Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Chronicle/Gallup
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Stephen Joel Trachtenberg

Gallaudet University


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

Posted at 09:34:50 PM on July 2, 2008 | All postings by Stephen Joel Trachtenberg

Comments

  1. This analysis might have been interesting if it had not been filled with the same over-simplified and distorted representations of the purpose of the 2006 protests as most of the rest of the mainstream media. I wasn’t on campus that year, but I had many friends who were on both sides of the protest (ie, those who very much supported Fernandes—some of whom were deaf and some of whom were hearing; and also those who wanted her out—also representing both deaf and hearing people as well as hard of hearing people, people with cochlear implants etc, people who had grown up more oral than Fernandes and so forth).

    Did SOME students use “she’s not deaf enough” as one of their motivations to participate in the protest? Yes. It would be ingenious to say otherwise. But only people profoundly out of touch with the Gallaudet community (as in the case of King Jordan, Fernandes, and others who were there) or simply not close enough to know better (like, I gather, Stephen Joel Trachtenberg) would try to claim that this was the primary motive for all or even most protesters.

    When I spoke to people on campus, I heard from parents (plural, both deaf and hearing) who felt that Fernandes had severely harmed the quality their young children’s education when she had worked earlier at Pre-College Programs and did not feel she was qualified to lead the university either. I heard from faculty members and staff members who simply felt Fernandes was a poor leader. I heard from motivated deaf and hearing students (yes, the graduate program admits hearing students also) who also were critical of her performance the past six years as provost.

    Were they all correct? I don’t know. I didn’t see enough of her performance up close. But the idea of Fernandes being “not deaf enough” didn’t even enter the conversation when I spoke with people on campus. (I only know of the few exceptions because I happened to see a few quotes in the media, perhaps from reporters who specifically went looking for them.) In fact, given the demographics of the protest-supporters I spoke with, they probably would have been very offended by the idea of someone being “not deaf enough” to lead Gallaudet.

    Other concerns raised by people I spoke with on campus were long-standing, deep-rooted concerns about the governance of the university. These are questions other universities have dealt with also — how much voice should the faculty and students have in the future of the university, how much authority should remain with the board of trustees. Gallaudet’s internal struggle became more visible than most for a time; that does not in itself make the struggle unique.

    — Andrea · Jul 3, 04:22 PM · #

  2. I know that Fernandes was a strong leader and that is what Gallaudet needed at the time and still is in desperate need of. The university is on the cusp of continuing to exist and thriving or declining into obscurity. The choice of Fernandes as president was exactly right because she would lead the university to a vital and vibrant future. The cowardly act of the board of trustees in dismissing her is a signal that they have absconded their belief in Gallaudet and have decided to basically “let it go.” Interim president Davila is just a place holder — he’s holding on for dear life at the top of an abyss trying not to let go. Gallaudet is now on a path that is taking it to its eventual end. The ouster of Fernandes was a critical point in the history of the deaf community in the USA. Unfortunately, the board of trustees lacked any sense of vision or forward thinking so their actions have hurt deaf children of the USA and the world for generations to come because Gallaudet lost an incredible academic leader and mind when it lost Jane K. Fernandes.

    — Candi3 · Jul 3, 09:52 PM · #

  3. I spoke with deaf parents at Kendall elementary school and Model secondary school. Those parents told me that Fernandes implemented changes that vastly improved education and literacy for their deaf children. Parents who complained about what Fernandes did were predominately white deaf parents. They objected to their white deaf children being integrated with black deaf children — Fernandes wanted to see a heterogenous mix of deaf children from every color and hue — while the white deaf core wanted to preserve their status as elite top dogs in the school. Anyone may disagree with what she advocated but she was on the right side of racial justice.

    Furthermore, she stood on principle for inclusion of all kinds of deaf people in the life of Gallaudet University. Protestors by and large advocated one way to be Deaf — the ASL and Deaf Culture way — and complaints about management style, personality and not smiling enough are all related to Fernandes’s desire to include ALL and exclude NO ONE. It is indeed a tragedy that Gallaudet has lost a brilliant academic leader in Fernandes. I believe many are writing to Congress and the U.S. Department of Education to complain about the waste of tax dollars ($110 million annually) spent on Gallaudet which serves fewer and fewer students and is currently hoping to level off at 800 undergraduates — a decline of more than 600 undergraduates that were enrolled during the Fernandes era in less than two years!! From 1400 undergraduates to 800 is a drop that should get the attention of Congress and V.I.Ps in the U.S. government. That kind of drop is not a gradual trend and is not the result of a new “curriculum (ha!ha!) that Gallaudet claims to be implementing. Such as steep and sudden drop is in response to changing factors, the most evident of which is the protest against a white deaf woman who can sign ASL and speak English with equal fluency. She is so brilliant that the Gallaudet community cannot even grasp what she is about. Yeah, that’s dumb all right.

    When will someone in authority hold this place accountable for its dismal failures on the federal government payroll??? Truly astounding.

    T.G.

    — T.G. · Jul 3, 10:11 PM · #

  4. Gallaudet, welcome to the Higher Ed Library History Shelf. We have a spot for you right beside Antioch.

    — Reasonable Center · Jul 7, 08:40 AM · #

  5. After twenty years of exposure to and attempting to understand deaf culture or Deaf Culture, I’m certainly no expert, and I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Frankly, as the parent of a deaf child, I found it inspiring as the “revolution” twenty years ago succeeded in getting Gallaudet a deaf president.

    What was appropriate and inspiring twenty-some years ago isn’t necessarily any more. The student action last year against Jane Fernandes was quite different from the protest in the ’80s. The most serious charge that I read of was that she had insisted that students be held responsible for their behavior.

    When my daughter was looking at colleges, she of course considered Gallaudet and Rochester. Her interests didn’t seem appropriate for NTID, and her take on GU was that the students seemed to be in charge, or to think they were. So she’s currently studying instead at a community college, where the level of accommodation is far beyond what we’ve seen at any four-year school. Not much of a football team or Greek-system presence, but a really serious attitude toward education.

    — dan · Jul 7, 10:12 AM · #

  6. I have had the opportunity to work with Dr. I. King Jordan and Provosts Roslyn Rosen and then Provost Jane Fernandes. Both Provosts in my honest estimation were progressive proactive provosts who never had a chance to achieve their vision because an archaic broken shared governance system lead by faculty, most of whom were very comfortable in their minimal pressure jobs. The idea of accountability posed a threat to many of them and we can only look to what happened to Dr. Rosen and to Dr. Fernandes as proof. Faculty who should have embraced the progressive changes these awesome deaf women attempted to bring resisted and instead issued votes of no confidence. These same faculty members were at the forefront of the protest leadership. Now it is interesting to point out that use of buildings and resources solely for this illegal protest were expenses that Dr. I King Jordan paid for and therefore ultimately the American taxpayer.
    Now what exactly was the problem? Was it Jane Fernandes? Was it the Board of Trustees? Was it the Presidential Search Committee? The internal investigation report on the Presidential Search Committee was such a badly done, weak and completely useless document that it was almost embarrassing when read alongside the document prepared by Eric Holder which examined the role of our Department of Safety and Security. That PSC document appeared to hide much more than is known on campus.

    Now as far as I am concerned and that of course if an opinion many others share is that the problem is rather simple. An African American DEAF alumni of the university with more than 15 years on the Board of Trustees in various capacities including Chair of the Board of Trustees, who is also a full professor at the University of Arkansas, was the FIRST African American deaf person to earn a doctorate degree (University of New York) and one of the most qualified candidates to apply for the position of President was NOT included among the THREE finalists. Now that alone would not be a big deal if all the final 3 candidates were truly outstanding. The problem is that Mr. Ron Stern, who was one of the finalists, did not have an earned doctorate (and I am not sure he has completed his doctorate at this time ) and never should have even been considered for the position in the first place. However, Mr. Stern represented the sentiments of a vocal group of people who believe they are defending a culture. Deafhood as some call it. Mr. Stern has run a small school for the deaf with about 100 students in New Mexico and did not have the prerequisite expereinces to run a university. He is a wonderful gentleman and unfairly placed in this position. But therein lies the problem. The protesters saw nothing wrong with this picture. The Board of Trustees apparently saw nothing wrong with this picture. So they instead conspired to cover their prejudice by attempting to show that the best qualified candidate submitted to the Board of Trustees was not acceptable and the only way to do that was to create an image of her that is completely untrue. Just how much did the ensuring settlement with Dr. Fernandes cost the university? But more important, just what message did the protestors and those still intent to defend the indefensible, send to deaf people of color? Racism in the deaf world is so pervasive, it has blinded people and made monsters of otherwise wonderful and decent people. The Deaf community is torn apart and there is no mechanism in place to sew us together again. Until racism is addressed in this community, the university will remain hostage to forces who have little or no interest in the governance of a higher education institution.

    — Lindsay Dunn · Jul 7, 11:45 AM · #

  7. Thanks to SJT for bringing this situation to wider attention than it might have had.

    — dan · Jul 7, 04:06 PM · #

  8. Greetings:

    I would like to respond to Mr. Trachtenberg’s blog and also to some of the comments. I am a recent graduate of Gallaudet and was involved in the protests at different stages.

    I share Mr. Trachtenberg’s concerns for Gallaudet as they start searching for their next president. It will be hard finding a leader with the ability to fill all the different roles which is expected of Gallaudet’s president. I have hope for the new board and search committee as they work hard to find the best person.

    While I was not around for the 1988 protests, I believe that one of the biggest reasons people on campus protested was because of the cronyism and corruption of the Jordan administration.

    One needs to look no further than Mr. Jordan’s salary as president where he earned $538,264 in 2006 (Gallaudet 990 Form – gudestar.org). This does not include contributions to employee benefit plans and deferred compensation plans— $104,270 or his expense account and other allowances — $60,000. In 2006, Jordan was paid/compensated a total of $702,534 by Gallaudet. This is from a university with a total enrollment under 2,000 students, a university which receives most of its money from the government – about $110 million out of approximately $150 million. He in fact may have been the highest paid civil servant in our country since our US President makes only $400,000 a year. Gallaudet is a great school, but the board of trustees should have known better and not allowed him to take home over half a million public dollars a year.

    Also, shortly before Jordan’s retirement, the same board of trustees named the premier art gallery on campus in honor of Jordan’s wife – Linda Jordan. She is not a famous artist, she was not a popular art professor who inspired her students for over thirty years, she didn’t donate a huge sum of money to the gallery, in short—she got this honor because she was Jordan’s wife. This is akin to naming a major federal building after Laura Bush before Jan 20th.

    Another misconception I would like to correct is that Gallaudet’s accreditation woes trace back to before the presidential search process even began. In 2005, Gallaudet was rated “inefficient” by the White House PART report due to low graduation and employment rates. This happened under the watch of Jordan and Provost Fernandes. Though, I believe that the protest did contribute to Gallaudet being placed on probation by MSCHE (accreditation).

    People outside Gallaudet often assume that Fernandes’s ouster was because a small group of people did not want her, this is untrue. Campus wide surveys were done on/around April 26th, 2006 by the Student Body Government, the Graduate Student Association and also Faculty Senate. This was after the three candidates for president had given campus-wide speeches and the polls asked individuals to rate each candidate as acceptable or unacceptable. 81% of undergrads responding to the poll found Jane Fernandes unacceptable for president, 65.9% of grad students found her unacceptable, and 63% of the university faculty found her unacceptable. The faculty vote was later reaffirmed on May 8th when at one of the largest faculty senate meetings ever, she received a no-confidence vote by a 2-1 ratio. These votes had nothing to do with Fernandes not being “deaf enough,” but instead was a reflection on her poor performance as Chief Academic Officer (Provost). I can understand accusing a few undergrads for staging a protest based on identity politics, but it’s an insult to accuse such a large group of undergrads, graduate students, and also members of the university faculty of such immaturity.

    On top of all this, was the feeling that Jordan railroaded Fernandes into office as heir-apparent. In fact, at Jordan’s retirement announcement on September 1, 2005, he made a Freudian slip and introduced Provost Fernandes as “President Fernandes.” While I cannot say whether Fernandes would have been a good president or not, I can say that the far majority of the university felt that the process was corrupt and unfair. We, Americans, have a long history of protesting corruption. The Gallaudet community is no different from the rest of you – this was a protest built upon American ideals and not identity politics.

    A recent Gallaudet graduate.

    — Recent Gallaudet Grad · Jul 30, 02:22 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review