What a disastrous mess. The other night I was talking to someone who teaches at Gallaudet who pointed out that the pool of people who *can* be president is about the size of a backyard kiddie pool - they have to be deaf, preferably born deaf. They have to have a Ph.D. And they have to *want* the job.

Seems to me the latter could now be the hardest to find. Who could possibly want to step into that mess?

I work at Gallaudet, and I dread the coming months. I feel as if the King and Queen have been guillotined, and now we are in for the reign of terror. Not a pretty picture.

Yea... its pretty unfortunate that we have that right to, ya know, free speech, in this country, ain't it Fisher? The students had every right, as the university's paying customers, to protest. The board equally had every right not to care, and say too bad. Ultimately, they decided, they were better off not risking the loss of their entire customer base. So instead of offering a product that their market did not want to buy, they decided to adapt to their marketplace, like any other business on earth would. For being such a wack-job liberal on most things Fisher, you've been surprisingly on the side of unlimitted authority for no good reason throughout this one. Is it just the typical retreat to Well I'm getting to be old and wrinkled, and therefore to feel better about myself I'll pretend every under the age of 40 is stupid and should have no right to practice their civil liberties? Whatever happened to I don't agree with what you say, but I'll gladly defend your right to say it??

It was mentioned in one of your (The WP) chats that Gallaudet students stay around the campus long after graduation.

Well, I sure hope they do because they will find the real world a devestating place once they realize that throwing tantrums like children doesn't always bring about a desired outcome.

It's a shame they couldn't have worked with someone as qualified as Fernandes to find a more equitable way to end this stand-off.

Personally, I never really understood the reasons for the protest because the students never laid out any real grievances other than "we don't want her send her away", "don't hold us accountable for denying thousands of students valuable paid class time" and "she isn't deaf enough". Is this really the way the deaf community operates or are we just getting a garbled news filter? (hopefully the latter because how on earth can someone not be deaf enough- the discrimination in that statement is so blatent if it was a race comment the backlash would have been immediate) I'm sorry the students won, despite the fact that I agree people should be able to voice their opinions, because of how childish and ill constructed this protest was. Where and what were the issues!?

talk about a typical response from a journalist. first of all you blame the woman for not compromising, and then you say the board who too compromising. in case you havent been follwing the whole fiasco, she had every reason to be bitter, and not compromising. how would you feel if someone insisted that you were incapable of doing your job before you had an opportunity to?
this could have only happened in a school like gallaudet because all those students did was use perceived pulic sentiment, and the media such as yourself to their advantage.
i am a big fan of the student union and fighting for whats right, but we all know that if given the opportunity, just like the very things we all claim to fight against, we would abuse the privelige.

Once again, Gallaudet insists on infantizing the students who go there. We even get infantile little whiners like PBJ up above who believe that "free speech" means shutting down the campus so that no one's voice can be heard.

You little whiners remind me of my daughter when she says "Oh, I can't do well in my math class because I hate my math teacher. She's weird". The only difference is that I tell my daughter to grow up and the teacher should not make a difference, she needs to get on with her work.

Oh sorry, I guess I'm not supposed to be honest about these people because they're deaf and they're so brave and only a deaf person can understand and no one has suffered as much as them [rolling eyes].

The only people I feel for are the students who just wanted to go there to learn, and didn't want to get caught up in a bunch of 20 year olds with more desire to whine than learn. Idiots.

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.

This is perhaps the worst of all possible outcomes. Positive reinforcement has been given to the perpetually aggrieved and protesting students at Gallaudet that their campaign of terror is a successful means to their ends. This is a hugely foolish decision by the board. By caving to the latest in a series of escalating demands, the board may think it is following the path of least resistance, but in fact they are only setting themselves up for even greater demonstrations by unruly and petulant students.

The students have shown they are the ones truly in control at Gallaudet, and that's a sad reflection on those whose responsibility it is to run the university. This is a shameful chapter, and one that portends further disruption, strife, and grandstanding. It's hard to say who comes off looking worse in this escapade, the spoiled children or the gutless officials. Either way it's a huge black eye for Gallaudet. How do you respect an institution where this sort of behavior is not only tolerated, but rewarded?

The student's aren't paying customers; they're more like inmates. They have a right to free speech; they don't have a right to shut down the university. Don't worry they're not going anywhere else. They'd have to compete and contend with the real world. They'll stay where they're coddled and catered to. Technology will fade the deaf culture.

Also, PJB, everyone under 40 is not stupid. Self-absorbed, spoiled and coddled, yeah, but not stupid.

Marc, you continue the paternalistic attitude towards people with disability. You seem to advocate for the fact that a flawed process (ignoring warning signals that Fernandes failed miserably during her 6 years as the Provost, choosing a deaf guy who has a Master's degree over a black deaf PHD candidate who was on the Gallaudet Board as its chair for 18 years, overwhelming non-support, etc) can't be a part of a protest that wants to "right" the process? If you need to direct the "wrong" to someone, its the Board of Trustees- not the students!

I wish to congratulate the Board of Trustees for making a correct decision in rescinding their election of president-elect Fernandes and wish them to keep up the good decision and make the right one next time. I do not believe any future appointed president-elect of Gallaudet University should call deaf people stupid with a fourth grade-level education.

Congrats to the students - they held their ground and got what they want. But it's unbelievable to me that they're demanding now that they not be held accountable for shutting down the campus for weeks on end. I understand that most of them are all of 20, but they *have* to understand that there are consequences for their actions, right? Civil disobediance comes with a price. If it was free, then standing up for what you believe wouldn't be anywhere near as brave a thing to do. Do they think they'd have gotten off with no ramifications if they'd taken over a Wal-Mart for three weeks to protest labor practices? They need to accept the ramifications of their actions. That's the truly brave and mature thing to do. Otherwise, instead of brave protesters doing what they believe is right, they're just whiny kids whose parents pay the bills.

The board looks pretty weak to me at this point. The protest was against them and their decision, yet I don't recall them ever trying to engage the protesters or diffuse the situation. When they finally take action it is in a secret session, producing only a terse impersonal statement from The Board. Not even a press conference to put a face on the decision an answer some questions? The board had to either (a) give Fernandes their unwavering support and ask her to diffuse the situation, or (b) step in and diffuse it themselves. Fernandes had no power to diffuse the situation without the support of the board.

PJB,
Your characterization of university students as paying customers is a poor choice of words and perpetuates a stereotype that erodes the value of the college experience. While some colleges and universities are run on a business model, there are some inherent differences. Businesses persist when they generate revenue, but colleges and universities provide a public service. Few public services are free and since our federal and state governments choose to underfund higher education, students pay tuition to cover some of the remaining expense. Colleges and universities are not Wal-Mart; the faculty at institutes of higher education are not in the business of dispensing product. They are trying to help students develop critical thinking skills and encouraging them to reach their own greatest potential. These skills are rarely developed in isolation and it takes hard work, motivation, and expert guidance to achieve such a level of self-awareness. Perhaps the "product" they are paying for is academic accountability, and in our society, colleges and universities recognize those who seek it. In turn, employers recognize those who have earned it.

As for your other comments, of course the students have the right to protest and exercise their rights to free speech. However, to what extent should students be involved in the selection of a college or university president? For one, presidents tend to hold their positions for longer than most students are in college. In addition, how much do students really know about the role of a college or university president? I know I sure didn't know what their real job was when I was a student. I had no justification for deciding how my school's highest administrator would be chosen.

Finally I have to ask, was there a student on the Presidential search committee. The inclusion of a student on the committee would give their arguments and opinions that much more credibility.

It's too bad the editors of the Washington Post won't gather in a Northern Virginia hotel and cancel Marc Fisher's contract. They could save the money they pay him and still have the same content by running a simple text box that always says, if you aren't a straight, white, non-disabled, privileged male, shut up, you're wrong. That's all he ever says.

My mother was deaf since the age of two and, despite repeated attempts to become involved and friendly with deaf people, was treated like crap by the American Sign Language bigots because she was a lipreader. My mother lived a full and rich life and very much enjoyed her ability to interact with the rest of the world. Gallaudet and the loser students that attend the school can go to heck as far as I'm concerned.

Marc,

Agree with your column and I liked your earlier reporting on Jane Fernandez. The inmates are running the asylum.

A pedantic aside: When you are writing about deaf people, most of whom communicate by signing, is it accurate to characterize their protests as "vociferous", the trustees' support as "vocal", the student leaders as "loudest", the board as "silent", etc.?

I competely agree with you, Marc. Ferndandes didn't do enough to bridge the gap, but the trustees have caved to intolerance and mob rule. This is a major hit for Gallaudet's reputation.

I second the comment above about tax money being used to support such a clearly inept institution. My questions are:

In the modern era, is there even a need for an institution like Gallaudet?

If so, should it be so heavily tax-supported/subsidized?

I, too, have never understood, from reading about this protest, why Dr Fernandes was such a monster that she deserved the public humiliation to which she was subjected -- first by the students, and finally by the university trustees. I think the place deserves a very intense review. I also would question the sanity of anyone now who would take the job as president!

Sorry, Marc, I just can't agree with your basic premise. Gallaudet may be a "tax-payer funded" institution, but the last time I looked the students at Gallaudet, and their parents, were taxpayers.

The students are NOT "inmates running the asylum," they are bona fide consumers of a service that should be theirs by right and not because the rest of us feel "charitable."

It's THEIR institution, not ours, not the impersonal "taxpayers,'" not the trustees,'but THEIRS. Whether they're right or wrong by moral or practical standards, I believe that it is theirs to govern, as they see fit, for their own benefit.

I have no opinion on Fernandes and am not qualified to say if the students were right in their concerns about her. Certainly they have the right to express their opinion. But their demand for "no reprisals" is babyish and reminds me of everuthing I hate about today's coddled college students. They need to look at civil rights history and say, "We will stand up for what we believe in and accept whatever consequences that entails." Protests like theirs come with a risk and that's what makes them most meaningful.

"Streamer" argues that students deserve little or no input into the process of selecting a new president for a university. I find that position hard to defend. Wouldn't a deaf-mute senior with a high class ranking have better insights into the needs of Gallaudet compared to an outside board member such as Sen. John McCain? Students are sharp judges of character and their opinions should be respected.

Above, Steve says:

"It's too bad the editors of the Washington Post won't gather in a Northern Virginia hotel and cancel Marc Fisher's contract. "

Yeah, I hate it when people say things that I disagree with. That's just horrible.

No doubt Steve, you're one of the students "protesting". Stevie, let me give you a clue. When I went to college, I had no time to whine about the president. I was doing this thing called "studying" that seemed to take me about 6-8 hours a day. I realize that you may be in some gut program that lets you skate by, but perhaps other students are actually studying and doing less complaining about the president (all the while living off the taxpayer and parent's largess).

My only hope if that all of the idiots who were protesting are prosecuted and have to spend time in jail. But hey, you can talk behind the other inmates backs with your signing. The other inmates will be so amazed with your cleverness!

I think by now its clear that biggest failure at GU is the Board of Trustees itself. First they screw up the search process and then they compound the error by rewarding the petulant and radical children (I mean students) for their behavior. Why do I have to pay for this? The entire board needs to step down now.

It's pretty unfair to describe these as the "loudest" students--they're all deaf. Perhaps those students and alumni that were most dedicated? On top of that--if Fernandes was the wrong choice, how were the students and alumni wrong to protest?

Ferndandes lost me when she described the protesters as terrorists. That's just the kind of suppression of dissent that we should be fighting in this country, not lauding.

Rocco,

How did it become the students' institution? When did they put up the money to buy the buildings or to pay the salaries? Their tuition pays less than a third of the cost and their taxes pay zip percent of the cost. They do not have a "right" to anything.

The students are stakeholders. They deserve a seat at the table. But they come and they go and they are not the owners. The Board of Trustees has the ongoing responsibility to represent all the stakeholders and the college's reputation, not just the strident students.

Mark,

Who are the three Congressional representatives on the board?

Gallaudet is now seen as just a deaf club running a popularity contest. Its sad. Fernandes could have insituted much-needed change. But this is what the long-entrenched faculty fears. My BA from Galladuet has been devalued but I am glad my MA is from another school. Gallaudet runs on $150,000,000 per year, mostly courtesy of the Federal Government. It seems like it is time for Congress to step in and direct those monies to programs that provide serious education to deaf people as opposed to the "deaf club" that Gallaudet actually is.

It is rather unfortunate that the university board capitulated to these unruly students. They were so selfish that they disrupted the learning of younger boys and girls in the elementary and high schools co-located in the campus. When has it been true that we get what we desire for leadership. If we all do, there would be disorderliness everywhere. Do workers shutdown their workplaces when an unfavorable manager is appointed? Do the soldiers who do not believe in his administrative techniques refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan because Donald Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense? Do the professional athletes refuse to play their games because over-bearing coaches are appointed to coach them. NO to all these posers.

These "children" of Gaulladet better get it that they will not always get their way on the job or in real life if they refuse to grow up. At least I have seen one of the university's graduates being fired from a good job because he just refused to follow simple instructions on the job. A clear demonstration of insubordination as just demonstrated by the students of this university for the past several months. A disability is not an excuse for disorderliness.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) and Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Calif.).

GU should be privatised, period!

Relocate the undergraduate campus to the sunny climes of Southern California where it can co-exist with the other fun-schools.

Retain and support the professional and graduate programs at GU. They are outstanding and give value for tax dollars.

As for the elementary and middle schools, I dont have an answer.

A truly ASL environment would ironically need new technology. As for cochlear implants, I do hope they become cheaper and then the millions of kids will benefit and thus become productive members of society.

KK asks: "A pedantic aside: When you are writing about deaf people, most of whom communicate by signing, is it accurate to characterize their protests as 'vociferous', the trustees' support as 'vocal', the student leaders as 'loudest', the board as 'silent', etc.?"

In a word: yes. These usages are just as metaphorical when discussing deaf people who sign as they are when discussing hearing people who speak.

I have no respect for Gallaudet or its trustees. They caved in the face of what amounts to an overblown temper tantrum. The students don't like the president-elect? SO WHAT!?!?! Guess what folks, most universities don't give their students veto power over the choice of president. Further, in "the real world" (which Gallaudet apparently is not) unpopular decisions are made all the time.

The students have never, ever given a consistent or good reason for why they didn't like Fernandez. The student that was on the Post a week or so ago used enough rhetoric to fill a hot air balloon.

The "deaf culture" -as I often see it referred to -- cannot have it both ways. They cannot demand to be treated like "equals" with the hearing while also demanding special privileges. What they received here was a special privilege. It is shameful.

ANd, yes, I believe that the students should be disciplined. I hope that they are.

The students got what they asked for but what is it that they want?

Joe Hellner, there are plenty of deaf people who sign and lipread. In fact, even deaf people who can't lipread can lipread exactly one question-- "can you lipread?"
There are jerks everywhere. When I was watching TV growing up, I noticed Letterman and other comics making fun of people because they talk funny.
Do you think I ever wanted to open myself up to that kind of ridicule I knew was inevitable in the world over my speech?
You can't point fingers at any one group and not realize you're pointing 3 fingers right back at yourself.

In the modern era, there will always be a need for Gallaudet. There are simply not enough qualified interpreters out there to give every student a competent education at a mainstream university.

A large part of the problem can be found at bot.gallaudet.edu

At the bottom, you find a bald statement that all offical correspondence, etc. to the Board of Trustees must go through the presidents' office.

I checked, and at other universities, the BoT has their own mailbox, secretary, even e-mail address.
They do not have the president or anybody reporting to the same president in a position to censor their mail.

Secondly, most of those people were invited by IKJ. Only 1/3 of them are actually connected directly to Gallaudet (alumni, etc.). A few more have relatives who atteneded Gallaudet, but that doesn't mean they have ever experienced the university themselves.
That means they have very little knowledge basis on to contradict or find holes in the president's assertions about the university.
There are also evidence of kickbacks; one board of trustees' firm was hired to audit Gallaudet.

So yes, I want to see an overhaul of the system. There is no logical reason why Fernandes should have been the only qualified finalist, assuming the BoT got all the facts.

As we know, the likelihood is that the BoT has not gotten all the facts, and hasn't for the last 18 years.

In addition, IKJ blatantly named Fernandes as provost and awarded her tenure without the normal review. The structure of law and order started to fall apart 6 years. 2 murders didn't help, either.

Everybody has a focus on the students as being immature. They camped out for over 2 weeks in cold weather, they went on hunger strikes, they had to hear Fernandes painting them as violent, anarchists, and terrorists.

I'd say this has been a maturing experience, however it started out. They now have a lot of motivation to learn more about politics, organizations, and all the things that went into this mess, and to seek out more leadership training.

For life, they will continually think about what could have been done better, and their attitudes will change over time as they mature. A lot of people would hate to be labelled forever for what they did at age 18, I bet.

As for Fernandes being a monster: Yeah, the inital outcry was very bad. It could have been handled and simmered down with some actual leadership. She has a knack of being inconsiderate to others that does not fly well in crisis situations.

Business psychologists indicate that the further up you go on the management ladder, the more problems you have are people problems.

A CEO may spend 90% of his time resolving people problems, who should be teamed with what, whom to promote, how to improve the organization to avoid management by intimidation or excess politics.

Let's face it. She should have forseen and forestalled this protest because it was her job to do so. Pure and simple.

And I don't know, I think her talking about herself so much did more harm than what the protestors did. It'd have been nice if she had been honest-- "oh, I'm not popular because they didn't like how I was appointed provost in the first place."

Instead she had to paint herself as a major symbol of an imaginary struggle in the deaf community. She did a LOT of harm to the reputation of the deaf from the start. Maybe she truly believed that, but if so, she needs to get some real common sense about people.

The inmates are truely ruling the asylum. I would like to see all government assistance that isn't available to other secondary educational institutions eliminated immediately. I also hope that Dr. Fernandes decides to take civil and / or criminal action against those that threatened her and her family. Students, regardless of how important they think they are, do not have the right to claim ownership to a publicly funded institution.

What happens to Fernandes now? Was she fired from her position as provost also? Whether she was or not, it would be terribly tough to go back to dealing with vicious faculty who obviously hate her guts.

Can someone explain to me how someone can possibly be 'not deaf enough'? Because they lipread and didn't learn how to sign until they were adults?

It seems clear to me that the whole idea of a 'deaf' college should be reexamined. We have more technology now that can help those that are deaf to integrate more easily into the rest of the 'real' world.

If these protesters weren't deaf, what would have happened instead?
The high school I went to, (circa 1984), we had a blind student, and he sat with us in every class; went to all the school activities, and partied with the rest of us. I'm not sure where (or if) he went to college; but I know he enjoyed being like, and with everyone else. Why so different if you are deaf?
Those kids, and they are kids, need to grow up, and realize you don't always get what you want. Look at our 'president': think I like that idiot?

This school should be shut down or privatized. The inmates are running the place and a joke.

Orpenn wrote:
"Wouldn't a deaf-mute senior with a high class ranking have better insights into the needs of Gallaudet compared to an outside board member such as Sen. John McCain? Students are sharp judges of character and their opinions should be respected."

Everyone's opinion should be respected, but not all can effectively judge character and for that matter character might not determine how effective a person is in their role. Perhaps the hypothetical student you describe might be one of those people who can ascertain some of the needs of the university and I would suggest including that student on the search committee. In fact, a presidential search committee should include representatives from the faculty, staff, and student body at the very least. Members of the search committee have access to all of the application materials and based on their inclusion on the committee should understand the needs of the university. The board (including Sen. McCain as you highlighted) should merely approve the decision to hire individuals scrutinized by the search committee.

Wilbrod writes "[Jane Fernandez] did a LOT of harm to the reputation of the deaf from the start" However, he has only to read these comments to see that the majority of the post's community seems to have had their view of the "deaf community" tarnished by the actions of the students. They are the group that denied other students access to learning and paralyzed the institution. They are the ones throwing around terms like "not deaf enough" and the ideas that lip reading is somehow a second rate skill. I would feel perfectly confident saying that the majority of hearing people never thought of a deaf community as being wholey separate from the rest of the world before this debacle. The students created the divide and the previous comments do seem to bear this out. If public perception is what you're worried about- this protest set the university back light years.

Be careful for what you wish for. I guess the students will be against anyone who has to make tough decisions and somebody has to be the hammer in any organization. What will the students and faculty do when the new president decides on an issue that the mob disagrees with? Who would want this job now anyway? I agree - the students and faculty have done irrevocable damage to this institution, but they don't seem to care. Enjoy your tactical victory - you have lost the strategic battle.

Gallaudet receives 70% of its funding from the US taxpayer (down from 100% in prior years). With this money, they don't seem to be doing much. Gallaudet is rated as Ineffectual by the US Office of Management and Budget in carrying out its stated missions. In one OMB finding, Gallaudet graduates who find employment commensurate with their education declined from 90% in 2001 to 69% in 2005. A recent survey of Gallaudet graduates, cited in a Post op-ed piece by a Gallaudet graduate last week, found that 80% believed that Gallaudet did a good job of helping its students find their way in the deaf culture, but only 40% believed that Gallaudet did a good job of preparing them for a career. Hypothesis: Gallaudet is taxpayer-funded adult daycare for the hearing impaired.

In which part of Deaf Culture does it say that you should *burn in effigy* the person whom you want to see removed from their official post? If being Deaf is being in a culture, then its members should accept the responsibilities of a culture and not just the advantages. How do you think the public would react to a school full of white students burning in effigy their unwanted black president? It's just sickening and sad.

The Students are now in control of the University and have imposed a litmus test for anyone in the administration. You have to be "deaf enough" AND advocate a total withdrawel from the hearing world. I'm not sure I want my federal tax dollars to support that kind of world.

Confused is absolutely right. Blind people don't act like the deaf. They don't pull this separatist, identity-politics crud. The students of Galludet are a disgrace.

"--" No... you miss the point. Those people were REPORTED AS SAYING THIS by the PR machine fed to the media by the Gallaudet Administration.

"They are the ones throwing around terms like "not deaf enough" and the ideas that lip reading is somehow a second rate skill."

No... Fernandes claimed the issue was she was not "deaf enough".

Lipreading is fine, but even the best lipreaders can't do more than 30% accuracy without any hearing to aid. Some lipreaders attain 60% to 80% accuracy with the aid of residual hearing (any better than that, and the hearing loss has to be very mild).

Cued Speech was specifically designed because lipreading simply doesn't give enough information.

Many people I know who grew up oral with more than a certain level of hearing loss developed dysfunctional communication strategies designed to make sure they didn't have to try and lipread so much.

Lipreading is a good skill, but it is a TOUGH skill. Most of the time the person is guessing at what the other person is saying. This is ok for the usual cliched conversations, but difficult to really follow the punchlines of jokes, for instance, because by definition those are unexpected.

You can have people who have done very well growing up oral who STILL want to experience communication without barriers that is truly 2-way.
Fernandes was one such, and so were maybe 1/3 of the people who didn't like her.

And if lipreading is so great, plug your ears and try it for one day and see how well you do.
You'll probably do better than a deaf child who has to learn the language he is attempting to lipread with such fluency at the same time.

What's especially ironic is the students saying that now that they've assassinated Fernandes, a "fair and equitable" search can begin. Apparently some Gally students do make in the real world--doing marketing for Foxnews.com.

Who said this was about separatist politics? THE ADMINISTRATION.

And the blind differ because they are fully able to communicate with others, but are significantly impaired in their mobility. Deaf people are not.

The deaf people are very able to do virtually anything, but they are not fully able to participate fully in communication and society because they are lacking in the ability to receive and express language normally.

Have you ever sat at a party and considered yourself grateful for 1-2 people to talk to you-- ALL day? Have you ever gone home from a family gathering with the worst case of depression ever, because you spent all day reading because everybody was too busy to talk to you after a few minutes with pen and paper? Even lipreading can be hard work for very long.

Before you complain deaf people are separate, ask yourself, are they included?

What are they supposed to do, rot in social isolation beyond human imagining instead of seek out a way to communicate freely with others who are on their same level?

You can't compare the blind with the deaf for so many reasons. The blind have the best political advocacy of all disabled people in many ways.

"Wouldn't a deaf-mute senior with a high class ranking have better insights into the needs of Gallaudet compared to an outside board member such as Sen. John McCain?"

John McCain understands the demands of fundraising and overseeing complex budgets and agendas in a way that very few students at any institution do. The students deserve a voice on the Board of Trustees, but they should by no means be allowed to shout down everyone else, including those who just might have a better sense of what the office requires and what can reasonably be expected from whoever holds it than they do.

I hope whoever replaces Fernandes has a backbone of steel. He or she's going to need it.

It's not ironic, EColi. Anybody who knows anything about deaf education knows that Fernandes wasn't the most qualified person that applied, nor the only one competent enough to lead Gallaudet.

I think IKJ should resign today. Michael Moore as the interim provost has done far more to calm the situation than either Fernandes or IKJ has.

It sounds more like an life-time social institution rather than a place to prepare students to operate in the world. What next, a segregated state where only the deaf can live?

Just shut it down.

Don't worry, a lot of people have backbones of steel, fs. The key is that the person, by default, will do far better than Fernandes has.

I'm somewhat more concerned about the historical stranglehold the administration imposed on ANY students' meetings with the board of trustees.

There is simply too much power given to the president to manipulate the BoT and block any possiblity of dissenting input.
This protest should never had to happen.

Yeah, you'd have people complaining no matter who was picked, but they'd be told to be grown-ups and go back to class.

Ok, Wilbrod. You seem to imply that the Administration spin doctors have put out all this negative PR about the protesters. What were their real issues then? Why was compromise not an option?

Trying to tread lightly here, because I am an ardent supporter of people's making their views known and because -- full disclosure here -- Wilbrod and I actually know each other (it's a woman, btw) and have broken bread together, including in my home. It's much harder to disagree with people you actually know and like.

But there it is. Whatever her failings as a leader or as a human being, Jane Fernandes was chosen by the group of people whose business it was to make that decision(not because she was the "only qualified finalist" but because the BoT believed her the "best qualified").

Whether that process was inherently flawed because the BoT is a rubber-stamp for the president, I cannot say. But if this flawed process had yielded a result more to the students' liking (the black guy with the PhD or whatever), would the students have taken to the streets? I doubt it.

This is the danger that playing identity politics can lead to. Eighteen years ago, protestors demanded the removal of a perfectly qualified candidate chosen by the Board and her replacement with a "deaf president now." They got their way. King Jordan, who had been quietly lobbying behind the scenes for the top job, got it. Who now can claim to be surprised if he turns out to be unaccountable and untransparent?

I can only raise my eyebrows in amazement at Marc Fisher's characterization that Jane Fernandes "failed utterly to engage with the people opposed to her." How, precisely, should she have engaged with people who were burning her in effigy, threatening her and her family, and slandering her?

And how could the fault be hers for "talking about herself so much," Wilbrod, when one of the few coherent things the protestors actually said was that it *was indeed* "all about her?" In fact, whenever she did try to broaden the discussion beyond herself to talk about technological advances changing the deaf community, the sense of threat with which many react to those advances, the unhealthy insularity of Gallaudet's culture, the furious reaction was always, "Stop trying to change the subject! This is about you!"

I agree that her choice of the word "terrorists" was over the top. But the students' actions *did* amount to lawlessness and anarchy. It should be a major wake-up call to all of us who through our taxes fund this place that such tactics were crowned with success.

To be honest, I never gave much of a thought to Gallaudet, even though it's right up the street from my house, until these developments. Now it has my full attention, which I think is true for a lot of other previously oblivious people.

The students may like the consquences of such newfound attention. Then again, they might not.

Don't worry, Dave, it's a place to prepare students for the world. It's true that many people never want to leave the world of Academia. But professional students and 8-year graduates also exist in the hearing world, as well.

It is a nice campus rich in history. Civil War hospital tents were set up on Kendall Green, and the first telegraph wire was laid across it. The architecture are national historical landmarks.

The library has the largest deaf history archives anywhere, full of historical documents from the 1800's.

It has a lot of modern technology that deaf people attending mainstreamed colleges would never learn about, see, nor use to help them learn how to assimilate into the world. Again, tuition + interpreter costs would be far more expensive than Gallaudet alone.

It should be possible to oversee and change the operations without having to shut down the whole campus for good.

That's a "shoot the dog" type of solution.

Gallaudet University has been working on its own endowment so it can cut free from federal aid. That was one of the goals of the IKJ administration, to be financially independent, so the taxpayers like you wouldn't complain about this.

I'm not surprised at most of your attitudes towards us, the Deaf community. Even in 21st century, it's sad that we still see ignorance by readers like you. "Deaf-mutes"? I had to chuckle because that label is long gone. It's like calling African-Americans "negroes" and "coloreds", terms from the mid 20th century. We don't consider ourselves a disabled group or whatever you want to call us. We consider ourselves as an ethnic group.
You still don't get it? That's okay. We don't care anyway because people like you will never understand us.

For those of you didn't understand why we, "inmates", protested. I'm helping you lazy and closed minded people by copying and pasting the points from the website of
http://www.gufssa.org/.

If you think you're educated, then I have hope for you.

--------------------------

It's not about individuals, it's about social justice.
We need to be free from oppression on campus, and to be viewed as being equals. This includes demonstrating respect for all views and perspectives, and also showing civility at all times. The lack of social justice has contributed to the low campus morale and the President-Elect has done not enough to improve that the past 6 years as Provost.

The role of President at Gallaudet University is seen as being more than just a university administrator, it involves the role of ambassador for the international Deaf and hard of hearing community.
Gallaudet stands alone in its uniqueness. Gallaudet is the direct line of understanding between the hearing world and the international deaf and hard of hearing community. The president has to be able to be the "face of Gallaudet" by being approachable and being a leader who empathizes and shall advocate for the deep-set values of the community.

We resent the president's office's divisive actions this week.
Dr. Jane K. Fernandes has been going around campus trying to increase her number of supporters, rather than addressing directly the concerns of FSSA. The president's office is oppressing the students and staff's right to protest by giving MPD the permission to use full force on students and threatening staff about their involvement. Another tactic she has used include not providing interpreters as a university service and denying access to buildings, and e-mail privileges while allowing her supporters full access. A leader should not divide! This has proved her inability to be an effective leader of the university.

There are too many unanswered questions regarding the role of the president's office in the search process and the inclusiveness of diversity and the community perceptions.
There must be a new search process that is inclusive, fair and free of any appearances of interference or manipulation. This includes the progress from the beginning to the end. The Coalition of Organizations for Students of Color has recognized this from Day One, and we have united as one, for as the bottom line, the process was flawed and has failed us.

We care deeply about Gallaudet and its future. This protest is to save Gallaudet from low academic expectations and exclusionary university practices.

The Faculty, Students, Staff, and Alumni (FSSA) care deeply about Gallaudet University and its future. We are comprised of people from all walks of life. We protest Dr. Fernandes' selection because there are candidates better qualified to lead the University, and because the administration has yet to examine the underlying issues of our discontent. We do not take issue with her for "not being deaf enough" but for being deaf to us, the community that she would be serving.

We want for the search process to be reopened, meaning that Dr. Fernandes would resign, and that people who have been engaging in protests do not face retaliatory action. We also want to Board of Trustees to immediately come to Gallaudet to resolve this crisis.

Dr. Fernandes' track record at Gallaudet makes her unfit for promotion:

As the administrator responsible for the University's academic performance, Gallaudet was rated "Ineffective, primarily due to inadequate progress in achieving its annual and long-term performance goals in the key areas of persistence, graduation, and post-school outcomes."- www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget07/summary/edlite-section2b.html
The percentage of Gallaudet bachelor's degree graduates who either find employment commensurate with their training and education or attend advanced education or training programs during their first year after graduation fell from 90% in 2001 to 69% in 2005- www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2007plan/edlite-g5edagallaudet.html
According to current employees at the K-12 program (Clerc Center), Dr. Fernandes created an atmosphere of distrust and fear, proved ineffectual as a leader and damaged the infrastructure of the program, and ignored teachers and staff.- news.gufssa.com/2006/10/18/letter-from-clerc-center-staff/
Dr. Fernandes does not support diversity

The problem is not in her proficiency of ASL, but that when she has been in positions of authority she has not fostered environments in which people who use ASL were accommodated.
Teachers and staff were not fluent enough in ASL to communicate with students, limiting students' ability to learn in the classroom.
Gallaudet needs a leader who will embrace diversity and make sure that everyone here feels supported.
Protest started when people of color objected to the search process.

In a flawed search process, a white male without a PhD became a finalist over a black male with a Ph.D.
Fernandes does not have a following.

On April 27, 2006 an undergraduate poll showed that 81% did not support her appointment as presidential candidate.
On October 16, 2006, she received an 82% faculty vote of no confidence as president-designate.
On October 16, 2006, the University alumni association called for her resignation and for the Board of Trustees to step in to resolve the crisis.
On September 20, 2006, the Student Body Government voted not to recognize her as president-designate.
The Administration and the Board of Trustees are deaf to campus/public outcry and engage in tactics to divert from the real issues surrounding the crisis.

The administration has blatantly mischaracterized University faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the deaf community. By not stepping in, the Board is deaf to administrative smear campaign tactics.
The administration is spending large amounts of money to spin protesters in a negative light instead of addressing the reasons that protests are occurring. They have also been spending money on private security and video surveillance to intimidate protesters.
This is money that is coming from tax payers and from tuition. Congress should investigate if this is an abuse of tax payer money
The Board and the administration are deaf to campus and public outcry on the crisis, including open letters by prominent leaders and organizations.
This crisis is all about leadership effectiveness - the Board did not take into account the president designate's past performance as Provost or Vice President.
The University has left those who care about it with no choice other than to engage in protests.

Sounds like a nice candidate for a park and National Historic Landmark. :-)

Just what is the per-student cost of the place? If the federal-government already provides funding for interpreters at colleges, why insulate?

Frankly, I'm concerned regarding the "deaf enough" idea, as well as what seems to be a movement to draw-inward and reject any deaf-treatments as against "deaf culture"...just what IS that anyway?

I remember that during my university days, it really didn't make much difference to anyone who the college president was...they had little impact or NO impact on the student's education.

I just don't understand, I guess.

The deaf community has long known that Gallaudet is NOT an academic institution. 40% grad rate.

The Rochester Institute of Technology for the Deaf- 70% grad rate. Check their web site for the roster of companies recruiter. Many ranging from small companies to multi-nationals.

I influence hiring decisions at a major area firm. I was very impressed listening (yes, listening - she's very articulate) to a recent NPR interview of Ms. Fernandes. Her work at Galludet and previously at Hawaii and Iowa (I believe) go a long way in burnishing the reputation of the Deaf. That reputation remains intact in my mind, however the value of a Galludet degree just took a huge hit thanks to the protesters and now the BOT. Where I work at we follow the letter and spirit of the ADA, but for me seeing Galludet on a resume will now be a very big negative in my evaluation.

The deaf community has long known that Gallaudet is NOT an academic institution. FACT- 40% grad rate.

The Rochester Institute of Technology for the Deaf- 70% grad rate. Check their web site for the roster of companies recruiter. Many ranging from small companies to multi-nationals.

40% grad-rate? What's the story on that?

The Board showed about as much spine as a rubber chicken in this mess - they were cowed into reneging on their initial decision because the students threw a tantrum. I don't want to paint the entire student body with a broad brush, but based on what I see as a resident of the neighborhood south of Gallaudet, many of the students are sheltered and infantile kids who are accustomed to getting their way by using their disability as an excuse for behavior that would not be tolerated at any education level. If they choose to shut down the campus and waste their tuition money, fine. But let's not pretend that this was some enormously principaled protest.

Yes. in 1988, we thought making the BoT 51% deaf or hard of hearing or having a deaf president would safeguard our concerns. That turned out to be extremely naive. The structure of Gallaudet itself needed fixing.

The 3 "problems"-- racism, audism, and management by intimidation, can be laid to flaws in organization. I thought about how Gallaudet can improve and I see some problems:

1) The people are not fully cognizant of their rights, whom to contact for any problems.

For instance, in my first semester at gallaudet, I received some hate mail from classmmates. I didn't know at that time it was illegal and I could have reported this to the network administrator and gotten the student in trouble. I talked to the teacher and she told me it was inappropriate, but never told me what I could do.

Information needs to be disclosed in brochures and various quick-reference materials to freshman, with the message: you can talk to those people and get help.

The website needs to be better organized to guide students to whom they should talk to, and RAs and other first-line student support service be fully trained in referral and listening to students.

There also needs to be leadership to make people a focus. Fernandes historically did not provide that.

I heard from a woman who was sexually assaulted, then gotten no supprot and then got in trouble for violating the honor code because of suicidal behavior. The student transferred elsewhere and saw the huge difference in services provided, and the sheer concern for her.

2) No independent channel such as an EEO office in business to handle such complaints and document them independently of all efforts by managers to demolish such evidence.
All too often, such complaints have to go through the management, or to their immediate superiors, who are going to be spun a different story. This holds true all the way up to the Board of Trustees.

3) Uniform consistent message that discriminatory practices or "overinterpreting" the rules to deny students services will be disciplined.

For instance, a friend of mine went to MSSD and she was denied awards and honors she deserved, she worked hard to be a good student, she was active. The reason given was that she was a smoker and therefore not a good role model.

She said, hey, quitting is hard, she was from a family of heavy smokers, she'd have appreciated some help and counseling, not to have been made to feel worthless by having her awards stolen because she was a smoker.

I was outraged because that would never have happened at my mainstream HS.

4) the awareness of availablity of multiple channels of information, welcoming students to report any problems with faculty or staff for better perspectives.

Those problems won't go away because somebody or other is the president. They will go away only with a serious focus on reorganizing the organization culture to be more in line with what a professionally run university should be, intensive training about positive ways to solve problems.

If that requires federal oversight, or melding of Gallaudet with another university, so be it.

I want Gallaudet to last and be strong and do what it is supposed to do-- not tear down deaf students and make them feel disempowered to take action for their own futures.

If students are just a university's "customers," couldn't the freshman class at Harvard stage a protest and get their entire curriculum changed to non-academic courses that required no work. Or make all the courses participatory sex-ed classes?

They'd still get the Harvard degree, but not have to put any effort into it. Should this not be their choice, since they are "customers?"

Wonder what other choices the "customers" would like to make at their colleges? Beer coming out of water taps? Classes taught by Hooters girls? Hey -- anyone wanna open up such place with me? The customer is always right!

Amen to Wilbrod's comments. I can only say that I am proud to be a part of the deaf community even though I can hear some and speak well enough to be considered hearing. The hearing population has no idea of the oppression we face every day in our lives unless they walk a mile in our shoes. Deafness is silent...you can't tell us apart unless you start speaking to us and we don't respond. From the get go, there was a problem with the BOT and the Administration and I hope there will be changes made with the way the BOT functions and those who function as "rubber stampers" will no longer serve on the board. Good luck to Gallaudet, I know they will come through and it will, once again, be a great place to be. If anyone learned from this protest, perhaps they would wake up and realize that, we the people, could do something about our own government! A proud alumnus and retired from Gallaudet.

HR, you shouldn't do that, without looking at the full resume first.

I don't care what the ADA says, I can tell you firsthand that Gallaudet University is full of people of ALL backgrounds, and this year is not representative of all the alumni that have graduated from Gallaudet even 10 years ago.

Despite what Fernandes says, Gallaudet has a very diverse student body from many countries of all levels of handicaps, oralist, cochlear implants, and other backgrounds. I befriended many people with multiple handicaps at Gallaudet and international students.

I urge you, to make your judgment based on the rest of your resume.

I'm a Gallaudet alumni, and I always found it hard enough to find work even without this event. I've had phone calls that violated the ADA. I can still remember calling one company and the woman screamed at me "we don't want you, you're deaf, we don't have jobs for you."

Please think about that very hard. There is a reason why you do interviews of prospective applicants, and that's to get a sense of those applicants.

There are lawyers, bankers, priests, vice presidents, CEOs, editors, writers, filmmakers, librarians, etc. that are Gallaudet graduates.

I can't believe that you would think it is appropriate to stereotype people based on a single affilation. Gallaudet University is not the KKK, no matter what Fernandes claims.

What is an "oralist"?

Ron in DC, It's the National Technology Institute of the Deaf, and it is a 2 year college.
Many graduates later go to Gallaudet because they are dissatisfied with their lack of career advancement with only an AAS.
For 4-year degrees, the students then mainstream in RIT classes.
Your contributions would be more meaningful if you got the names right. Thanks.

To "annie":

My understanding(from sources in the administration) is that the so called "threats" never really happened. It's another example of Dr. Fernandes(and the administariton's) handling of the news media. In fact, the coalition (FSSA)repeatly tried to get her to call the proper authorities to report those "threats". She, apprently, never did reported the threats. My own take is that it was another spin by Fernandes to try to direct attention off her. Also, from my propective, the real issues was her lack of understanding the issues, and her average record as a provost. OMB, for example, (last year, I believe) published a report that gave Gallaudet a failing mark-and many of the areas were Fernandes responsiblities. She never wanted to discused the issues that the FSSA colaition kept asking her to discused-instead using the "Deaf Card" issue to influme the passions of the Deaf Community. You can asked anyone invloved in the protest ( I was not involved-other than to study the issues) and they will tell you of many many times that she and President I. King Jordan has lied to the media and to the faculty. Example: She(Fernandes) was qouted in the Washington Post as saying that she "was up all night" talking to the students about the takeover of HMB. I can tell you that that was not ture. I know this beacuse I have friends instead the President office. There are a lot of other examples where she and Dr. Jordan has lied.

Also, 82 % of the faculty voted against her (Ph.D's and all). Alumni and staff also did not want her there.

Hope this help clearify some of the issues.

Three comments:
(1) The Board has badly compromised its ability to make future decisions that might be controversial.
(2) What competent university administrator would be willing to accept this position now and who will ever listen to him or her under these circumstances? and
(3) The protesters gain nothing and lose much by staining the institution's reputation for integrity so badly.

The community will have to live with these (unintended) consequences for a very long time. Win a battle and lose a war.

Dave, oralism is the philosophy promulgated by Alexander Graham Bell and his association.

Oralism is the philosophy that deaf people should not be taught sign or any kind of visual language because it will detract from the focus on learning how to lipread and speak.

For a while there, some educators refused to teach deaf how to read and write until they had learned how to speak. As a result, many deaf people underwent many years of torture and insufficent education.
The stories I have heard of deaf people of the baby boomer generation are graphic, punishment of gesture in any form whatsoever.
One lovely lady I knew didn't even have any language or education after many years in an oralist school until she was finally sent to a school that used sign. She described it as a helen keller moment to realize that a table had a name.

Note I am talking of "pure" oralism, which is a philosophy that is basically the equalivent of teaching people not to be blind by forcing them somehow to read by all means possible EXCEPT by using braille or raised letters or touching the page even.
Some legally blind people will, others are too blind to do so.

Now, many students who have mild to moderate hearing loss (often after they learned to speak) will be taught in the oralist tradition because their families are actually often in denial of their deafness, or because they've been told this is the ONLY way for their children.

These children may succeed well enough to remain oral and be alienated from being identified as deaf at all. Or in many case, they often come to sign language in HS or through other channels and they want more. They hear about Gallaudet and they decide to go there because they want to actually try a sign language mode that's made for them, or they simply learn directly from other deaf people.

In 1970's oralism finally fell sway to the philosophy of Total COmmunication, meaning educate the student in the mode that works. So now students were able to get both sign, speechreading and speech lessons, and get the education in what works for them. This is what I grew up with. I just never was much good at the speech part because I'm so deaf, I can't even hear people speaking at me at ALL. Most people aren't that deaf.

I have no personal opinion on Gallaudet and its troubles. It appears there are many and there will be an uphill fight to get the school moving forward. I have hopes that it will but only time will tell.

The larger problem that strikes me here is far from unique to the students in this case. I used to teach and would see this time and time again from my students. And, horrifyingly, it seems to be poorly understood by a large segment of this country.

It is this simply: Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom From Consequences.

Unfortunately, many Americans of all ages, races, classes, socio-economic levels and disability seem to think that screaming "Freedom of Speech" is their 'get out of jail free' card.

Sure. The beautiful thing about the United States is that we have the right to say what we want. It can be wonderful, horrible, hatefilled or inspirational. Any of these. But at the same time, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of such freedoms. Once you put your "Free Speech" out there, people have a right to have "Free Speech" right back at you. And this is is the part that confuses people: they might not agree with you.

And you know what? They have that right too. A shame more Americans can't seem to get that through their heads.

"In 1970's oralism finally fell sway to the philosophy of Total COmmunication, meaning educate the student in the mode that works."

How is it possible that 'do what works best for each student' is controversial at all? Isn't that the most obvious, most common-sense way to approach the problem? Is someone arguing *against* this approach?

I think the system is broken and needs to be fixed. I think it IS possible.

I do agree that this has become a pyrrhic victory, thanks in part to the administration's reaction. I wasn't pleased with this protest when it started and I still have conflicted feelings about how they did it. But they had good cause.

The biased reporting, fed by the Gallaudet administration has ensured that many people are not to grips on this issue. Firstly, the deaf card was played to the hilt, when in fact many protestors and international supporters like myself have a similar background to Fernandes.

The fact that 14 presidents have resigned in the States in 2006, due to a vote of no confidence has been overlooked. This includes Harvard: the BoT and President-designate knew when to listen, and appropriate steps were taken. Deaf people instead are belittled, and the lack of listening from day one needs examining.

Furthermore, there is a need for a representational board, that is in touch with the community and society it serves. The recent crisis underlines this, and some examination needs to take place, as well as a long process of healing for all concerned.

So much for being a "good neighbor"....

Gallaudet University Guidelines for Expressive Activities and Assemblies

1) All demonstrations, marches, rallies or peaceful assemblies on campus must be registered[*]* with the appropriate unit responsible for the location requested (Registrar's Office, Campus Activities, Business Services, etc.) at least 2 business days in advance of the activity. This helps ensure that the organization has appropriate resources for its activity. In addition, advance notice ensures that there are no conflicts with other events at the same location, ensures that the sponsor of the activity will accept all responsibilities pertaining to sponsoring and supervising the event, and ensures that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the use of scheduled facilities complies with all applicable policies and regulations. It also ensures that public area activities do not impede pedestrian or vehicular ingress to or egress from campus, and it ensures that the size and nature of the event are appropriate for the location.

2) Structures created for the purpose of free expression, other than those created by the University itself, may not remain on University property for an extended period of time. Temporary or symbolic structures, such as booths, tents, canopies, or similar objects or enclosures, may be placed on University property and may remain temporarily on campus, but they must be taken down and removed daily by a specific time, and the area removed of all debris and trash. The administration's actions toward the structures will be guided by attention to the following, or similar, kinds of campus community interests that structures could infringe upon:

Protecting health and safety;
Preventing damage or risk of damage to University property;
Preserving unimpeded mobility on pathways and streets, entrance to and departure from buildings, and unimpeded mobility within buildings;
Providing for competing uses of campus grounds;
Avoiding interference with other University activities;
Reasonably limiting costs to the University of increased Department of Public Safety protection, potential University liability, insurance coverage, and cleanup and repair after an event.

Limits on the duration, size, and location of structures or symbolic structures may also be based legitimately upon the desire to preserve campus aesthetic values.

3) The sponsoring organization/department must obtain a Structure Scheduling Form from Business Services and obtain approval prior to the erection of such structures. The sponsoring organization/department will be required to sign the agreement on the form pertaining to all responsibilities associated with the temporary structure, including the removal of such structure, and acceptance of responsibility for any injuries to persons or property caused by the temporary structure. The University reserves the right to deny a request to establish a structure and to request the removal of temporary structures that may be an unreasonable safety hazard or inflict unreasonable damage to landscaping.

4) Overnight camping is not allowed on University property. The use of any part of the campus for living accommodation purposes such as overnight sleeping (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), making a fire, or carrying on cooking activities is prohibited. The use of any tents, motor vehicles or other structures for sleeping is also prohibited.

5) Signs, posters, banners, and other materials may not be affixed to the interior or exterior of any University structure without permission from the appropriate facilities person or person with authority to grant such permission. Unauthorized postings, etc. will be removed and discarded by the University.

6) In furtherance of the educational, research, service, and other legitimate functions of the University, no part of the campus is generally available for organized activities after 11 p.m. and before 7 a.m. except for official University activities or organization activities with prior authorization.

7) During the calendar year noise or amplified music must be maintained at acceptable levels to avoid interference with classes or other University activities. In compliance with D.C. ordinances, noise must be kept at reasonable levels after 11 p.m. This allows for the usual and customary campus events to take place and at the same time supports the academic mission of the University, the University's intent to be a good neighbor with the surrounding D.C. community, and it observes applicable D.C. ordinances related to noise.

The University will take action through appropriate internal and/or external procedures against violators of these guidelines as well as other existing University policies and regulations. Actions taken may include the denial of approval of future requests for permission to use University property by the sponsoring organization/department. Any sponsoring organization or individual may be subject to all applicable sanctions for violations of these guidelines or other policies, rules, or regulations of the University.

I know, Confused. You'd think it'd be logical. But no, oralists believed in this idea with a near-religious fervour. Alexander Bell was wealthy and a third-generation speech teacher.

I want you to look up "the Milan Accord of 1880 deaf" in any search engine. This banned the use of sign in deaf education in most of Europe and America. Gallaudet was the ONLY hold-out against this accord.

www.cwrl.utexas.edu/currents/spr01/mccleary.html

Also read this from cochlearwar.com

"You need to understand the Milan Congress of 1880, which led to the official suppression, or outright banning, of signing in virtually every school for the deaf in the United States, the forcing-out of deaf people from the profession of teaching other deaf people, where they had served with distinction since Laurent Clerc began teaching at Hartford in 1817. And the misery inflicted on generations of these kids, who were deprived of both language and literacy. Sure, we've all read about the oral-deaf successes. We wonder about the thousands of kids whose biographies did not represent glowing success stories."

The truth is, we have only recently began to really research deaf education and child development as a science and tracking what works and it still is very colored by dogma, falsification of infomration, and claims.

Until the 1960's, ASL was not even "proved" to be an actual language. That's how good the suppression of sign as a subject of study was.

Afraid that the above description of oralism is out-dated.

90% of deaf children have hearing parents. If provided with the support services along with hard working parents, most do fine with digital hearing aids, even get academic qualifications in music among other things and go onto the big schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Univ Michigan, Berkeley etc. The same is true in other countries eg Australia and England.

Sadly a few fall thru the cracks because of abysmal support servcies.

But I have seen deaf kids with remarkably intelligible speech and believe they will do even better than me when they reach my age!

So oralism does work!

Not that outdated. Read my comparsion of oralism for the deaf as equalivent to making blind people read. Some will do better than others because they're not that blind to start with, and it helps even more if they used to see and know what letters are supposed to look like. If technology can help them see, fine.

If you add in any other kind of learning disability, bye-bye comprehension.

I personally worked with a deaf scientist who attended Harvard who grew up oralist, so for some it does work... but you can't say this comparsion is outmoded when I know at least 100 people who used to be oralist and prefer to have the dual experience of sign and speaking.

One person told me that after she attended her Gallaudet and learned to sign, her speech actually improved because she wasn't so incurably shy anymore.

And "support services" are limited, In many cases it consists of telling the teacher the kid is deaf, and to carry on as usual.

Digital hearing aids are very expensive, as well. I don't think all deaf people who need one and can use one even have one.

I know too many oralist friends for who oralism didn't work so well-- they can speak cuz they weren't born that deaf.

One of my best friends speaks VERY well because she is postlingually deaf. But she's working with the deaf for very good reasons.

The best known advocate of non-violent civil disobedience in this country was undoubtedly Dr. Martin Luther King. Along with the I Have a Dream speech, MLK's most famous words were probably his Letter From a Birmingham Jail. If Dr. King had asked for and gotten amnesty for his actions as the Gallaudet students demand, then he would have written a Letter From a Birmingham Motel, but somehow I don't think it would have had the same moral authority. Consequences, you see, can add force to your argument.

I like how just because the one candidate had a Ph.D. that he was magically more qualified than another candidate with just a Masters.

Come on guys, qualifications for jobs go past pieces of paper.

I've been reading with great interest about the ongoing situation at Galludet, and I must say I was shocked to read this morning that the BOT had withdrawn their appointment without setting up an interim president and/or clarifying how the new search committee would be structured. It seems like it's asking for trouble to leave such a void in leadership.
I can understand how Fernandes may not have been the ideal candidate for the position, but I firmly agree that in most cases, students may have a representative on the search committee, but they certainly don't get to stop all classes on campus for their school, two other academic institutions, block traffic from campus, take over public buildings and handpick their own preferred leader. At which other accredited higher education institution would this be considered acceptable?
I think it's a double-edged sword to say that on the grounds of Galludet being a center of deaf culture, that it's students don't have to comply with the behavioral codes consistent with college students. It may get them a temporary advantage during their school years, but if the goal of their education is to be on equal footing to compete for jobs outside the deaf community (which for practical purposes, most will do), then what service is it really to teach the lesson that BECAUSE you are deaf, you can choose not to follow the rules, and get a free pass based on your deafness? I thought that the point of the ADA was to create equal footing and respect for people, not condescend to them by acting like they "need" a free pass to slide by--like we're doing them a "favor" by hiring them. I don't know how Helen Keller/Annie Sullivan are currently viewed in the deaf community, but that's why Sullivan was an effective teacher--she made Keller understand that she had different communication skills, but she still had to be able to adapt her behavior to the standards of the outside world if she wanted to participate in it, not just throw a temper tantrum and expect the rest of the world to be understanding. In the long run, that may earn pity or sympathy, but not real respect.

Hi, Rap1234, and thank you for your message. Whether Jane Fernandes did or did not in fact receive threats against herself and her family, I of course am not in a position to know. But . . . neither are you.

It's a serious thing to call someone a liar in a public forum like a Washington Post discussion board unless you have more than the say-so of others to go on. If you were not yourself among the students in the HMB, then you do not know whether she was there "up all night" or not. You only have someone's word for that. You may believe that source to be more trustworthy than Fernandes. But you do not know from your own knowledge that she was lying. It's remarkable to me that you wouldn't let that stand in your way.

Whether she did or did not receive threats, it remains true that she was burned in effigy and was subjected to name-calling so outrageously disgusting that I was genuinely shocked, despite listening to 30+ years of coarsening public discourse.

Maybe you are right. Maybe she did a terrible job as provost and had no business to be promoted. But I still maintain that even assuming she was just the hand-picked crony of a corrupt president and a complacent Board, Gallaudet really has no one but itself to blame for having made King Jordan's deafness his ticket to the presidency 18 years ago.

Gallaudet made its own bed and must now lie in it.

And I must say, it makes me sad. I had some romanticized vision of Gallaudet as a thriving, healthy community with a unique educational mission to fulfill -- like all-women's colleges -- not one that I personally shared, but one I was nevertheless glad to have around, overseen by the thoughtful competitive marathoner, champion fundraiser, wise paterfamilias.

Oh, well.

It's not surprising that many of you who can hear view Gallaudet as an university where deaf and hard-of-hearing students can manipulate the administration to decide who should lead. I can understand that, but you have to remember that Gallaudet is not just an university - it's a symbol of their culture - not just for the American deaf community, but internationally as well. Like someone previously said, the leader is not only an administrator who have climbed up the corporate ladder, but an "ambassador" for the deaf culture across the world. That's a rare and unique position for a university president - so you can't really compare this position to other university presidents. Gallaudet missed that one and it bit them in the ass. As for the Board of Trustees, the members are so divisive - you have those who can hear who doesn't know sign language and you have those who are deaf who cannot speak or lipread and they have conflicting views. So, it was a power battle since the beginning and they made a bad decision not to attract enough attention from the deaf community (including students, faculty, alumnis, disability organizations, etc) on who should replace the president who was appointed after the well-known 1988 "Deaf President Now" protest.

Yes, I do agree that Fernandes may have articulate writing skills and political savvy - she knew how to use the media as her advantage. But, her public speaking skills were not that great and I noticed that she said the same thing over and over and over about aiming to have the university to be more inclusive while it already has been. She did not represent the community's image of the next future leader, that's all. Even though many other universities do not choose the leaders that meets the students' expectations, Gallaudet isn't like that - not after the 1988 protest.

To clarify some misunderstandings, Gallaudet is also a "place" where many deaf people have the opportunity to be not frustrated by communication barriers because they have already experienced it when they were growing up AND they know they will continue facing them after graduation. That explains why so many deaf people still associate with the university way long after they graduate and why so many generations of deaf families still attend there because it's a huge part of their lives.

It was never clear that the university practiced "audism" meaning that the administration preferred to speak than sign - and that's difficult to prove. Fisher is correct that the students were petulant and arrogant because they felt that the university should choose a leader that they want and that isn't the case for other universities. But it comes from within - they already know that they will never be able to hear or be "exactly" like those who can hear and they eventually develop a strong pride and identity about their deafness. Physically, they do accept that they're deaf, but psychologically, they don't think there's anything wrong with being deaf. So, that may partially explain their stubborn demeanor and that makes it easy for many others to criticize or misinterpret them.

Last, I do agree that the educational quality at Gallaudet needs serious improvements with the low graduation rates and the U.S. Dept of Education and OMB's reports. What did Gallaudet do about that? Not sure.

Science is showing that primary language acquisition in the first few years is absolutely necessary to learning language later on-- you can teach sign the first few years and transfer to any other language, it doesn't make the difference.

But isolate a child from language completely, then put the child in school to learn language, and that child is doomed to struggle for life.

The evil of oralism is that they made parents withhold language; if the parents have money and time, are motivated, and have the support, and the child has any usable hearing for language, then yes the child will learn spoken language via oralist methods within the critical time window. That's a LOT of ifs.

With sign language used with the baby, there are no ifs whatsoever.

To even risk withholding language development from a child in their crucial time window is CHILD ABUSE. Period.

Let's face it. She should have forseen and forestalled this protest because it was her job to do so. Pure and simple.

And precisely what good would "forestalling" have done? Postponed the inevitable? Let's face it. Gallaudet is identified as strongly with student protest as it is with deafness, if not more so. It seems to be in a constant state of agitation. Blaming Fernandes for this is blaming the victim of a vicious campaign of character assassination.

The board bears ultimate responsibility for this debacle. Their failure to immediately put an end to the protests exacerbated the situation, a fact that the miscreants fully exploited. And now the board has buckled under like a cheap card table. The university has the reputation it deserves.

What does having hearing parents have to do with a person's level of deafness and ability to aquire spoken language? An Oralist seems to correlate the two: 90% have hearing parents; therefore, they are more likely to succeed under oralist techniques than the visual and totally accessible to all who have eyes avenue of sign language. Not quite getting how these are related. I can't fathom learning a language without full accessibility. Would you learn to speak French by hearing it explained in Italian if you only spoke English to begin with? This is akin to teaching profoundly deaf people how to speak by combining lip reading, vibration simulation/copying, and audio stimulation in hopes they'll somehow easily learn to become fluent in what they cannot comprehend to begin with. Oralism works for those who have residual hearing, but for the rest of the deaf, a visu-centric approach would benefit them far more than making grunting sounds till their blue in the face just to be able to say they can "speak"!

Most of the comments on this discussion are misinformed and misdirected. The basis of democracy is the belief in self-governance, but this seems to be absent from many commentator's negative attitudes towards the students' self-expression and attempts at self-government.

"Taxpayers" have no special claim to judge programs that Congress sees fit to pass. All citizens over the age of 18 have the right to be "voters," and it is this category that determines the legitimacy of where those tax dollars are going. Citizen participation, rather than the fact that the government needs tax dollars to run, is what gives Congressional funding decisions legitimacy. Just because citizens have to pay taxes, and the tiniest percentage of those taxes goes to fund a school for the deaf, does not mean that that citizen has a right to judge the program. A citizen has a right to judge a program because of his or her voting power, which is the foundation of representative government. Students at GU do not have such representative government. Nor do most students in their universities. Why not? It is a question of the legitimacy of denying participation. Surely, such a denial requires strong evidence that the denial is for an excellent reason. Maybe such reasons exist. However, the burden should be on those who believe that students' voices should be denied to show why this is necessary.

Those same GU students can vote for members of Congress, but cannot vote directly on matters concerning their own education. If Congress or the board does not listen to them, then why should they not protest for what they believe undermines their entire community? Even if people disagree with the students' policy position, a real democracy has no room for quashing individual expression and political activism. In some ways, this controversy has the reverse outcome, but similar self-determination problems as the "separate-but-equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson. Almost everyone would agree that if black people don't want segregation because it can't be equal, they would be perfectly within their rights to protest such segregation until the policy changed. Why is it less legitimate for a deaf community to protest a worldview of disability forced upon them instead of the freedom to determine their own culture and self-reliance? If they want to have a language separate from the spoken language, it should be their choice.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with that policy and you're a taxpayer--you have to listen to what deaf students want for their own school because it is their community and they can determine what's best for them. If they're wrong, then they live with the consequences, but they are in a better position to know what those consequences are than you are. No one wants to be told how to live their own lives. Those who are not deaf can attend the school of their choice and have many options in terms of size, politics, major, and environment, but deaf college students have one choice, and they should have some control over the decisions made about their academic futures.

There is a place in the world for Gallaudet. Until you are a deaf or hard of hearing kid, especially one who has been in a mainstream setting with or without interpreters, it would be a wonderful thing not to have to struggle to understand a teacher, or to be in group situations where you understand EVERYTHING that is being "said". My child is bright. He works VERY hard in school, one of the top in our state, to understand, via an interpreter, and learn. He could go anywhere to college. He is more than capable. But he wants to go to a school where he WON'T be the only one with his communication style. He wants to be part of the Majority in the language that he uses. He doesn't want to be learning through an interpreter. And I can't wait until he gets that chance at Gallaudet!! Don't dismiss a valuable place for bright Deaf kids to learn.

Since I am hearing, I cannot really speak for the Deaf, but I see what my son has done for himself, and I want him to be able to be in an environment where he will have the potential, without communication roadblocks, to pursue his goals educationally.

Wow, I have honestly never seen so many people who just didn't get it in one place, but part of the blame lies with less-than-stellar journalistic research and impartiality. For those who aren't up on what the protests were about here is some background information and highlights:

*Gallaudet is unlike any other university, not only because those it serves unique stakeholders (ranging from those with mild hearing loss to those with profound hearing loss and several other severe disabilities). Because of the history and significance, it is the de facto center of Deaf culture in the US. From this, the President's position at Gallaudet takes on special significance and requires leadership, diplomacy, sensitivity, good communication skills, and the ability to socially interact and work with the larger Deaf Community.
**NOTE: Diplomacy does not mean calling your opponents terrorists, sensitivity does not mean wearing a red dress for the media (especially 5 hours after a 2nd student is found murdered in the dorms you oversee), good communication skills do not usually involve wholesale fabrications (especially since pictures showing security personnel using mace on students will surface), social interaction with the Deaf Community requires more than doing a radio interview (that's more like a slap in the face actually), and the definition of "working with others" in use by Fernandes might come closer to the Chinese communist party approach than what is currently used in the US.
*Historically there have been two competing approaches for teaching Deaf individuals are the oral and signing schools. The oral approach emphasizes teaching speech for communication and interaction first and then actual learning once speaking has been mastered. Obviously speech is a problem for those with more profound hearing loss in which case actual learning becomes an afterthought (this is where the view that those who sign are inferior comes in). The signing school, on the other hand emphasizes hand gestures to symbolize words, which is much easier for those with more severe hearing loss to learn, and then focuses on actual learning. For many at Gallaudet, Fernandes represents the oral school and the discrimination that usually pervades it.
*Protestors included students and their parents; Gallaudet faculty, staff and alumni; and members of the larger Deaf Community (there were over 70 tents cities erected across the US in support of the protest and 82% of the faculty voted for her resignation or removal).
*While Fernandes was Provost, post-graduation employment and graduation rates dropped steadily and the lack of security personnel who can sign (and are proficient) has continued to be a problem, despite a death because of it.
*Fernandes can only sign at a 3rd grade level (I usually can't keep up with most Deaf signers, but I actually get impatient when watching her because she is so slow) - not such a glowing distinction at a university where that is the dominant form of communication. This is where the "Not deaf enough" spin was pulled from. But maybe Fernandes is right, we could get GWU to pick someone like that with 3rd grade English skills and see how that goes.
*The selection process reeked of inequality with racial overtones (a white male with MA who made the final cut vs. a black male with PhD who did not). The fact that higher positions in the administration do not reflect the actual diversity on campus only serves to highlight this issue more starkly.
*Last but not least, can anyone show some point in this crisis where Fernandes actually showed ANY leadership qualities or skills? Let's be honest, 9 times out of 10, she was no where to be found on campus, but was out putting her spin on things to the media. Out of touch does not even begin to describe her style.

Annie, I bought into that image too. It's a nice image, and skillfully done by the PR machine.

Yes, I do think that has been the assessment, that DPN unfortunately focused on a symptom, not its cause, and put a poor president (but great fundraiser!) in a position of power.

If the "departure of Jane Fernandes, the embattled Gallaudet University president-designate, was inevitable", why didn't that come out in your interview just a few days ago? And why is it a grievous mistake to boot someone who went out of her way during a LONG career at Gallaudet to aggravate people? If she had what it takes to be a competent president, she would developed a constituency on campus by now. That she had none speaks volumes about her unsuitability for the job.

Wilbrod,

Actually my cousin did go to Gally (notice I use the student nick-name?) and I'm quite familiar with the deaf culture and the damage it does to people once they've left the softly padded ivory tower that is Gallaudet. Gally is a failure in its educational mission: it doesn't prepare the students for anything but more interaction with the deaf. Further, it *is* deeply ironic to reject Fernandes because she doesn't represent deaf culture enough when deaf culture is a culture of separation, a culture of division.

So yes, it is ironic. If the students had said "now there will be a biased and wholly-student-protestor approved search for a deaf-culture advocate who's never left our campus like most of us," now that wouldn't have been ironic.

I know French and communicate with French speaking colleagues. Also I have gone all the way to the top in my field.

Was I oppressed? No. Were my parents cruel? No.

I didnt see my deaf classmates get punished for waving their hands. True it may have happened before my time. But get real!!! Deaf children have to be prepared for the real world!

I am grateful to my parents for creating and providing me the tools to reach heights not attained by many deaf people.

The deaf kids with digital aids and cochlear implants will have far greater opportunities than I had.

I could go on. But the book by last week's op-ed contributor sums it up very nicely.

Many of my deaf friends do fine in the mainstream and have no time for the 0.01% of the deaf community who cry and complain. It is a tough world and we were well-prepared for it!

I am proud of my deafness but I have too many things to do in my field. For what it is worth, I have my own interests (ethnic and sports) that take up that time and I have made friends through these interests.

RL, I contacted Marc Fisher soon after that interview and he did say he thought Fernandes would eventually have to go. I don't know why he didn't indicate that in the interview itself.
I've been generally bothered by the lack of balance in the reporting by the Washington Post since this started. It's not what I had come to expect from the newspaper that took down President Nixon.

So what if the administration barred reporters from