, the cost ballooned to $24,000 per year. That's more than double the fees we started out with. Yes, it's the cost borne by professional students, so you probably don't have much sympathy, eh? Well it wasn't just the graduate and professional students (my own fees as a grad student skyrocketed as well), it was also the undergrads who were being asked to pay more.

Where was all this money going, you might ask? Well, according to the excellent series of articles published by the San Francisco Chronicle, the UC system has been making sure its top brass are swimming in the bucks. Take today's article, for instance: "Low-rate loans for UC's elite on homes." While it's one thing to financially aid a fledgling professor, a junior staff member, or someone else that needs help, I don't think it's appropriate that a dean gets a $200,000+ loan at 1.28% a year. Considering the number of articles exposing UC's financial shenanigans lately, I'm surprised the top UC brass aren't more forthcoming. While I don't think the University needs to justify everything they do with their funds, they are a public university drawing their funds from state monies, which come from taxpayers-- which means they have a moral, ethical, and fiduciary responsibility to be as transparent as possible when it comes to public funds. It's also outrageous that student money is helping to fund someone's loans at 1.28%.

Lest you think this is the UC administration's only transgression, they've also failed to give the regents required reports, handed out tons of perks that weren't approved (especially in the President's Office-- a secretary made more than a newly hired professor), and massive severance checks. This last one really galls me-- it's one thing to make sure someone who's fired or laid off has enough money to keep them afloat, but a six-figure check?? UC has complained that they are "forced" to raise student funds, but then they're able to hand out money for moving expenses, six-months rent, and the like to top executives? Somehow I don't think this is welcome news to students, staff, and the average working stiff in the UC system.

Part of the problem is, of course, the massive sense of entitlement we have in our society. When corporate executives earn 400 times what the average worker makes, it instills a sense of desire in other forums for top brass to say, "me too." Of course, once you raise salaries across the board, no one wants to go back down again. But then it becomes a vicious cycle, to the point where compensation gets totally out of whack. It isn't just in the corporate world either-- when a race-car driver makes $80 million a year, or A-Rod gets a 10-year, $252 million deal, something's seriously wrong. I'd love to see a public school teacher get a 10-year, $252 million deal-- now THAT would be worth it.

Fortunately for the students, some concerned individuals didn't just moan and groan during late night bull sessions, or write a letter to the school paper, and then move on. A group filed suit, and won this past March in court. The decision isn't final, of course, because these things always get appealed. I'm hopeful though that at some point, we'll receive a "refund"-- I say "refund" because whatever we eventually get back will go straight to paying off our loans.

Some campuses have jokes about their university acronyms/abbreviations-- at UC Davis, for example, the joke is that UCD stands for "Under Construction Daily." I have a better one for the UC system right now-- UC stands for Unnecessary Compensation.

P.O.W.s or Criminals-- It's That Simple

2006-07-11T22:43:00.000-07:00

In an about-face, Smirk has decided that the Geneva Conventions do apply after all to the Guantanamo detainees (and other military detainees currently in U.S. custody as well). This decision came in the wake of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which reached the Supreme Court, whose decision was handed down and publicized at the end of June.

Personally, I think it's about time. You want the world to follow how the U.S. does things, you want to model "your" democracy for others to emulate? Then you need to be a shining example. Holding people indefinitely without charges goes against our long-established legal precendents and the strictures of our system. Not all of the Guantanamo detainees needed to be held-- and those of them that are definitely terrorists did not get their day in court.

Why coddle "terrorists," you say? There's no need to coddle them. Either they are prisoners-of-war under the Geneva conventions and long-standing international military tradition or they are terrorists. If they are terrorists, they are criminals-- at least that's how I see it. What do you do with criminals? You try them, you convict them, you sentence them. You don't hold them for months and years at a time without charging them. What do you do with prisoners-of-war? You treat them according to Geneva, and you deport/repatriate them as soon as you can.

I'm glad this has happened-- the decision in Hamdan demonstrates that the President and the gummint is never completely above the law. Additionally, I really wouldn't want this to come back and bite us in the ass someday-- some future point in time when some other country decides that because we've ignored the Geneva Conventions, it's okay for them to do the same. It could very well be that American soldiers are the ones at that point who are held for years without rights, without being charged.

The next big question is, how will Congress deal with how to process detainees, and try those that need to answer for whatever crimes they may have committed? I'm not sure, but Salim Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, wrote an article for the online journal Slate, in which he argues that military courts-martial would work just fine. I'm not 100% versed in military law, and it could be that Congress will come up with something else that works just fine, but as Katyal points out, why re-invent the wheel?

Regardless, it looks like the Guantanamo folks are finally heading towards having their day in court.

* * *

I'd like to take a moment here to reflect upon and honor the Indian victims of the bombings in Mumbai (Bombay). Regardless of who ultimately is found responsible for this, and regardless of the origins of the conflict(s) that precipitated such acts of violence, it is always a tragedy when innocents die. My heart is with the people of India, and with the people of Mumbai.

Yet Another Meme

2006-07-10T22:33:00.000-07:00

My loving housemate spotted this meme, and checked it off. I was intrigued enough by it that I decided to export it here, and see what I've done so far in this journey called life. It's kind of an interesting list-- a little bit of everything. I've put what I've done in blue, and left the "not-yets" in black. What have YOU done? :)

01. Bought everyone in the bar a drink.
02. Swam with wild dolphins.
03. Climbed a mountain.
04. Taken a Ferrari for a test drive.
05. Been inside the Great Pyramid.
06. Held a tarantula.
07. Taken a candlelit bath with someone.
08. Said "I love you' and meant it.
09. Hugged a tree.
10. Bungee jumped
11. Visited Paris.
12. Watched a lightening storm at sea.
13. Stayed up all night long and saw the sun rise.
14. Seen the Northern Lights.
15. Gone to a huge sports game.
16. Walked the stairs to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa.
17. Grown and eaten your own vegetables.
18. Touched an iceberg.
19. Slept under the stars.
20. Changed a baby's diaper.
21. Taken a trip in a hot air balloon.
22. Watched a meteor shower.
23. Gotten drunk on champagne.
24. Given more than you can afford to charity.
25. Looked up at the night sky through a telescope.
26. Had an uncontrollable giggling fit at the worst possible moment.
27. Had a food fight.
28. Bet on a winning horse.
29. Asked out a stranger.
30. Had a snowball fight.
31. Screamed as loudly as you possibly can.
32. Held a lamb.
33. Seen a total eclipse.
34. Ridden a roller coaster.
35. Hit a home run.
36. Danced like a fool and not cared who was looking.
37. Adopted an accent for an entire day.
38. Actually felt happy about your life, even for just a moment.
39. Had two hard drives for your computer.
40. Visited all 50 states. (Not yet-- very, very close for this one!)
41. Taken care of someone who was drunk.
42. Had amazing friends.
43. Danced with a stranger in a foreign country.
44. Watched wild whales.
45. Stolen a sign.
46. Backpacked in Europe.
47. Taken a road-trip.
48. Gone rock climbing.
49. Midnight walk on the beach.
50. Gone sky diving.
51. Visited Ireland.
52. Been heartbroken longer than you were actually in love.
53. In a restaurant, sat at a stranger's table and had a meal with them.
54. Visited Japan.
55. Milked a cow.
56. Alphabetized your cds.
57. Pretended to be a superhero.
58. Sung karaoke.
59. Lounged around in bed all day.
60. Posed nude in front of strangers.
61. Gone scuba diving.
62. Kissed in the rain.
63. Played in the mud.
64. Played in the rain.
65. Gone to a drive-in theater. (this one is soon going to be a divider between age groups-- drive-ins are definitely fading into history!)
66. Visited the Great wall of China.
67. Started a business.
68. Fallen in love and not had your heart broken.
69. Toured ancient sites.
70. Taken a martial arts class.
71. Played D&D for more than 6 hours straight.
72. Gotten married.
73. Been in a movie.
74. Crashed a party.
75. Gotten divorced.
76. Gone without food for 5 days.
77. Made cookies from scratch.
78. Won first prize in a costume contest.
79. Ridden a gondola in Venice.
80. Gotten a tattoo.
81. Rafted the Snake River.
82. Been on a television news program as an "expert."
83. Got flowers for no reason.
84. Performed on stage.
85. Been to Las Vegas.
86. Recorded music.
87. Eaten shark.
88. Had a one-night stand.
89. Gone to Thailand.
90. Bought a house.
91. Been in a combat zone.
92. Buried one of your parents.
93. Been on a cruise ship.
94. Spoke more than one language fluently.
95. Performed in Rocky Horror.
96. Raised children.
97. Followed your favorite band/singer on tour.
98. Created and named your own constellation of stars.
99. Taken an exotic bicycle tour in a foreign country.
100. Picked up and moved to another city to just start over.
101. Walked the Golden Gate Bridge.
102. Sang loudly in the car, and didn't stop when you knew someone was looking.
103. Had plastic surgery.
104. Survived an illness that you shouldn't have survived.
105. Wrote articles for a large publication.
106. Lost over 100 pounds.
107. Held someone while they were having a flashback.
108. Piloted an airplane.
109. Petted a stingray.
110. Broken someone's heart.
111. Helped an animal give birth.
112. Won money on a T.V. game show.
113. Broken a bone.
114. Gone on an African photo safari.
115. Had a body part of yours below the neck pierced.
116. Fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol.
117. Eaten mushrooms that were gathered in the wild.
118. Ridden a horse.
119. Had major surgery.
120. Had a snake as a pet.
121. Hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
122. Slept for more than 30 hours over the course of 48 hours. (Why do you think I'm Mr. Sandman?)
123. Visited more foreign countries than U.S. states
124. Visited all 7 continents.
125. Taken a canoe trip that lasted more than 2 days.
126. Eaten kangaroo meat.
127. Eaten sushi.
128. Had your picture in the newspaper.
129. Changed someone's mind about something you care deeply about.
130. Gone back to school. (Too many times...)
131. Parasailed.
132. Petted a cockroach. (Before lovingly smashing it? Maybe one of these days...)
133. Eaten fried green tomatoes. (Mm... miss Mama's fried green tomatoes!)
134. Read The Iliad and The Odyssey.
135. Selected one "important" author who you missed in shcool, and read.
136. Killed and prepared an animal for eating.
137. Skipped all of your school reunions.
138. Communicated with someone without sharing a common spoken language.
139. Been elected to public office.
140. Written your own computer language.
141. Thought to yourself that you're living your dream.
142. Had to put someone you love into hospice care.
143. Bult your own PC from parts.
144. Sold your own artwork to someone who didn't know you.
145. Had a booth at a street fair.
146. Dyed your hair.
147. Been a DJ.
148. Shaved your head.
149. Caused a car accident.
150. Saved someone's life.

Not too bad... A handy list for the future. Not a Purity Test, sure, but I think this is far more interesting than what's on a purity test, anyway. *grin*

White-Impaired

2006-07-09T22:54:00.000-07:00

Today we went to a birthday party for a friend. While the temps weren't great (the Valley in summertime feels like the Central Valley, and not what one normally thinks of L.A. summertime temps as being), the hostess was gracious, the food was terrific, and the company was outstanding. In the midst of making new friends, the conversation shifted several times, and at one point, we began talking about labels.

Not clothing, mind you-- but labels. Anyone who's been in a group of deaf people knows eventually the conversation will turn to whether we're deaf, hard-of-hearing, late deafened, etc. We talked about various experiences, discovering our identity, and other areas of shared commonalities. We talked about how the media and hearing people try to be so PC about the term "deaf." All of us agreed we hated "hearing-impaired."

One participant observed that it would be like a black person calling themselves "white-impaired." We had a chuckle about that. But it stayed in the back of my mind. Who in their right mind would label themselves "impaired"? We don't call blind people "sight-impaired." We don't call the orthopedically handicapped "mobility-impaired." So why do we allow the media and hearing people to get away with calling us "hearing-impaired?"

Granted, it's not an earthshaking issue compared with, say, under- and unemployment, or denied access to a multitude of services-- lack of interpreting, captioning, etc. But it definitely is an issue that we as a community need to chip away at, bit by bit. It'd be lovely if we could have local deaf folks visit J-schools that are in their community, and give a short presentation on how to interview with, interact with, and describe deaf and hard-of-hearing people, and maybe pass out a primer on what terms not to use. At the top of the list? "Hearing-impaired."

A View From Above

2006-07-08T23:33:00.000-07:00

Anytime you see a movie about Los Angeles that features at least one sweeping view of the L.A. skyline, you'll see one of the most recognizable buildings in town: The Westin Bonaventure. It's that snazzy building that looks like a pile of silver poker chips reaching towards the sky: four cylindrical towers surrounding a taller, fifth tower, all with floor-to-ceiling glass. There are elevators in each of the four towers, each color coded. There's a huge atrium complete with a bar, fountains, a lagoon of sorts, trendy (read: expensive) shops, and rather high-priced rooms. Swanky and overdone in a way. But the real star is upstairs, on the 35th floor.

When I was young and visiting my relatives in Los Angeles, I'd ride with my grandparents or my parents downtown to visit my great-grandmother, and my uncles would tell me about the bar and restaurant on the top of the Bonaventure, which is right by the 110 downtown. "You can see all of Los Angeles from up there," they'd say. "It's a really nice place, and it revolves 360 degrees. You can have a drink and view the whole town."

Of course, when you're ten, this sounds really adult, very adventurous, suave, trendy, and all that being a carefree (yeah, right!) adult implies. I always told myself someday I'd have the money to just waltz in and stay there, or at least go up to the top.

Well, I'm unemployed, poor, and most definitely an adult, but today was the day I finally went to the top of the Bonaventure. A group of us gathered after an interpreted play ("Without Walls," starring Lawrence Fishburne, at the Taper Forum) for drinks downstairs from the Taper, then decided to head over to the Bonaventure to meet a friend who was in town for a conference. We went over to the Bonaventure, and entered the lobby. Wow, I'm here.

The four elevators go all the way up, but only the Red elevator went to the restaurant. It's this same elevator that was used in the movie, "True Lies," starring Herr Gropenfuhrer. We got on the lift, and up we went. It's a glass elevator (no Charlie or Willy Wonka, sorry), so as we wooshed up and felt the pressure in our ears, we could see the streets of Los Angeles unfold before us. Once we reached the 35th floor, we disembarked, and entered BonaVista, the revolving bar atop the Bonaventure.

It's a comfortable, somewhat upscale bar. Nothing to write home about in terms of the seats, the carpeting, or the decor. But the views were what we came for, and views were what we got. Yep, it definitely revolves, and it was a rather clear day-- while the ocean wasn't completely in sight, we could see all of downtown, out towards the Baldwin Hills, west towards Century City, northeast to Griffith Park and Hollywood... One newfound friend and I wondered how long it would take for the floor to make a complete revolution. "About an hour," he opined. Roughly an hour later, the floor had returned to its original spot at the time of that remark, so he was right.

The cost of the drinks are about par (or a little bit more) with some of the bars I've been to recently. They're pretty good, but again, it's the view-- the view from above.

I may never be rich, I certainly am not carefree, but I've been to the Bonaventure. Touch finish!

To Market, To Market, To Buy a Fat Pig...

2006-07-07T17:02:00.000-07:00

Usually every Thursday finds me at the local farmer's market, shopping list in one hand and precious cash in the other, ready to make sure our kitchen counters and refrigerator bulges with fresh fruits and vegetables. In an era of supermarkets, superwarehouses, chains, and increasing globalization, it's nice to be able to have the option to buy directly from farmers and other growers directly, ensuring that the produce is as fresh as possible short of growing it ourselves.

This was my Thursday routine until March. Mid-March I went to our local market as usual, only to discover that our local market was being shut down almost immediately (just two week's time) due to construction right next door. This project was a controversial one, opposed by a local homeowner's association, and engendered quite a bit of controversy. Regardless, the project was approved and construction began last year.

I had mixed feelings, because while I felt that the market should be allowed to continue (it had a street permit closure until June 2007 for its-then-current spot, which was pulled by the area's city councilman, Jack Weiss), I also agreed that the market's managers knew that they would need to relocate, and had known for quite some time. I felt Weiss and the developers were pulling the rug out too fast, but I also felt the market managers needed to be more proactive in planning the future of the market and its location. The construction project hadn't yet really reached street level (the basement level of the future buildings were being dug out and a foundation laid, beams erected, etc., etc.), and I didn't see a real need to close the market just yet.

One of the explanations ostensibly offered for the need to close the market was the looming presence of "large trucks" and construction equipment. Well, the market closed two weeks later, on the last week of March. It's now early July, and I have driven through and around that area often since, and there are no "large trucks" whatsoever. The street where the market was located hasn't been closed at all as of last week. I still think the market's managers had a fair amount of time with which to explore options, but I am unhappy with Weiss' decision to push the market out, given that one of the key claims for moving the market turned out to be untrue.

Without a local market, I explored other area markets, such as Beverly Hills, which we had previously frequented, the West L.A. Market (which turned out to be hugely disappointing), and the famed Santa Monica Farmer's Market (Champ! But a five-mile drive, plus searching for parking in popular Santa Monica? Ummm...). We haven't yet been to the Brentwood Farmer's Market, but plan to do so. I returned to the Century City Farmer's Market, which I had previously bypassed in favor of Westwood's, and found that I liked it. So a new routine on Thursdays began: off to Century City for fruits and veggies...

Well, it was announced earlier this week in the back of the L.A. Times' Food section that the market would be re-opening at a different location, and West L.A. Online also had a similar announcement. I checked the Westwood Farmer's Market website for additional details; originally it had had lots of information on the closure of the market, who to contact to protest closure, etc., but now there is nothing on there except this sentence: "Thank you Market Supporters!"

I decided to hedge my bets: I'd shop at Century City, then go to Westwood afterwards to check it out. I found the new Westwood site to have some advantages over the old-- parking was better, and was free (parking is in the Getty Museum overflow lot); there was space for the same number of stalls and vendors, if not more; the food area was separate, and had more seating available than previously; and finally, last but not least, the new location is at the Vet's Garden at the VA site, just off of Sepulveda and Constitution. One of the stalls belonged to the Vet's Garden, which offered plums, among other items. Flowers were also offered for sale by the veterans as well.

The disadvantage is that previously, UCLA students, doctors, med students, and residents from UCLA Medical Center, and others who don't drive or have easy access to cars could walk from campus or nearby apartments and public transportation to the market. I highly doubt they're going to go to the new location. Another problem is the market was previously highly visible, and now it is hidden, and only a few wooden handpainted signs direct shoppers to the new locale. A more serious problem is the lack of publicity. While the L.A. Times' mention was great, it was buried in the back of the Food section, which not everyone reads. Additionally, the market's website has seemingly been abandoned, and needs serious updating. Another drawback is four months have passed-- a lot of people, including me, have adjusted to new shopping patterns, and may not be easily lured back to the Westwood market.

There were a couple of familiar booths/vendors, while a few new ones had joined as well. It's still the first week, so I'm going to give the new location a chance for a month or so, before I decide whether to make it my primary farmer's market. In the meantime, I'll continue at Century City, supplemented by occasional visits to Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Gotta get those cherries before they disappear...

NAD: Personal Reflections III

2006-07-06T19:20:00.000-07:00

*whew* Who would have thought a three-day jaunt to the wilderness (and at times it feels like the deaf community is spending 40 years there!) would have generated so much bloggable material? I have a little more I want to bare in the way of personal opinions about my experiences at NAD; as always, these are my personal experiences, my opinions, and my conclusions. You may have been there at the same time, the same day, maybe even sitting next to, behind, in front of, under, or above me at the exact same moment, but you'll have come away with a different perspective-- and that's how it should be.

Saturday night heralded a different event: the College Bowl. This biennial entertainment is something I appreciate, as a long-time Jeopardy! fan, but also as a Bowl alumni. Quite a few people were in attendance who had participated in College Bowl, and it was great to see them again, and catch up on where we were in our lives. One of the judges and several of the committee members had also participated in years past. I looked online at NAD's website, and scanned the names of past participants. To my surprise, ever since College Bowl started nearly twenty years ago, I have known or have since met (and gotten to know) at least one person from one of the teams from each Bowl. The Tenth College Bowl at Palm Desert would be the first time I didn't know anyone from any of the three teams (and for those of you who were keeping track with me earlier, no-- my wife doesn't know any of the twelve either, so I have absolutely no association with any of them!). In any event, I was looking forward to the evening.

After making my way as far forward as possible, with my pom-pom ready, I vicariously participated in the competition. This time, I was on the other side of the fence, and I'm glad of it. Let me tell you, the competition is nerve-wracking enough without the heat (and accompanying sweat!) of the klieg lights above, shining down on the stage. There were a few changes, but much of it was similar to when I participated. The cups were new to me, and I greatly enjoyed RJ Kidd's constant ritual of standing or half-standing, pivoting his head from left to right, then solemnly placing the cup down in challenge.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed in the quality of the questions-- some seemed way too easy to me, while others precipitated controversy. Regardless of the merits of a disputed question, if there is a problem with a question, then it probably wasn't well-written to begin with. As someone who knows Ty Giordano, I thought the Gally team were fools for wasting time and potential points challenging the (in)formal use of his name (for what it's worth, I talked about it with Ty afterward, and he found it hilarious) as the answer to the question about him. While the question regarding semantics was somewhat picky, I was bemused: I wish all those people, professionals, well-meaning teachers, officials, parents, and others who assert that deaf people aren't capable of mastering English had been there to witness that particular moment. We may never be disc jockeys or air traffic controllers, but our minds, capabilities, and intellectual accomplishments are equal to any hearing person.

My biggest beef was the question about Deaf Smith. As a trained historian and amateur Deaf historian, I knew that Deaf Smith hadn't died at the Alamo; San Jacinto sounded plausible, but I vaguely remembered in the recesses of my mind that he'd been present at the surrender of Santa Anna -- that hardly sounded like he'd died on the battlefield. As soon as the answer was revealed, I knew immediately that it was wrong. I used a few precious moments checking on my Sidekick (hurrah for portable technology!), and confirmed what I suspected: Erastus "Deaf " Smith, a hero of the war for Texas' independence, died peacefully at a friend's house in 1837. Armed with this knowledge, I approached the judges' bench, and presented my information to them. They listened politely, and took my correction under advisement. Thankfully, Gallaudet pulled so far ahead that publicly acknowledging the error and adjusting the score wasn't neccessary. But I do hope in the future the NAD considers handing the question-writing chores to someone else. For a full run-down on the Bowl, check out Jared Evans' summary of the competition.

In the wake of the Bowl and the College Bowl reception, I meandered downstairs to the area around Starbucks and witnessed what a friend termed "the meat market"-- the mostly single deaf attendees in their 20s and 30s, mingling earnestly, most with a drink in hand. Being an old married fella, I decided to head on back upstairs and grab some much needed sleep.

We had planned to leave on Sunday, but decided to attend one more workshop: JAC's take on think tanks, titled "Deaf Think Tank Is the Now Thing!" While I was already slightly familiar with the concept, since I knew of JAC's group in the San Francisco Bay Area (BADTT), I wanted to hear more.

Think tanks aren't new, and as Roger Kraft pointed out during the Q&A session, think tanks' functions have been conducted informally among deaf people for decades. But formalizing a group that will then discuss, analyze, and implement ideas and solutions to community issues and challenges is a new concept in our community. It is also an idea that could facilitate the concept of Deafhood from the personal and abstract to the applicable; by using think tanks on the local level to engage local communities, we can build up connections across the aisle to various constituencies, groups, and individuals, whether they be other deaf-oriented groups such as SHHH (now known as the Hearing Loss Association of America), local politicians, governing boards, business associations, or influential community individuals. Think tanks in a sense have already existed: chapters of state associations for the deaf could be considered think tanks of a sort (maybe not these days, but definitely in past years!), and university alumni associations have long had the potential for such formal intellectual discussions.

I'm not sure how effective think tanks will be outside of the Bay Area, or how long-lasting they will be, but this workshop and others attest to Eberwein's comment regarding the "politics of the possible;" for too long, as JAC pointed out, we react to situations, we assess and contain the aftermath of events. It's time for us, as individuals and as a group, to take the bull by the horns and shape our own destinies and the destiny of our community, rather than letting others define it for us. In political parlance, we need to frame the debate, not be framed.

While the workshops I attended were fantastic, and others that I heard of were interesting or went smoothly and stretched people's minds, I'm disappointed that some of the more mundane bread-and-butter issues of the community weren't presented, such as un/underemployment. Often we have diverse workshops, novel issues, or breakout sessions on various technological or cultural advancements, but there are still fundamental challenges that I think NAD and the community need to take on.

Originally we planned to leave Sunday afternoon, but my walking partner wanted to attend another workshop, and we both were curious about the relatively impromptu FSSA rally in the late afternoon, outside the exhibit hall. The rally was a curious undertaking; in itself, it was nothing more than a "feel-good" moment, replete with chants, brief speeches, and ASL poetry. For those of us who were unable to attend the FSSA workshop, whether due to arriving afterwards (plenty of attendees in the LA area and other regions of Southern California had to work Friday, and arrived late Friday eve or early Saturday morning), or attending the Deafhood session (again, poor planning on the scheduler's part!), or other reasons, all we got was essentially a pep rally.

The real flashpoint were the circles of concerned individuals who huddled afterwards, discussing the protest and its current state of affairs in depth, bringing each other up to date, conversing about who did what and who said what when, and comparing different ideas for how to proceed. I missed Friday morning's session, but for me, this was the high point of any FSSA/Gallaudet-related gathering or discussion. From time to time, people gathered here and there, commenting on the appearance of Jane Fernandes, or I. King Jordan, the recent Gallaudet communiques, various personalities (especially the number of bloggers present at the conference and their involvement or lack thereof thus far). I participated in my fair share of conversations on the subject, but the overall spirit I felt was one of a community trying to move beyond the controversy, trying to separate the divisions at Gallaudet from the future of the community. This is a process that can and must happen. Regardless of what happens later this summer or in the fall, we must move on.

How successful the message of Deafhood, and the various ideas and concepts presented in Palm Desert are will be determined in the year to come, and the year after that. By 2008, when we gather once again in New Orleans, it will be interesting to see whether this conference marked a sea change, or if it was just another step in the ongoing growth and development in our community.

NAD: Personal Reflections II

2006-07-06T10:11:00.000-07:00

For those of you joining me via the NAD's link, welcome. I know my cover's blown, but c'est la vie. Enjoy, anyway.

Let's see... I left off my thoughts at the Friday evening entertainment, hosted by JAC and CJ. That night I perused the program book to see what workshops or events I wanted to go to the next day. I know conference planning is never exact, but I regret that I had no way of knowing which workshops were going to be held when, and that I (along with tons of others, I'm sure!) was forced to schedule my trip far in advance. As a veteran of several history conferences, among other gatherings, I'm used to having a program book or schedule sent to me along with registration. It's too bad this didn't happen with NAD. Fortunately, I was able to attend the second half of the Deafhood workshops.

A caveat before I continue: I haven't yet read Paddy Ladd's Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Because of this, I've largely avoided the discussions of Deafhood in various venues, and confined my comments to fairly broad opinions based on my own personal experiences. I now have the book, and I'm in the process of reading it. I may change my opinion as I go along, and I certainly will be better able to understand and discuss the concept when I'm done.

That said, I was impressed by Genie Gertz's presentation. Genie's main message was that linguistic, cultural, and audiological differences can and should be stripped away-- that underneath, we are all deaf. The differences that we have are dimensions of our experience as deaf people, but at heart, we share the common experience of being deaf. She explained that Deafhood was a process, and one that repeated itself as a cycle throughout our lives. This is true for all parts of our lives, really-- we all go through different types of cycles in our lives, as we learn, grow, mature, and start all over again. For someone who is born deaf or someone who has recently become deaf, they will experience their deafness individually, and often collectively, but there will always be examples of new experiences, new challenges, new coping mechanisms, new reactions and proactive behaviors. Nothing is ever the same.

It's a rather simple concept, and in a sense, not even new, but it's a new paradigm, a new way of thinking, that I think is important to each of us. Most, if not all, of us have accepted that we are deaf-- whether this happened almost innately due to being deaf from birth, or as part of a longer, more difficult adjustment as children, teens, or adults, we have come to terms with our deafness. There have been quite a few books published on this, from David Wright's Deafness to Henry Kisor's What's That Pig Outdoors?: A Memoir of Deafness, to treatises on deaf identity such as Leo Jacobs' A Deaf Adult Speaks Out. Most books that discuss deaf education, deaf identity, and just plain being deaf are and were written by medical and audiological professionals, parents of or children of deaf children/adults, and others who are directly or peripherally involved with deafness. There have been quite a few memoirs, but their focus has been on unusual journeys or aspects of people's lives; for example, Frances Parsons' I Didn't Hear the Dragon Roar, which focuses primarily on her travels through China and with less emphasis on the development of her identity as a deaf woman. While essentially a biography, John Man's The Survival of Jan Little is far more memorable for its tale of a harrowing experience homesteading in the Amazon than it is a reflection of being deaf-blind. We're starting to see books and first-person narratives about the deaf experience that explore identity from an overall perspective. I especially enjoyed Mark Drolsbaugh's Deaf Again -- his experiences encompass a wide range of the deaf experience, and speaks of common experiences that we've all had, regardless of our educational bona fides and choice/use of language.

With external audiences writing about and defining deaf people as deaf, it's difficult sometimes to find common grounds. It's even more difficult when you have such variety within the entire deaf and hard-of-hearing population. Even with the many people who came up during the Q&A sessions after Gertz's presentation, and later, during David Eberwein's session on the politics of Deafhood, and outed themselves as products of mainstreaming, the audience at NAD by and large were largely white, middle-class, fairly well-educated, and for the most part, could afford to travel in the summer to a conference in a man-made oasis in the middle of the desert. The audience also used ASL or other signed languages. Despite NAD's inclusive offering of captions, I doubt that there were that many people there who really needed it (and if they did, woe to them-- "deaf" came out as "teaf;" Eberwein's discussion of the parallels with AIDS and acceptance within the larger community was captioned as oralism until the interpreter finally corrected the mistake; and heterodoxy came out as HeteroDo XY-- yes, I'm aware heteros do stuff that contributes to the mating of X and Y, but somehow I think the speaker wasn't exactly examining sexual practices). (For a somewhat more detailed summary of Eberwein's presentation, see Jared Evans' account that he wrote for the NAD.)

So while I thought Gertz did a wonderful job, and Eberwein's pronouncement that we need to think in terms of "politics of the possible," that at this point, the discussion is geared both to those already in the know, so to speak, and towards those of us of a certain class and educational background. What *is* important is that everyone, hopefully, will return home and continue the discussion with their friends, neighbors, and co-workers who couldn't attend, and that this conversation (and it needs to be a conversation!) filters down, out, and across. As I and others have noted elsewhere, we each need to shoulder the responsibility for examining our own identity, and then helping the community to find its identity-- an identity that needs to be open and welcoming, whether dealing with class, race, sex, or other variables. Eventually we need to reach out to other populations (and they need to reach out to us!) on issues and aspects in common: our childhoods (regardless of whether you used sign, cuing, voice, etc., there are experiences we share-- feelings of being left out, of not fully understanding conversations or situations, of having to struggle to make ourselves heard, etc.), our adult lives, our needs, our desire for equal access, and areas where we can and need to fight together.

I'm not just talking about captioning advocacy, either. I've done plenty of that, and that's a common and obvious area for cooperation. I'm talking about employment issues, access to education, telecommunications, and tons of other aspects of our daily lives. NAD is already working with other groups on these issues, but these group efforts need to be better publicized. Regardless of whether we consider ourselves culturally deaf or not, we need to support efforts to reach across the aisle.

This doesn't mean, of course, that we will have a kumbaya moment, that all deaf people will be as one. There are still sharp differences, especially where education is concerned. But even within such broad gulfs, there are and can be points of overlapping, of likeminded goals. For example, pushing for a mandate that all infants be given hearing tests. Not all states require this at this point, and I can't see where anyone would disagree on asking that this be implemented.

It's also going to be hard work; no one has said the process is going to happen overnight. But it is important for us to let go of the grudges we bear from the past; it's important for us to reinforce a sense of open-mindedness and acceptance in our youth. It's important to remember that for most of us, we didn't have a choice as to where we were educated or how we were brought up.

This last point is very important, and I think the success of this nascent movement is how it will be viewed, discussed, and disseminated a year from now, not just this past week and the next few weeks. It will be quite important this fall, as Gallaudet welcomes students for the fall semester, and the FSSA movement either strengthens or falters, wins or loses its battle. While Gallaudet is a key part of our community, it is not by itself the culturally deaf community. It is not the end-all and be-all of who we are. For most of us, it is a pleasant four- or five-year interlude (for others, slightly longer, but I digress); our lives as deaf adults continue long after graduation or departure from campus. The key to welcoming everyone to our community and recognizing them as deaf is to remember that while we may have been forced to go to an oral program or be mainstreamed by ourselves, no one forces students to attend college. Most people make that decision themselves. Regardless of the high numbers of mainstreamed and oral students enrolling at Gallaudet, they are attending Gallaudet. They are attending NTID. They are choosing large mainstreamed programs like CSUN.

When the average person has guests come to their home, they open the door, and they welcome that person in-- whether for the first time or the thousandth. We do not bolt the door and refuse entry. We need to view the deaf community the same way-- we open the gates, and welcome each person in as a deaf person-- whether they are well into the process of Deafhood, or just beginning the journey. We don't call them "borgs," or insist that they stop using their voice (and this is the community's dirty little secret-- there's far more of us that have the ability to use our voices than we care to admit-- it's not the only thing about us, it's not the only thing that defines us; it's simply a part of who we are, not the whole); we accept them for who they are, and in turn, they will accept us for who we are.

I could go on and on (and I think I have!), but this is what I took away from me from the workshops. In that sense alone, this edition of the NAD conference has left me with much to think about.

NAD: Personal Reflections I

2006-07-05T22:37:00.000-07:00

Normally, I don't have the money or ability to attend the NAD convention; I had only been once, in 1994 at Knoxville, and only then because I was a direct participant. I did consider the possibility of Portland in 1996, but being a poor, unemployed student at the time, I decided to take a pass. In 2002, we chose to spend our time and hard-earned cash on Deaf Way II; considering half the Deaf-World was at Deaf Way, I doubt we missed a lot-- as it is, I have very fond memories of Deaf Way II (for all you wild-eyed conspiracy theorists out there, consider this: I. King Jordan helped with and was President of Gallaudet during both Deaf Way events... Make of that what you will). This time, we're poor and unemployed, but hell-- Palm Desert is just over a couple hours away. So out came our checkbook, and away we went.

First of all, spending my time in 110+ heat is not my idea of fun. But then again, sitting in a puddle in humid, sweaty New Orleans at the height of summer wouldn't have been on the top of my to-do list either. Luckily, I spent 99.9% of my time inside, with the rare exception being those moments I stepped outside to quickly ensure my Sidekick would sputter back to life, enabling me to keep in touch with everyone else inside.

The first thing we did after checking into Le Resort was hit the exhibit room. I regret that I didn't pay attention to every booth, because later I was told that I could find X services there, or Y product at that table. My wife raved over the Ubi Duo-- if you're curious about this, check this blog by frequent commenter McConnell out-- there's tons here about it. While I don't think the Ubi Duo is going to be the be-all and end-all that McConnell thinks it is, it does sound like another excellent tool in the never-ending search for communication between deaf and hearing people.

I did run into a couple of old friends-- one was a 1994 Knoxville companion, and I finally got to meet his wife, in addition to catching up on our lives. Another was a former housemate, and unfortunately we had all of five minutes to talk-- never saw him again during the conference. Walking up and down the halls brought yet another familiar face, followed by another... I bet you regardless of all the hoopla regarding NAD, and especially this year's edition replete with the Gallaudet saga, that at heart this is what it all comes down to-- we deaf pay to socialize. *grin*

The TDI booth afforded me the opportunity to be handed some papers on emergency measures regarding communications equipment-- some of it is quite useful to know. Other booths had the usual information on colleges, social services, and telecommunications. Despite knowing that T-Mobile had just released the SKIII, I somehow never arrived at their booth to ask if I could test it out.

One unique booth was Clerc Tea, run by MSSD alumni and current Gallaudet student Branic Keltz. This company, founded within the past year, sells three different kinds of tea and tea accessories. The web page is a bit sparse, and could use some work (perhaps a job that could be contracted out to deaf-owned and operated companies such as TaylerInfomedia). But since my dishwashing partner LOVES tea, I'm definitely keeping the website bookmarked. It's opportunities to learn about new ventures like this that are great about such gatherings/conferences/events.

One thing that struck me as different from past conferences and conventions was the message board near the information booth. In years past, it would have been covered with messages, notes, and the like (I remember Knoxville-- there was absolutely no room left on the board by the end of the first afternoon!). During this past week, I noticed a grand total of 4-5 messages over the three days I passed it, and most of what was posted there were job announcements. As a community, we've progressed into the information age and modern telecommunications with no problems, but age-old issues such as un- and underemployment and job networking remain with us...

The workshops I attended were great, although given the prevalence of Deafhood throughout the blogosphere the last few months, you'd think the workshop coordinators would have done two things:

1) found a much larger space for all four Deafhood workshops (to their credit, they checked with the hotel management after the first two workshops resulted in people on the floor, along the wall, at the door, and out in the hallway; but unfortunately, there was no switch to a larger venue); a friend ventured that it was not only a problem for people who wanted to see the presenters, but it raised concerns of fire safety issues.

2) we need a mea culpa from whomever scheduled the FSSA workshop and the first Deafhood presentation at the exact same time. Given the recent fireworks at Gallaudet, it was a given the FSSA workshop was going to be heavily attended. The same was true for the Deafhood series (I attended the last two, and the room was *packed* both times). A lot of people I know wanted to attend both, and had to be forced to choose. Let's hope the next conference brings a more evenly distributed schedule. Naturally, there will always be workshops that are scheduled at the same time-- you can't avoid that-- but the top two issues of the month/year/decade at the same time? Come on...

One thing I thought could be improved for those of us in the audience is the seating placement. At many conferences I've gone to for history associations and the like, the typical seating is in rows. But I think such seating (which was provided at NAD) isn't as deaf friendly as it could be. I know hotel staff set up and broke down the seating/tables, but perhaps next time it could be arranged to have the rows set up diagonally, so that on the left side, the row could start at top left and slope downward to the right, and on the right side, from top right and ending sloped to the left? This would prevent us from having a permanent crick in our neck as we twist our necks to the left or right to view the speaker.

I greatly enjoyed the "Tribute to ASL and Deaf Culture" entertainment on Friday night. While some of it clearly was Deaf-World in-jokes and humor (witness Vikee Waltrip's hilarious take on a SEE teacher's instructions to her class on how to sign/say the Pledge of Allegiance), some of it was magical, such as TOYS, which some of us saw at previous events/gatherings (Deaf Way II, for example). All of us in the room witnessed parity with the hearing community when Sam Costner and Todd Behanna presented a commercial disguised as a classic comedy routine for the edification of the audience; like most commercials, I could have done without it. I suggest that next year, a different company allow its employees to stage a scene from "A Streetcar Named Desire," or appropriate a Burns and Allen routine-- lord knows we need some classic material in our commercials...

But for me, two highlights were Bernard Bragg and Mark Morales. Bragg was hardly in the sunset of his career as he reminded us that we are all "just deaf." I felt this set a great tone for the unity that the community has claimed is present, but that seemed woefully lacking in the wake of the Gallaudet protests in May. Morales completely stunned me with his brilliant rendering of the historical encounter between the Spanish conquistadors and the Aztecs, narrated as an ABC story, starting from A to Z, then 1 through 10, then backwards through the numbers and alphabet. I ran into Morales the next day, and we discovered a mutual love of Latin American history. I'm hoping he'll continue to create such brilliant syntheses of ASL and history and other subjects.

This is getting a wee bit long. I'll continue this later, but before I quit, I just want to say that those of you who I haven't seen for ages, those of you who shared your mealtimes with me, sat and caught up with me... I greatly enjoyed the time we had, wished we had more, and value your friendship. As for the half-European, I'm gonna see if I can book in advance some time with you for the next time you're in the States, whether it's a year from now or five. *grin*

Neutrality, Privacy, and "the Internets"

2006-06-18T22:24:00.000-07:00

This week promises to be a big one where the Internet is concerned, what with the impending vote on internet neutrality and now possible action on the Financial Data Protection Act. Both are bad, in my opinion. "Internet neutrality" is a rather poor title for something that actually will impact a lot of us. Ostensibly, the companies (telecoms) that facilitate the internet (like AT&T, for example) want to start charging some companies a bit more (the specifics haven't been laid out, as of yet) for the right to route their webpages, videos, and other materials to viewers/customers. On the face of it, it makes sense: with streaming video, advertising, and all kinds of enhanced material being pushed by large companies, who wouldn't agree to an extra fee here and there? But the problem is, this starts down a slippery slope. The majority of us pay for the privilege to hook up to the internet at home (unless you work for a college or other company that allows you to log-in from home, and even then your company/school pays, and you probably pay somehow down the line anyway). Right now you can choose how to access the web-- via dial-up, cable, wireless, or some other method of broadband. You pay for this service. What the telecoms propose to do is to tack on another charge for users on both ends (commercial/public/non-profit and the public at large) depending on what material you want to view or use, and from which webpage/website. You might pay just a dollar or so more, or you might have to fork over quite a bit. The same is true for website owners/developers, whether corporate or just an individual at home.

To use a couple of analogies, picture this:

Many of you have used toll roads or toll booths. Under the new rules, the internet would become a virtual toll road. You'd pay access just to get on the toll road itself (paying for dial-up or DSL/wireless). You'd then pay a toll for whichever lane (website/page) you wanted to use, all the time hoping that the "owner" of the lane (the website/page owner) paid the toll, too. There's no guarantee that the "fast" lane will be any better or different than the "slow" lane.

Another analogy: without the level playing field offered currently ("internet neutrality"), you could be out on the road to get a burger. But instead of being able to go to your favorite burger palace, you find that McDonald's paid for all the roads to lead directly to them. To wit, it would be as if instead of being able to go to Google, Yahoo! steered all the traffic to their search engine. Whoever has the most bucks available to pay off the tollkeepers gets to decide what you want to see.

I mentioned cable earlier. Right now, a lot of you who have cable have probably grumbled at one time or another about being beholden to whichever company has a monopoly in your area, such as Adelphia. Instead of being able to pick and choose which channels you might want or which ones you know you'll see, you have a choice between basic cable and expanded cable, with all the channels bundled together. Without net neutrality, you could end up in the same situation, where one or two or just a handful of companies decide exactly what you get to see. Not only that, but the website owners also have to pay too, so even if you wanted all the "channels," you might not have access to them. Also, it's possible that not all "channels" would be available.

These are just a few analogies out of many-- the bottom line is you already have monopolies in many areas of daily life-- why would you want our gummint to allow a few companies to become the tollkeepers for the internet? There's quite a few companies banded against the dismantling of Internet Neutrality, including the odd bedfellows of MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition. That's because this has the potential to limit access to free speech. There's no guarantee that in the future, there won't be limits imposed by corporations, or from anywhere on the political spectrum. Right now, the Senate is poised to consider the matter this week, on Thursday, June 22.

It's obvious part of the problem is that quite a number of companies, including the telephone companies and other communications corporations want to have the potential to offer movies and TV over the internet. I'm sure that on their own, companies will work out deals with content providers and charge users fees for movies and shows provided online-- what they essentially want is to reproduce the cable industry online. Where the danger is is in the fact that once you start setting up such a system, where does it stop? Who has to pay what, and how?

Personally, I'm against the dismantling of the current system, at least until there's been far more debate. I don't trust our representatives, who already are well known for giving preferential treatment and a share of their time to those who pay (sounds familiar, eh? Our gummint could use its own version of "net neutrality"-- next area of reform-- our elected officials) to consider the public good-- a good number of them are more likely to consider corporate chief's wishes instead. So for now, I'm for net neutrality. If you too want things to remain as they are for now, I urge you to contact your Senators before the 22nd and urge them to maintain net neutrality.

As far as privacy goes, I'm very jealous of my own privacy-- I'm careful to shield my social security number, my banking information, my credit card number, and everything else related to my personal and financial matters as much as possible. I think there needs to be a balance between the public's right to access and the public's right to privacy. Unfortunately, as early as this week, the Financial Data Protection Act is coming up for consideration. This piece of legislation would override current credit-freeze laws here in California and 17 other states, and would limit rights for victims of I.D. theft. Considering the spate of stories in recent years about stolen information, including the recent loss of a laptop with tons of data on our veterans and current service members, you'd think our gummint would want to do everything they could to protect our information.

Currently, the "credit freeze" allows an individual to place a "freeze" on their credit files-- thus creating a barrier where people and companies wanting to access their credit history first have to ask permission. The Financial Data Protection Act would limit such freezes only to those who are already victims of I.D. theft. Additionally, businesses currently must inform customers if the data they possess is compromised; under the Financial Data Protection Act's provisions, a new, weaker disclosure rule would leave it up to the companies themselves to decide if the risk was great enough to bother notifying you. David Lazarus over at the San Francisco Chronicle has a good column on this in today's paper.

Personally, I find this frightening-- it weakens consumer protections, rides roughshod over current state laws, and does nothing to make things easier or life safer. I plan to contact my representatives about this, and I encourage you to do the same. The internet has long been lauded as a "frontier"-- unfortunately, here comes the gummint, ready to regulate everything, and not neccessarily for the best.

Is Greed Really "Good"?

2006-06-16T18:01:00.000-07:00

Despite Gordon Gekko's pronouncement that "Greed... is good. Greed is right. Greed works," a clear-headed look at how our politicians and policymakers treat economics, wealth, and class demonstrates (to me at least) that greed isn't all that "good."

"Wall Street" came out nearly 20 years ago, yet a lot of what the film epitomized is still with us today. Witness Gekko's commentary on wealth:

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth..."

While I have nothing against hard work, I do feel that salaries and our present tax system are quite inequitable. I find it amusing when I take on-line polls that ask if I consider myself "am member of the investor class." With the exception of two people, no one I know invests, or owns anything of worth beyond their homes and cars. In fact, more and more people I know are juggling bills and credit card debt in the struggle to maintain and expand their dreams. While some are obviously living beyond their means (I'm beginning to understand how many recent college graduates are racking up debt: drinking in the clubs every weekend puts a real dent in your wallet!), others are being as frugal as possible and still coming out shortchanged more often than not.

Yet our gummint prefers to ignore the majority of the people in this country, and instead shower its fiscal largesse on tax cuts for the rich. One of the people that tax money is being returned to is Lee Raymond, the retiring Exxon Oil executive, who received a $400 million farewell (which includes personal security, the use of a company jet, and other lovely perks). He earned over $69 million last year, which comes to over $190K a day.

A couple months back, during the uproar over the fiscal debacle at CSD, quite a to-do was made over Ben Soukup's total compensation package of over $850K. A friend and I worked it out-- Soukup made in two weeks what my friend made in an entire year.

These salaries are just in the business world-- there's also the entertainment and sports worlds, where actors command multi-million dollar incomes from one movie, and sports figures (who are really just entertainers, when you think about it), are signed to multi-million dollar contracts even before they've done anything (not to mention working the same length of time the average teacher does in this country-- maybe 8-9 months out of the year. Somehow I think our teachers, who are teaching and training the next generation, deserve a wee bit more than someone who plays a game and performs before an audience for two hours 3-4 days a week).

Regardless of who you are or what you do, are such high salaries good? Are they all that necessary? What does all that money buy, anyway?

An article on msn.com last month provided some answers. "What a Huge CEO Salary Would Buy You" uses examples of actual corporate leaders. For example, Barry Diller, the head of HSN (Home Shopping Network), made enough last year that his income would buy every person in Los Angeles and New York a $20 keychain digital camera that is advertised for sale on HSN.

I don't need a keychain digital camera, thank you, but I'm sure that that money could be put to far better use. When corporate America is shedding jobs, cutting back support for health care coverage, and allowing its boards to reward top executives with obscene profits, something's out of whack.

So how is our gummint helping to resolve this? You might think that a dollop of common sense would lead our "leaders" to the conclusion that perhaps the middle and working classes need some sort of economic relief to even the playing board just a little bit? Nope. Last week, despite all the problems this country faces, we had efforts by our Republican-controlled Congress to eliminate the estate tax. Fortunately, it was defeated. The Republicans like to call it the "death tax." Funny, but I don't see dead people being taxed. You can't tax a dead person. You CAN tax estates, and that's what it really is- an inheritance tax. It's not even being levied for the majority of people in this country, either: "According to the most recent statistics available from the Internal Revenue Service, 1.17 percent of people who died in 2002 left a taxable estate." If only 1.17% will be subject to the levy of the estate tax, it hardly seems fair to call it a "death tax," does it?

The majority party in our Republican-controlled Congress apparently has no shame, but when "[o]ver the past 25 years the median US family income has gone up 18 percent. For the top one percent, however, it has gone up 200 percent," something's wrong. In the meantime, tax refunds are going disproportionately to the wealthy, our jobs are going overseas, and our national socioeconomic fabric is slowly unraveling. For an interesting (and sobering) view of the gradual dismantling of the middle class, take a look at this interview with Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. She concludes by stating that yes, there is indeed a class war in this country-- not the kind of class war conservatives sneer is being pushed by Democrats and progressives, but the kind of class war the conservative majority in our Republican-controlled Congress is foisting on the rest of the nation.

I agree-- let's forget Gordon Gekko and his ilk. Let's turn to the advice of another fictional cultural icon, Howard Beale, and shout: "I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

Rare Praise

2006-06-15T19:59:00.000-07:00

If you stuck around with this blog long enough, you know I am NOT a fan of the current occupants of the White House and OEOB. I spend enough spare time away from the newspapers, websites, blogs, and the like watching "The West Wing" and fantasizing about our "real" president: Jed Bartlet. Of course-- silly me, what a fantasy life.

But today, Bush/Smirk had one of his rare moments where he said/did something I am either neutral about or agree on (and they are rare enough that I can count them on one hand, and blog about them *grin*). He intends to designate the northwestern portion of the Hawai'ian Islands as a marine sanctuary; this from a guy who says the evidence for global warming isn't in (in spite of increasing agreement that global warming is happening).

You think maybe he's been possessed by the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt? Me too. But whatever his reasons for doing so, I'll take it. Granted, it's not a major shift; these islands are unpopulated, there was minimal fishing going on anyway, it doesn't actually become formally designated for a while, and there's tons of other problems that could be fixed in terms of our parks, preserves, and the environment. For example, the National Park Service has been facing large cuts the last few years, and it's starting to show. For Bush to take uninhabited, comparatively unmolested territory and create a new marine sanctuary isn't a 180-degree turnabout; I'll give him far more credit once he actually assumes responsible stewardship for our natural heritage. But for now, I'll offer a small amount of rare praise, and welcome, in the 90th year of the National Antiquities Act, the newest marine sanctuary-- the Northwestern Hawai'ian Islands.

Do As We Do, Not As We Say

2006-06-09T16:29:00.000-07:00

One thing that frustrates me when I read the news is how our nation's official policies have changed so much the last few years. Granted, our gummint hasn't always been angels, and there have been plenty of times in the past when we've done things that are not in our long-term (or even in our short-term!) best interests. But it seems like it's gotten worse of late.

Exhibit A is the announcement earlier this week that the Pentagon plans to omit from its detainee policies central portions of the Geneva Conventions related to "humiliating and degrading treatment." This means, of course, that our gummint and the Pentagon are effectively saying that despite Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, there isn't anything wrong in their eyes with how the U.S. treats its prisoners and detainees. At heart, it's a big "fuck you" to the rest of the world; anyone want to bet this won't come back to haunt us eventually?

If this happened elsewhere in another nation, there would be an outcry on Capitol Hill, and among the punditry everywhere; folks would be tut-tutting over the abandonment of such a integral international accord, one that has its origins in the 19th century and intertwined with the history of the International Red Cross. Nearly every nation on the planet is a signatory, including all but one member of the United Nations (the exception is Nauru). Such a compact is not enforced easily-- there's a mutual understanding that regardless of conflicts and disputes, than the Conventions (there have been four major ones, the last one drafted in 1949) will be honored and respected. When a powerful nation such as the United States thumbs its nose at such a document, it becomes easier now that the taboo has been broken for some other nation in the future to say, "Well, if they did it, so can we," and follow suit.

Sadly, this has already happened to an extent with Bush's "doctrine" emphasizing the right to conduct pre-emptive wars-- a U.S. policy shift that occurred conveniently in the fall of 2002, as the gummint began its ramp-up to the Iraq War the following spring in March 2003. In February 2003, and again this recent March 2006, North Korea has declared that it too possessed the right to conduct pre-emptive attacks, all in the name of preserving its sovereignty. There have been rumblings by Iran about conducting such pre-emptive strikes, and even though the leader now is Olmert, statements by people like Netanyahu saying that Israel should attack Iran don't leave me feeling comfortable at all (Here's one analysis of the consequences of such a Israel-Iran conflict). Thus, Smirk's insistence on flouting international law by pushing a unilateral military policy has opened a Pandora's Box that I don't think will be closed anytime soon.

The tendency of this gummint to do whatever it wants and shout, "My way or the highway" is starting to have repercussions; in March, the U.N. ignored U.S. objections and approved a new Human Rights Council. If all the influence the U.S. is going to wield in the future is money and economic power, other nations are going to start ignoring us more and more; despite our past fiscal hegemony, we aren't a creditor nation any longer, and that comes with its own set of consequences.

War is a nasty business, there's no doubt about that. But by denying or sweeping under the rug such things as the Geneva Conventions, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha* (WARNING: Both links have graphic pictures; if you can't handle it, don't click), it makes it that much easier for other nations to start doing as we do, and not as we say.

*[for a good overall look at Corporate Media and independent reporting of Haditha, check out this blog entry at Amygdala.]

6.6.06 at 6:06

2006-06-06T18:06:00.000-07:00

Since everyone else is having fun with the date today, I thought I'd take it a step further and post at 6:06 p.m. *wink*

All the hysteria about numerology, demonology, and the Book of Revelations aside, I thought I'd take a break from Gallaudet, politics, my state of un/underemployment, and life in general and share with you this cool website I found a while back. If you're an interior decorator, an aspiring design major, or just someone who appreciates quirkiness, check out these 3-D painted rooms.

In a similar vein, you may have seen examples of these before, but I love some of these pavement drawings by Julian Beever-- they're not exactly your typical chalk drawings! Perhaps the artist is related to Bert from Mary Poppins. Who knows...?

A Celebration

2006-05-24T23:02:00.000-07:00

Tonight we celebrated a Very Important Milestone: the successful passage of the California Bar Exam. Yep, my beloved wife, who has labored and struggled for weeks and months towards the goal of conquering one of the toughest, if not the toughest, bar exams in the nation received word the other day that she's now officially eligible to be the butt of lawyer jokes (Quick! Heard any good ones lately??).

As an extremely proud spouse, I escorted her to a celebratory dinner at Trader Vic's, advertised as the "home of the Mai Tai." Yes, we had the obligatory mai tais, along with appetizers, dinner, and dessert. I chose the restaurant because it is just down the street from our humble abode, and we have passed by it countless times. Well, now the mystery of what's behind those Polynesian-themed walls is over.

While I'm still figuring out what I want to be When I Grow Up (yeah, I'm a writer, but I need a day job til I become the next Dan Brown), at least one person in our household is an adult, and about to re-join the working world. Congratulations, dear, on a job well done.

My Value Is Your Value

2006-05-22T21:14:00.000-07:00

When it comes to current affairs, I consider myself fairly well-read. Maybe not as obsessive as some, and I certainly don't do this for a living (although anyone reading this that wants to pay me for reading and analyzing stuff online, give me a call), but I do keep up with events as they happen and try to read a broad range of materials.

That said, I'm not a fan of Republicans, conservatives, or right-wingers, and I tend to avoid their pieces, blogs, and venues for the most part. But I do check in from time to time, just to get a sense of what the other side is thinking, or to take their pulse on a particular issue. This includes occasionally sneaking over the fence into Free Republic, or checking out an esoteric blog here and there. When it comes to "mainstream" publications, such as Time or Newsweek, I read some columnists who span the entire range of the political spectrum (why is it that nearly every conservative writer out there is an aging white male? Oh, wait a minute-- I *am* an aging white male!). One such columnist I read every now and then is George Will.

Generally, Will and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but he wrote a column last week that I thought was particularly good. In "Who Isn't a 'Values Voter'?," Will chides conservatives and the Corporate Media for reserving the label "values voter" and "values voting" for certain issues "owned" by social conservatives. As Will points out, it "is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values..." Funny, that. Each time I write my opinion up in this blog, or dash off a letter to the editor, or carefully choose a candidate to vote for, I thought I was assessing my values and demonstrating my support of those values. My values (and the principles behind them) reflect my beliefs and my emotional and ethical commitment to issues and concerns in society that I'm involved in. But according to social conservatives and their media lapdogs, I apparently don't have any opinions, principles, or any kind of investment in the workings of our society.

When I argue for universal healthcare or healthcare reform in general, that's a value. When I disagree with capital gains tax cuts and corporate welfare, that's a value. When I advocate for deaf rights, that's a value. My casting a ballot in favor of these issues is just as much "values voting" as the social conservative who heads to the polls to formalize their opinions on religion, homosexuality, marriage, and abortion. Just because my neighbors and fellow citizens may disagree with me doesn't give them the corner on being "holier than thou;" as Will states, "The phrase "values voters"... subtracts from social comity by suggesting that one group has cornered the market on moral seriousness," and a complicit Corporate Media "are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others."

I agree- I remember reading something somewhere about casting stones at glass houses. So-called "values voters" should think twice about using labels to put themselves on a pedestal, and the Corporate Media should also follow suit by not taking the lazy way out and stereotyping or labeling various groups based solely on a certain set of ethics and beliefs, and thus suggesting no one else has values.

Cheers for Communication

2006-05-20T22:44:00.000-07:00

Last night I attended a dear friend's birthday party; I was looking forward to it, not only because it was an opportunity to celebrate my friend's birthday, but it was also going to be great to see some other friends again as well. The organizer, my friend's husband, chose a bar based on internet buzz. Only one or two in the group of attendees had ever been there, though I didn't know that at the time.

I was the first to arrive, and found it to be a fairly small bar, and very, very dark. After unsuccessfully finding anyone there, I staggered back out, thinking, "Jeez, what a dark bar. I wonder if T realizes it's going to be damn hard to sign in there??" Soon the birthday girl and her hubby appeared, and I relayed to them the bar's atmosphere. We entered and found it comfortable, if very dark.

But what happened next was a pleasant surprise. As we seated ourselves and saw the waitress approach to take our orders, we grabbed the drink list like good little deafies, ready to point and gesture in order to make our wishes known. But then, the waitress *signed*.

Yep, she not only signed, it wasn't the usual "Oh, H-I! I know A-B-C..." No, it was a smooth full sentence-- "HI! What you want drink?" *thud* (jaw dropping to the floor) Turns out she's an interpreter (or aspiring interpreter?). She'd taken courses at Golden West and Pierce College, and even better, had pretty good receptive skills. We were of course delighted. Soon that astonishment turned to even more good fortune: the waitress was soon joined by one of the bartenders, who also signed. Not one, but two people in the same business could communicate with us, sans paper, pen, or pointed fingers!

Needless to say, we all enjoyed interacting with the waitress, and informing partygoers who joined us through the evening of our communication access. Naturally we left a good tip, and discussed possibly getting together again at the same establishment on a regular basis. I don't know if that'll happen-- I hope it does. But all I could say at the end of the evening other than what a wonderful party it was, and three cheers for the birthday gal, was to add cheers for communication. Just wish this was more the norm than the rare exception!

Adieu to History

2006-05-19T18:43:00.000-07:00

Nothing lasts forever, not even the earth. Our planet is shaped by elemental forces: wind, water, fire. Islands emerge, mountains erode, rivers change course. So why should we expect the every day realities of our lives to remain the same? Some of us welcome change; others don't handle it very well (my mother's in this latter category!). I am usually pragmatic about changes in our society, perhaps because as a historian, I'm all too aware of how ephemeral our institutions and traditions can be. Still, quite a few things have happened lately that I've taken notice of.

The first is the recent death earlier this month of the last U.S. survivor of the Titanic, Lillian Asplund. She was the last survivor who could clearly remember what happened that fateful night in April of 1912. This is in contrast to last month's celebration/remembrance of the San Francisco Earthquake (for a great first-person account of the 100th anniversary, by a deaf non-1906 survivor, see here). Granted, the earthquake affected a large area and consequently there are/were more survivors, but it's still a marker of human memory when all living survivors of a historical event have passed. That's not to say that the Titanic is now a remote historical footnote: in recent years we've had tons of movies, commemorations, books, and the like about the ship. In fact, the day the article came out, I was watching a TV show on A&E or PBS or something similar about some DNA researchers trying to determine the identity of Titanic victims buried in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Kind of a spooky coincidence... The program, by the by, detailed the attempt to determine the identity of three victims, but ultimately succeeded with only one: the famed "Unknown Child," which turned out to be a one-year-old Finnish baby.

Anyway, as I was saying, it isn't a remote memory, not by far: anyone who lives in the U.S. or taken a U.S. History survey knows just how "recent" the Civil War is in our collective memories. There are re-enactments all the time all over the Southeast and in the Mid-Atlantic region, there are historical groups (this link is actually a good one; it's disgusting how developers are choosing greed over history) and commemorative groups, and people all over the South with Confederate flags on their cars and pickups. Yet all the soldiers have been dead for quite some time, and there is no one now living who can actually remember the years 1861-65. Yet it's recent enough that while it isn't living memory, it's certainly living history. For example, I knew my uncle while he was alive, and he told me when I was a little boy about listening to *his* grandfather's friend recount tales of being a drummer boy in the Civil War. So while neither my uncle nor I were alive in the mid-19th century, the Civil War wasn't some abstract event for us.

While I don't see people re-enacting the sinking of the Titanic anytime soon, there are enthusiasts, writers, and all sorts of groups out there that collect artifacts, write books and articles, conduct DNA searches (as I detailed above!), and hold meetings, build models, and publish newsletters that exhaustively detail and analyze every possible fact that can be found about the sinking of a superliner more than 90 years ago.

Some soon-to-be aspects of history aren't as widely known. Some center around local institutions, in the case of another upcoming departure from this earth. In this case, it's Cody's Books in Berkeley; the flagship store on Telegraph Avenue just south of Cal (UC Berkeley for you non-locals) is due to close its doors forever two months from now. This saddens me, because I'm a bibliophile, and I've always enjoyed independent bookstores, whether they sell recent and current works or they barter in used books. Telegraph has long been a haunt of mine when I was in Berkeley for that very reason: within a couple of blocks, you had Cody's, Moe's and Shakespeare & Co. I could (and have) spent an entire afternoon just wandering in and out of these three bookstores, and others as well. Independent bookstores are a dying breed in a lot of places. So what's so important about Cody's?

Well, to put it into perspective, Cody's is to Berkeley what Powell's is to Portland, Oregon, and Dutton's is to Brentwood, here in Los Angeles. Although it's primarily a used bookstore, The Strand in NYC is a similarly hallowed institution. While anyone can go to Borders (and yes, I do go there) or Barnes & Noble, it's just not the same. You have people in Borders and its ilk who simply work there because it's a paycheck. It's not the same at places like Cody's, where the owners, the clerks, and the staff actually read the books, can help you locate titles or find similar works, and don't neccessarily have to rely on a computer to do so. Sure, you don't get cut-rate prices, but then again, it isn't always about price. Sometimes it's about pride in the business, knowledge in its products, and a unique identity that you can't find elsewhere. I doubt I'll be able to make it up to Berkeley before July, and I'm not sure I'd want to-- wakes are fine, but not when you enter a bookstore only to see the best materials already taken, and remnants strewn all over. I'll mourn Cody's, and continue to do my best to patronize independent stores of all kinds (not just books!) when possible. I can get the cookie-cutter experience anytime, anyplace-- it's the local restaurants, shops, and bookstores that define a city or town.

Finally, the iconic Phillips 76 ball (yes, *that* orange ball with the blue 76 in the center!) is going the way of the dinosaurs (which now constitute the source for petroleum, which is soon also going the way of the dinosaurs). ConocoPhillips, 76's parent company, is replacing the familiar orange globe with flat signs of the type you find at gas stations everywhere in America. While I am not loyal to any one brand (I've always been loyal to price more than brand, especially now that companies are being concentrated more and more into conglomerates composed of many companies), I frequented 76 in my early days of driving, simply because my parents also patronized 76 (it's kind of like how if your parents use Colgate or Crest when you're growing up, you're more likely to use it when you're an adult as well). It didn't hurt that the 76 in the town I grew up in in rural Northern California was one of the very few left that actually provided full service, where an employee would come over and fill up your tank, check the air and water, and wash your windows (of course, this meant a higher price paid overall, which had dissuaded me from going to full service all the time). While they didn't wear sparkly bright uniforms with caps and bowties, it was still nice to have the kind of service that disappeared 40 years ago.

I also enjoyed seeing the familiar ball during the day, standing out among the flat signs for all the other gas stations. This was especially true at night, when it would glow up, a bright orange beacon in the night sky. Those little antenna balls were great too-- now that I think about it, I should stop by the 76 down on the corner and see if they have one or know where I can get one. Not all the balls are down yet; if you care at all about keeping this particular icon of advertising history alive, check out this website, Save the 76 Ball, where you can also sign a petition. While I'm not a fan of petitions (they aren't always all that effective), I've signed it.

As time passes, we'll see more and more departures: WWI veterans are few and far between; soon it'll be our grandparents who survived the Depression and WWII, and then succeeding generations. As our society morphs more and more into an indistinguishable homogenized version of Anywhere, U.S.A., you'll see further sterilization of our culture and society, as more Cody's and more 76's die off, and become one blended bland version of modern life. Adieu to our past, and adieu to history.

She's Got Balls

2006-05-18T09:29:00.000-07:00

Despite the title of this post, nope, this has nothing to do with Jane Fernandes or the mess at Gallaudet. It's merely this small item I spotted while putting the finishing touches on yesterday's post, about a woman who used her bare hands to rip off a very sensitive portion of her husband's anatomy. You can read about this here (and here, if for some reason the first link disappears).

As a proud member of the male sex and gender, I'm definitely wincing. I'm flashing back to Lorena Bobbitt, and thanking my lucky stars I have a wife who loves and respects *all* of me. If you're a man, you'll understand where I'm coming from- we guys wince, and then don't talk about this. If you're a woman, you may be sitting there bemused. In the meantime, I'm happy to know modern medicine ensured the poor guy is intact once again...

Framing the Stalemate: What Now, Gallaudet?

2006-05-17T11:14:00.000-07:00

In my last two posts on Gallaudet, I first examined the general background of how the current protest evolved up to May 12. I then analyzed some of the key issues/talking points. Now I'd like to discuss where the students, FSSA, and the community at large needs to go from here.

Before I begin though, I'd like to address one point I find rather illogical and intolerant. I've been told a few times, both here and elsewhere, that because I have not been on campus in the last two weeks, nor have I ever had any personal experience with Fernandes or Gallaudet of recent years, that my arguments, comments, or discussions of any aspect of the current crisis is, in one gadfly's words, "invalid."

Let's see... many alumni who passionately support FSSA, sent money, letters, and verbal ammunition to the protesters at Gallaudet have not been on campus in years, and few of them had any personal contact with or prior knowledge of Fernandes. Does that mean their comments, arguments, and suggestions are "invalid"?

Look at it from another perspective: During the 1950's and 60's, many blacks and some whites supported the Civil Rights Movement all over the nation. Not everyone lived in the South, or bore the full brunt of racist reactions to civil disobedience, such as the dogs and firehoses in Birmingham. Does the fact that they were not directly in harm's way invalidate their solidarity, silence their voices?

A more recent example is Iraq. Does the fact that one has not ever served in the military, nor ever been in the Middle East disqualify them from sharing an opinion, advocating the war, or supporting withdrawal?

I think that in a country whose Constitution celebrates freedom of speech (despite what our government is doing to subvert our constitutional rights), I have just as much freedom to share my opinion as anyone else.

As far as not demonstrating a lot of passion in my posts or being pissed off, I know it doesn't show. But if I wasn't this engaged or pissed off, I wouldn't be devoting a chunk of my time to outlining what's been going on and offering my thoughts and unsolicited advice (of which there's plenty in this post!).

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Since my last post, two key developments took place: (1) graduation and the end of the academic year, and (2) the announcement by the Board of Trustees that Jane Fernandes had resigned her position as Provost in order to begin the "transition to her presidency." The immediate impact of the two events means that Tent City has been more or less dismantled, with most students heading home or off to jobs for the summer, and that the BOT has signaled their refusal to consider the demands of FSSA.

So far, FSSA and its supporters have shown no inclination to back down from the conditions they've set for Fernandes and the BOT, and so far the BOT demonstrates no intention of acting upon these requests. So for better or worse we have a stalemate. What happens if she stays or goes?

Outcomes

Fernandes remains the ninth president.

This is just as likely as it is for her to resign. In this circumstance, no one really wins. FSSA, the student protesters, and the community at large will have to live with Fernandes for the time being. For her part, Fernandes will have a sizeable bloc of permanent opposition, will have a chunk of alumni reluctant to support the university, financially or otherwise, and will have the eyes of the community on her 24/7.

Fernandes resigns as ninth president.

While it's not immediately likely this is going to happen, the FSSA/protesters win in the short term. What the ultimate result will be depends on the reconstituted PSC and their next choice. In the meantime, the community at large remains divided due to the various fissures that have formed. The internal Gallaudet community also has its own divisions that remain uncovered at this point. Both communities will have a long way to go to heal.

Either way, no one's really won here. The so-called "unity" is only present on one level: for those who are/were physically present at Tent City and campus grounds, protesting. Even on campus, not to mention outside in the rest of the world, cyber and otherwise, there have been differences of opinion, splits, and arguments and debates raised that will not go away overnight. I'm sorry, but that doesn't meet the definition of "unity."

For all of this, I blame the BOT. The Board is supposed to oversee the president, so if Jordan was truly pulling the strings, then the BOT allowed itself to be manipulated. Additionally, the BOT (and Jordan) *knew* prior to their announcement that all interested stakeholders (students, staff, faculty, and alumni) did NOT want Fernandes. They *knew* she was divisive and that there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that threatened to explode into a protest (which it did). If they truly cared about the university and ensuring a smooth transition, they haven't shown it. What were they thinking?!?!?

As it is, going back and dissecting all the possibilities, the "what ifs," the "should'ves" is counterproductive. As I'm known for saying, what's done is done. Where do we go from here? What does each group/faction need to do?

I. King Jordan
He 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. One of the heroes of DPN, and overall a good President for Gallaudet, his presidency is currently tarnished, and his legacy possibly in danger if he doesn't do something proactive about his role in the entire presidential selection process. Right now many in the Deaf community are suspicious of him, and that isn't going to go away. If Jordan just wants to dash into retirement and doesn't care about his last months in office, that's his right. But he shouldn't expect community goodwill in return. Already he decided not to attend the CEASD in Riverside, and so far is scheduled to appear at the NAD convention on opening day. If I were him, I'd seize the NAD convention as an opportunity to address the community at large about events. The key for him is not to rely on the Gallaudet PR office or proxies, but to come out and address events in person.

Jane Fernandes
If she's going to insist on staying, she needs to immediately change her tactics. So far she isn't being a good example of a leader or proactive president-in-waiting. While she's made an effort to meet with students, FSSA, and the like, she's simultaneously using the media to issue statements in an attempt to dampen opposition to her, rather than addressing the campus community directly. As anyone who's been paying attention knows, there are several audiences here: the immediate campus community, the external Deaf/deaf community, and the public at large. Her first priority and obligation should be the internal campus itself. Since she was still provost during the bulk of the protests so far, the internal campus was her sole province. Of course, you can't completely blame her; she knows public pressure could doom her shot at the job even before she formally assumes it, and she knows making sure it doesn't become the topic du jour in the external media is crucial.

Her initial comments in the media focused on her educational background/social status in the community-- "I didn't learn to sign until I was 23." She was wildly successful at pushing that, since the protests then veered from unsuitability for office to a larger, overarching theme of community pecking order/social status/communication-- far more complicated topics to cover in the media and garner support for, and certainly not winning arguments for compelling the BOT to reconsider. However, her new narrative is that "the faculty" encouraged the protests "to settle scores with her." I find this totally disingenuous and irresponsible. Not only does it make her look like she's casting about for reasons for why everything happened, it also assumes the risk of alienating the faculty further, and hints at retribution (I'm not saying she will take measures when all is said and done-- just that even the hint of retaliation would further contribute to the decline in campus morale, which is *NOT* what needs to be happening!). Instead of trying to pin blame on people and quash the protests via the media, she needs to be taking visible, proactive steps to demonstrate that the BOT's faith in her was justified. For example, instead of letting Gallaudet's PR machine handle the announcement that she was leaving as Provost in order to prepare to take over in January, she should have called for a public announcement on campus with a PR representative and media there. Sure, it would have been a magnet for protesting students to hurl invectives at her, but it would have shown a willingness to publicly face the campus and try to start engaging people. She failed to do so, and people have pointedly noticed and commented on it.

Any new management team she puts together should be composed of people who will balance her-- in other words, perhaps some of her competitors for the presidency or others who will be able to forge links between her and the campus as a whole. Not doing so will deepen the divide between her and the community.

She has stated that she will help the campus heal through "committees." Excuse me, that's a response typical of a bureaucrat, not a leader. Healing isn't going to happen by proxy, or through various committees. It's going to be a long, possibly sometimes painful process and won't happen overnight.

The best way to being the healing would be for her to decline/resign the presidency. She knows by now that her appointment is divisive, has caused the protests (regardless of who started what), and has led to splits in the community, both at Gallaudet and outside. These rifts will not heal overnight, and she so far hasn't shown that she is the person to lead the healing. But like it or not, regardless of what happens, the next move is really hers. As a friend of mine put it, she is the catalyst here. She said in the NYT, "It is absolutely essential I stay." I'm sorry, Dr. Fernandes, but it isn't. You are and should be expendable for the good of the community.

The Board of Trustees
The Board considers itself in a bind: stay with Fernandes, and reap the whirlwind. Let Fernandes go, and risk being "weakened" because the students will then have forced the reconsideration of a presidential choice twice. While I understand the BOT's reluctance, I also think they need to demonstrate their independence by making the decisions that are best for Gallaudet, not necessarily the best for one individual or one group. As I said above, they are also largely at fault for all that has transpired since. It's my understanding that individual trustees have approached Tent City, or spoken to groups and individuals outside of the boardroom. I applaud this openness, and hope that it continues.

Ideally, the BOT would grow a spine and recognize the damage the appointment of Fernandes has done to Gallaudet and the community, and rescind their offer of the job. It can be done; the Board, like all boards, oversees the chief executive and as such has the right to remove that person from the company/corporation/organization/school. The Bylaws, in Article VI, Section 6.2, clearly states that the President "shall serve at the pleasure of the Board." For analysis of this, go see Rob Voreck's post, "Can the Board of Trustees rescind its offer to Fernandes?"

On a San Francisco Bay Area website, Bay Area Perspective on the Gally Presidential Selection, Di Herron offers her perspective from her years in the corporate world on whether the Board can revoke their offer. She too agrees with Voreck that a payout may be required, but that it is indeed possible for the BOT to withdraw their offer. But as Di points out, "The sooner they terminate it, the lesser the consequence would be." Since the BOT has already announced Fernandes' resignation and telegraphed that they will not be reversing their decision anytime soon, the "consequences" are going to be a lot more severe as time goes on.

The BOT also needs to develop a search committee process that is far more transparent than the one in place. Instead of doing the overhaul themselves, I'd establish a committee with representatives from all factions (two students, two faculty, two staff, two alumni, two trustees) and then letting such a committee independently craft the best possible protocol. This committee should seek input through public forums, and also seek advice from other groups, such as NDBA (National Deaf Black Advocates) to ensure that there is fairness and equitability every step of the way.

Some people are saying Jordan chose the outside company, Academic Consultation Search Service; others say it was the PSC. Regardless of who hired them, in the future the leader of any such service (this time around it was Dr. Tobie Van der Vorm) should be paired with someone neutral who is not a candidate, who has intimate knowledge and understanding of deafness, Gallaudet, and the Deaf community to help guide the process. Both in 1988 and 2006, the searches focused on qualifications. Qualifications are great; I'm all for them, and it's the reason why I was so concerned about Ron Stern (who otherwise was a fantastic fit for the job). But as the protests demonstrate, there's far more at stake here. Yes, the message emanating from the protest should never have been about degree of deafness, but unfortunately, the topic is out there in the open. The best way to deal with it in the future is to confront it head-on.

Faculty/Staff
The faculty's "no-confidence" vote should have been supplemented with far more media attention and evidence than it was. I'm not sure how the faculty as a whole and individually can get their message out; some are speaking in public forums, such as Shirley Shultz-Myers and David Pancost. A former professor, Zoltan Szekely, has discussed in various forums and e-mail lists about the weakening of the University's math department and the role of Dean Karen Kimmel in its decline (while his posts and messages are persuasive, I have yet to see any e-mails or other evidence. Also, where are other members of that department? We're only getting one voice, one side of the story. Still, his allegations are serious enough that if true, Karen Kimmel should be removed and an investigation started.). The staff are also somewhat divided, although their voices haven't been heard as often in news reports. I've talked privately with a few faculty and staff members, and there are serious divisions on campus. Not everyone supports the protesters; some openly support Fernandes. Others are supporting the protesters, but staying quiet; a handful are publicly siding with the protesters. It does not bode well for the campus climate this fall.

While my sympathies are with the protesters and those faculty that do not want Fernandes, I must state that I am troubled: if there have been so many problems with Fernandes, why hasn't the evidence been shared before May 1? Why hasn't the media or other influential persons been contacted? Where are e-mails, memos, and other documents that can build a case against Fernandes? Perhaps the evidence is there, has been used, has been publicly disseminated. But it certainly has failed to reach the outside community at large. Whether this is the fault of the faculty, the FSSA, or some other faction, I have no idea. But 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.

In any case, my sympathies are with the faculty and staff. It does not sound like most of them have the best relationship with Fernandes and the current administration; the faculty has voted "no-confidence" in her and the process; yet they are the front line in dealing with the students. How they handle the situation this fall and comport themselves will say a lot about the future of the university. My hat's off to them.

Students
The students are for the most part at home this summer. Yet they will be back in the fall, along with a new crop of freshmen. They are the front line of the protest. While I initially did not support an actual student strike (I felt there were better means of registering protest) and I have had concerns since, I admire the fact that they stuck it out for twelve days. That's something. You don't just hang out in tents in all kinds of weather unless you're passionate about your cause.

But the students and their leaders are going to have to come back in the fall with a different discipline and a stronger message if they want to continue the battle, and especially if they want to win. There should be a uniformity to their signs and messages. The leaders and FSSA need to get it across that they need to emphasize performance as why they are not happy with Fernandes. No more of this talk of "deafness" and "ASL" and other stuff (such as your genealogy-- we Deaf may be impressed that you're a fifth-generation Deaf who's the third generation at Gallaudet, but it means little to Congress, the media, and the general public) - as I've said before, it doesn't resonate outside of campus and our community. That means when some reporter comes up and asks you about the protest, you calmly offer examples of Fernandes' lack of ability to lead, pure and simple. Of course, for that to work, you need to be prepared to offer (again!) cold, hard evidence. This isn't easy; it requires coordination, which means everyone from faculty to staff to students need to have ready at the drop of a hat papers, e-mails, memos, etc. or they are going to face skepticism, both from inside and outside campus. The media is very important-- the story has been covered everywhere, from the Washington Post to the L.A. Times, from Andrew Sullivan to Daily Kos (A deaf blogger on Kos! The second time recently! Great! Hat tip to Joseph Rainmound for alerting me to this). How the students and FSSA frame the stalemate will make all the difference.

Additionally, students need to stop making fun of Fernandes and carry on a discourse with her that is at all times civil. I'm hearing that's happening for the most part, but not always. As a staff member at Gallaudet related to me:

I've seen her in person being spoken to in a way I was horribly ashamed to see. Students using words, signs, expressions, inflections towards her they would not use with teachers or parents. Like her or don't, fine, but you don't treat people that way.

Yes, it's just one person's opinion. But it says a lot: this staff member is not a fan of Fernandes, wanted Stern for the job, is a residential school grad and graduated from Gallaudet. If this person is appalled, imagine how it comes across to others? I know it's difficult in the heat of the moment to contain passion, to stifle emotion; it's not always possible. But try to temper that fire a bit if you want people to listen. You may still be college students, and still growing and learning, and not always fully emotionally or mentally mature, and most of us who are older cut you slack for that; we were students, and your age, once. But you're technically and chronologically adults. You want the respect of other adults, then act like one.

Some of you may say it doesn't matter about hearing people, that they're not crucial to the situation. I disagree: the ex-officio members of Congress, who handle the monies for Gallaudet, are hearing. Their constituents are hearing. Many of us work for, with, and under hearing people. Some of us used to be hearing. Some of us are married to hearing people. Many of us have hearing parents and hearing children. Most people are hearing. The Deaf community is but a small segment of the deaf/partially deaf community nationwide. It *does* matter what our message is, and how we're perceived. Out there in the blogosphere, the reaction isn't all that good. See here, here, and here (admittedly, even I don't care for this last one-- I've never been a fan of Free Republic, and I never will be). Remember after DPN, how everyone reacted when they found out you were deaf, and especially when you had attended/graduated/knew of Gallaudet? Well, the same thing will happen again, but the reactions you get may not be as positive.

FSSA
This organization was formed in response to the protest. While lots of blogs refer to it, and it has a website, it has a long way to go. First of all, they aren't even being referred to as FSSA in the media. They aren't harnessing PR the way they need to. Their website lies dormant for days and hours at a time, without updates. I'm sorry guys, but claiming your webmaster has a final exam doesn't cut it. What you need to do in the fall is find an alumni or sympathetic person to act as PR manager/spokesperson-- that person can either be behind the scenes, or in front, but should know about PR techniques, know how to quickly cultivate the media, and be able to respond at a moment's notice. Yes, Fernandes has Mercy Coogan and the formidable name of Gallaudet University behind her. That's why you need to get someone with experience to counter that. Solicit the advice of people who know what they're talking about, can give you pointers, or at the least steer you in the direction of others who can. Examples include Bob Weinstock, Muriel Strassler, and Diana Herron. There are others out there who have done PR or are informally skilled at it-- Butch Zein is another name that comes to mind. The name "FSSA" includes the alumni; make good use of them and learn from them.

The same goes for the webmaster. There are tons of alumni in the immediate DC area who have computer skills. Get a couple who are willing to spare their time and expertise, pair them up with the student webmaster, and keep that website and PR machine humming. As I've said before, PR is half the battle, and keeping the information coming and going is crucial. Look at politics: successful political campaigns operate 24/7-- they don't allow things like "exams" or "family" or other distractions to get in the way. As a friend of mine put it, this is "war." In a war, you can't slow down or stop for a moment, or you'll get mowed down. (Rob Voreck has also commented on this: for his take, go here)

I'm hearing and seeing reports that FSSA isn't listening to outside members offering tips, advice, and expertise. This is inexcusable. You state that it's all about "unity"-- well "unity" means treating this as a sort of democracy, where everyone has a voice and everyone makes contributions. One thing that DPN did very well was that while it was the top four, the Ducks, and their advisors who held meetings and debated in private, they wisely set up a tree of committees, leaders, and others who could handle various aspects of the protest. John Maucere was one of those responsible for securing the gates, and he quickly gathered volunteers who could man the gates and entries; I was one of them. I may be mistaken, but I have heard nothing of such organization on the part of FSSA and the students. If they do have such a "tree," great; if not, it's something they should consider come Fall.

Alumni/The Community
The best thing these two groups can do is to be as educated as possible. But in order to do so, the students, faculty, staff, and FSSA need to do a better job of educating everyone outside their groups. This means instead of spouting meaningless lines like "She had six years as provost, and she failed," it means assuming that *everyone* you meet doesn't know the background or story, and filling them in with a concise, factually-based narrative to bring them up to speed. During such a conversation, a smart person will quickly recognize what the listener/questioner already knows, and can then proceed to fill in the gaps. Self-education's fine, folks, but it takes a lot of time. I know-- I sacrificed quite some time educating myself in order to prepare these posts.

The second thing these two groups need to do is determine how best to support (or not support, if they choose) the protests. Most have done so admirably. In California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, and other states, state organizations and GUAA groups have sent letters and resolutions of support. It is key for such groups to not just rest on their laurels, but to continue to press the BOT and Fernandes to reverse the decisions made so far. The group I alluded to earlier, Bay Area Perspective on the Gally Presidential Selection, is a model for others to follow.

As for the GUAA itself, it's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Part of the problem is it's officially affiliated with Gallaudet and the campus, and its apparatus. It can't exactly undermine the administration. But at the same time, they represent the alumni, a significant portion of whom are against Fernandes' selection. They are going to have to figure out a way out of this conundrum-- I'm not sure how. It doesn't help that the president of GUAA, Andy Lange, is also heading the NAD board. Most of the time, this isn't a problem. Right now though, it's a conflict of interest; the NAD needs to act in the interests of the community and do what's best for the community. The GUAA's mission is to support and aid the alumni. Where the NAD can and should speak out about the situation, the GUAA, as I said, is in a somewhat more nuanced position.

The community at large has a larger, and much more difficult, problem: the protest has revealed large questions that go to the heart of Deaf history, that focus on the core of the Deaf-World. Oral v. Manual, congenitally deaf v. late-deafened, various sign systems v. ASL, assimilation v. separation, questions of audism and oppression, whether internal or external, horizontal or vertical (hat tip to MountainSprite!)-- these are all debates and questions that, whether new or old, have never really been answered/resolved. Some of them have been ongoing constants, while others have been lying under the surface for years, if not decades. All of a sudden, they're all out in the open.

In one way, this is a confrontation, a conversation, a discussion that needs to be had. It may in the long run be healthy for the community, and it certainly is raising awareness of identity and community all over.

But it is also divisive, and it runs counter to the immediate goals of the protesters. In order for the FSSA to be successful, they will need to at least quell the debate on campus when dealing with the media, and when spreading their message and goals. Otherwise it contaminates everything. Already we've had the meme of "She doesn't say hi" and "She's not deaf enough" enter the discourse. It's partly the fault of the students, partly the fault of Fernandes (who, instead of truly trying to unify the campus and outside community, sought to exploit divisions for her benefit). But these are things we need to deal with LATER.

There is also the larger question of deaf education. Gallaudet may be a college, but it's also where the products of all our systems end up: from residential schools to self-contained programs to "true" mainstreaming. As educational methods and programs change and evolve, there is the feeling that traditional residential schools are falling by the wayside: this may or may not be the case, but it is part of a larger debate and problem that needs to be separated from Gallaudet's presidency, at least temporarily. It's also a topic for a separate post.

SO... in a nutshell: the various factions have their work cut out for them over the summer and come this fall. I'm still of the opinion Jane Fernandes needs to vacate her office immediately. I want the PSC re-formed and the process done over again in as transparently as possible. There should be no reprisals against any individuals or groups involved. But in the end, there needs to be discussion, introspection, and examination of what it means to be Deaf, where our community is now, and where we're going. This process needs to involve as many people, opinions, and perspectives as possible. While there may never be a complete, final resolution or answer for everything, there needs to be healing. Otherwise we will balkanize even more so than before, and that cannot be the legacy of this protest.

Mom, Ma, Mama, Mami, Maman, Mor, Mother

2006-05-16T23:40:00.000-07:00

Mother's Day, as most of you know, was Sunday. While I wasn't anywhere near either of my parents, I thought of them and went the dutiful son routine: a phone call and flowers as part of my gift. But it wasn't until today when I checked one of my must-read blogs that I found this great entry about mothers. Do go ahead and read it-- it's a good reminder of what a mother is, what being a mother is, and what motherhood is all about.

For those of you who desperately need your Gallaudet drama fix, I'll have something up fairly soon. Patience-- it's not like the whole drama is going to go away. Far from it.