Fox News photo of Gallaudet protestors in 2006

Two decades ago, those of us who care about such things watched as Elisabeth Zinser, the newly appointed president of Gallaudet University, was repudiated by the student body demanding that the leader of an institution created to serve the deaf had to be deaf.

The trustees had picked somebody conventional. The students said “no.” They did so with brio, the board was persuaded and my friend, I. King Jordan, was ultimately selected. King had been born hearing but became deaf in a motorcycle accident as a young man. It made sense for all kinds of symbolic reasons, I thought, for an institution serving special people to have a special person as their president. And while I lamented the means, I was empathetic with the end. And for two decades President Jordan was terrific.

At the conclusion of his term, the Gallaudet board of trustees selected as his successor, Jane K. Fernandez, already a member of the Gallaudet community, and deaf. In what seems to be a developing pattern at Gallaudet the students rebelled once again saying they didn’t want Dr. Fernandez. Yes, she was deaf, but the critical students had issues with her deafness and with the way she had addressed it.

Students, some faculty, and others quickly brought teaching and learning at Gallaudet to a halt. The campus was closed down, access was denied to people who wanted to come and go, just as it had been 20 years earlier. Dialogue was impossible. Since Fernandez did not have the disadvantage of hearing, outsiders like myself could only wonder what was going on this time. Reading the coverage I concluded that in the deaf community there was an inside baseball agenda very much as there is in the larger universe: politics, different perspectives on deaf culture, deaf education, and issues having to do with how deaf people (young and the old) are treated — medically and educationally. People hold strong views on the cochlear implant, its appropriate application, and the implications it has for the future of deafness. There were also language issues, a divide on signing (American Sign Language) and lip reading.

These differences, and what role they ought to play in the future of Gallaudet, divided the campus. President Fernandez was out of office before she ever got in. And so now we’ve seen the governance of Gallaudet determined by street rally and demonstrations on two seminal occasions. Although the incidents are 20 years apart, there is enough continuing drama to make one see a pattern that raises questions about the depth of understanding of academic traditions, protocols, governance, and discourse on that campus.

Gallaudet University presently has an interim president, Robert R. Davila, who seems to be doing a fine job. The school, which had accreditation problems following the disruptions, appears to have gotten most of its problems behind it; the grantors of accreditation have given a blessing and gone away, for now.

But all the consequential issues may not have been fully addressed. “Twenty-five years ago,” as the Gallaudet chairman of the board recently said, “if you were deaf and smart you went to Gallaudet.” Technology and politics has changed that. Implants help some deaf youngsters sufficiently so that they can go to Gallaudet or almost any place else they want to. And, after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA was initially passed by Congress in 1990 and amended several times since), all universities and colleges accommodate deaf students.

So while we all celebrate the decision of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education to reaffirm the accreditation of Gallaudet, much remains undone. The university will soon begin the process of finding a new president: it does so in a troubled environment. Enrollment has been declining for several years. Accreditation matters contributed to that, competing options for deaf students, likewise, and campus unrest. Meanwhile, Gallaudet has been looking hard at changing and reinventing its curriculum, no easy matter under the best of circumstances.

Next year will be a particularly critical one for Gallaudet as the constituencies endeavor to stabilize the campus. Stakeholders must move forward on an agenda to create a constructive, open atmosphere, with positive communication and the free exchange of ideas addressed with respect and tolerance for contrasting points of view. Gallaudet is a very important institution. Since its founding in 1864 by an act of Congress, the school has played a pivotal role in the world of American higher education. It needs to govern itself in a normative matter. Too many people rely on its contributions for it to permit self-indulgence on the part of a few to detract from its important standing in the higher education universe.x