Mr. Sandman,
Your comment about "But how many will be turned off? More importantly, how many parents will say to themselves, "Hmmm... maybe Gallaudet isn't where I want to send my child."
Is very accurate. I have currently ruled out sending my child to Gally and have written a letter to the BoT. If he chooses to pay his own way then I will not keep him from attending but If I am paying the bill...right now Gally may be the last place I would send my child. That's going to be a common and unfortunate result of this mess.
Mr. Sandman,
Your comment about "But how many will be turned off? More importantly, how many parents will say to themselves, "Hmmm... maybe Gallaudet isn't where I want to send my child."
Is very accurate. I have currently ruled out sending my child to Gally and have written a letter to the BoT. If he chooses to pay his own way then I will not keep him from attending but If I am paying the bill...right now Gally may be the last place I would send my child. That's going to be a common and unfortunate result of this mess.
Nice to see Mr. Sandman back since our Gallaudet's days. Please contact me @ kenirving(at)mac(dot)com. All the best, Ken
Nice to see Mr. Sandman back since our Gallaudet's days. Please contact me @ kenirving(at)mac(dot)com. All the best, Ken
If what you are saying is truly what you believe, then the BoT and IKJ should have been asked to resign along with JKF. Lets face it JKF applied for a job and got it. The BoT and IKJ are the one's who remain in power who,according to you,are responsible for this.
Question?
If this protest wasn't completely about personally attacking JKF why is the protest over? Nothing has changed from the oppresion that the protesters complained about during IKJ's reign. He is still here and I doubt he will be able to retire until the pres. search is completed to the protesters satisfaction. Some say it should have taken a minimum of 18 months to properly do the original seach. You certainly don't think it should be expedited do you?
I don't get this protest. JKF was not the head honcho at Gallaudet when all this supposed oppression took place say I ask again why is the protest over? You are still stuck with the BoT that caused this debacle and it appears you have given up your fight.
I guess it was personal against JKF after ALL.
If what you are saying is truly what you believe, then the BoT and IKJ should have been asked to resign along with JKF. Lets face it JKF applied for a job and got it. The BoT and IKJ are the one's who remain in power who,according to you,are responsible for this.
Question?
If this protest wasn't completely about personally attacking JKF why is the protest over? Nothing has changed from the oppresion that the protesters complained about during IKJ's reign. He is still here and I doubt he will be able to retire until the pres. search is completed to the protesters satisfaction. Some say it should have taken a minimum of 18 months to properly do the original seach. You certainly don't think it should be expedited do you?
I don't get this protest. JKF was not the head honcho at Gallaudet when all this supposed oppression took place say I ask again why is the protest over? You are still stuck with the BoT that caused this debacle and it appears you have given up your fight.
I guess it was personal against JKF after ALL.
Another nicely written piece!
I would suggest that Jane take a one-year sabbatical. After that, the chips may fall where they may; time usually heals all wounds and perhaps Jane may yet still find a place within Gallaudet.
As for the BoT; I agree that more alumni representation is needed; However, normal attrition should be used in achieving this goal. It will probably take years before this becomes a reality.
Another nicely written piece!
I would suggest that Jane take a one-year sabbatical. After that, the chips may fall where they may; time usually heals all wounds and perhaps Jane may yet still find a place within Gallaudet.
As for the BoT; I agree that more alumni representation is needed; However, normal attrition should be used in achieving this goal. It will probably take years before this becomes a reality.
Thanks, Todd! Hmm... that's an interesting idea-- taking a year's sabbatical, then returning to campus. Naturally, it'll be up to her to decide what she wants to do, but that's not a bad idea. Get some distance between herself and Gallaudet for a while, then return as a professor. She made horrible decisions, and she is a terrible administrator, but she's not evil. It may be that she has something of worth to contribute from a non-management position on campus.
Thanks, Todd! Hmm... that's an interesting idea-- taking a year's sabbatical, then returning to campus. Naturally, it'll be up to her to decide what she wants to do, but that's not a bad idea. Get some distance between herself and Gallaudet for a while, then return as a professor. She made horrible decisions, and she is a terrible administrator, but she's not evil. It may be that she has something of worth to contribute from a non-management position on campus.
Anon-- I'm sorry to hear you won't be considering sending your son there. I can understand why you have reservations at the moment.
However, while I'd be the first to admit the academics at Gallaudet are a mixed bag (some teachers and departments sin less than others), college isn't just about academics-- it's also about personal growth, developing ties, and finding oneself on one's own. In that respect, I'd recommend Gallaudet (or NTID. Even CSUN has a sizeable deaf population, averaging 150-200 usually...), even if it's just for one semester. At other colleges and universities, you may get a better quality of academics, but in every other area, there are and can be struggles to achieve equality. Additionally, getting your education filtered through an interpreter is not the same as having the information directly imparted to you from your professor and fellow students.
Footing the bill is definitely your decision, and you are within your rights to withhold financial support if you so choose. It sounds though, that you're willing to let your son make his own final decision, so that's good. Just keep in mind that the events of the last few months are just one aspect of Gallaudet as a whole.
Anon-- I'm sorry to hear you won't be considering sending your son there. I can understand why you have reservations at the moment.
However, while I'd be the first to admit the academics at Gallaudet are a mixed bag (some teachers and departments sin less than others), college isn't just about academics-- it's also about personal growth, developing ties, and finding oneself on one's own. In that respect, I'd recommend Gallaudet (or NTID. Even CSUN has a sizeable deaf population, averaging 150-200 usually...), even if it's just for one semester. At other colleges and universities, you may get a better quality of academics, but in every other area, there are and can be struggles to achieve equality. Additionally, getting your education filtered through an interpreter is not the same as having the information directly imparted to you from your professor and fellow students.
Footing the bill is definitely your decision, and you are within your rights to withhold financial support if you so choose. It sounds though, that you're willing to let your son make his own final decision, so that's good. Just keep in mind that the events of the last few months are just one aspect of Gallaudet as a whole.
Tess, I don't think asking IKJ to leave now would be productive, and continuing the protest to achieve this would have been damaging, I think. Right now, Jordan is still scheduled to leave office December 31, and I'd like him to keep that schedule.
As for the BoT, yes-- as I said, "regardless of the bylaws, I don't think the Board members as a group should remain as trustees." I do think they should resign en masse. Those that wish to reapply can then be re-assessed on an equal footing with new applicants. Perhaps some will be welcomed back-- others might not be (one exception may be Cheryl Heppner. From what I understand, her term began just a couple of months ago-- talk about a baptism of fire! She not only was still getting familiar with Board and university operations, she had to wade through all this...). However, as Todd pointed out, this change will probably have to happen through normal attrition. I don't think continuing to protest just to remove the Board is the best idea. Besides, it might be more productive to reach out and use logic, reason, and healthy discussions to agree on areas of commonality or shared goals, than taking to the streets again.
I agree- the search process should not be expedited. The protest ended because the main goals had been met: Fernandes was asked to leave, and logically, a new search process will be opened. These were the two central goals. The other demand, no reprisals, seems to have been downgraded/removed, which is wise. Reasonable, logical reprisals can and must happen. Regardless of the moral purpose or nobility in any dissent, the law is the law. As I said, unreasonable reprisals or retaliatory actions taken out of revenge or malicious reasons should definitely be protested. I think people are willing to give Judicial Affairs and the BoT some slack until the final determination of the consequences are revealed.
I agree with you slightly-- for some of the protesters, it was a personal battle against Fernandes; but it shouldn't be. Joseph Rainmound over at Deaf in the City has written quite a few pieces lately to explain the background and rationale of the protest. I suggest you go there and read them (surdus.blogspot.com). I've also written quite a few analyses of what's happened-- while I don't spare anyone, I do make it clear that Fernandes is a divisive person, and letting her assume her new job was not healthy for the campus.
Again, I abhor some of the personal attacks/namecalling people have been doing. Her name isn't "Fernie" or "bitch"; it's Dr. Fernandes. She's not Hitler, okay? She's a terrible administrator, and according to hundreds of accounts, has zero charisma or personability. But she's still deaf, like all of us, and she's still a human being, like all of us.
But I still thought she should be denied her promotion. To me, THAT is what the protest is about. You can disagree with a lot of the actions taken and words said (I have and still am), and still support the overall goal.
That said, if you truly do/did not support it, I understand and respect that. Unanimity is not possible, especially when it's as complex as this.
I'll shut up now, but thanks for your comments, Tess. 
Tess, I don't think asking IKJ to leave now would be productive, and continuing the protest to achieve this would have been damaging, I think. Right now, Jordan is still scheduled to leave office December 31, and I'd like him to keep that schedule.
As for the BoT, yes-- as I said, "regardless of the bylaws, I don't think the Board members as a group should remain as trustees." I do think they should resign en masse. Those that wish to reapply can then be re-assessed on an equal footing with new applicants. Perhaps some will be welcomed back-- others might not be (one exception may be Cheryl Heppner. From what I understand, her term began just a couple of months ago-- talk about a baptism of fire! She not only was still getting familiar with Board and university operations, she had to wade through all this...). However, as Todd pointed out, this change will probably have to happen through normal attrition. I don't think continuing to protest just to remove the Board is the best idea. Besides, it might be more productive to reach out and use logic, reason, and healthy discussions to agree on areas of commonality or shared goals, than taking to the streets again.
I agree- the search process should not be expedited. The protest ended because the main goals had been met: Fernandes was asked to leave, and logically, a new search process will be opened. These were the two central goals. The other demand, no reprisals, seems to have been downgraded/removed, which is wise. Reasonable, logical reprisals can and must happen. Regardless of the moral purpose or nobility in any dissent, the law is the law. As I said, unreasonable reprisals or retaliatory actions taken out of revenge or malicious reasons should definitely be protested. I think people are willing to give Judicial Affairs and the BoT some slack until the final determination of the consequences are revealed.
I agree with you slightly-- for some of the protesters, it was a personal battle against Fernandes; but it shouldn't be. Joseph Rainmound over at Deaf in the City has written quite a few pieces lately to explain the background and rationale of the protest. I suggest you go there and read them (surdus.blogspot.com). I've also written quite a few analyses of what's happened-- while I don't spare anyone, I do make it clear that Fernandes is a divisive person, and letting her assume her new job was not healthy for the campus.
Again, I abhor some of the personal attacks/namecalling people have been doing. Her name isn't "Fernie" or "bitch"; it's Dr. Fernandes. She's not Hitler, okay? She's a terrible administrator, and according to hundreds of accounts, has zero charisma or personability. But she's still deaf, like all of us, and she's still a human being, like all of us.
But I still thought she should be denied her promotion. To me, THAT is what the protest is about. You can disagree with a lot of the actions taken and words said (I have and still am), and still support the overall goal.
That said, if you truly do/did not support it, I understand and respect that. Unanimity is not possible, especially when it's as complex as this.
I'll shut up now, but thanks for your comments, Tess.
Speaking of protesting to remove Jordan...
I personally want him to go. After Black Friday, I believe he deserves to be fired. But I agree with you that protesting just to remove him now would be counterproductive. Having him fired for mismanaging the crisis, for his lies and cover-ups would be sooooooooo satisfying, but I'm willing to leave him alone and let him "exit stage right," as you said, on December 31st.
Speaking of protesting to remove Jordan...
I personally want him to go. After Black Friday, I believe he deserves to be fired. But I agree with you that protesting just to remove him now would be counterproductive. Having him fired for mismanaging the crisis, for his lies and cover-ups would be sooooooooo satisfying, but I'm willing to leave him alone and let him "exit stage right," as you said, on December 31st.
Cali-- yeah, I think it's best to just let his departure happen naturally. I do wonder what would happen, though, if the BoT was stupid enough to ask him to stay on longer?
I *really* hope they just head in the other direction and pick an interim president...
Cali-- yeah, I think it's best to just let his departure happen naturally. I do wonder what would happen, though, if the BoT was stupid enough to ask him to stay on longer?
I *really* hope they just head in the other direction and pick an interim president...
Commenting by HaloScan
