When asked for her thoughts about the issues, concerns, and conditions that led to the protests in May, 2006, Dr. Fernandes’s responses conveyed the impression that she did not have a clear idea as to the actual root issues behind the protest, the long-festering consequences of racism and audism on campus.
It's my understanding that there were some discussions on diversity and audism in the past. She was fully versed on the audism issues after that infamous football goalpost fiasco last year where the Gallaudet security guards were unable to communicate with the students. One would think after serving six years as a Provost, she would have a better understanding of the dynamics of Gallaudet University.
"Dr. Fernandes firmly believes that the protest began in May with her selection as 9th president, because the students do not like her or her style of leadership."
Nary a mention about the no vote confidence by the Faculty Senate, nor the establishment of FSSA, indicating that there are three other entities, not just students.
"In responding to a comment about the recent SBG Senate vote of non-compliance, she employed an idiom of disdain in remarking that it appeared that the students were “cutting off their nose to spite their face”.
This isn't good coming from a person appointed to become the students' university president. A president must have confidence and respect in the students she works with. After all, they are the consumers.
Dr. Fernandes framed her approach to addressing the division within our community by encouraging different constituent groups to come together in a “day of reconciliation”-to talk, and begin processes of healing and uniting with each other.
I get the impression there has been countless discussions so far. Gallaudet University needs to see action, not more talks.
She conveyed the idea that those who choose not to participate in administration-led events and processes could be viewed as refusing to cooperate, while those who join in could be seen as the willing and cooperative members of the community.
This statement may be construed as a threat. Do it her way or else. I cannot help thinking about the coxswain analogy she used at NAD convention.
When given examples of incidents representing less than professional or ethical conduct by the current Diversity Fellows, and other personnel with roles in the present administration, Dr. Fernandes’s response was that she could not answer for the behavior of others, and if there were problems, those others needed to be asked about them.
Uh oh, not so good. The leader must take the full responsibility of the actions of its employees. How can one lead an university while not ensuring that its employees do their jobs proficiently and ethically?
During the discourse, it was apparent to each of the faculty members that Dr. Fernandes had obvious and consistent difficulties making important connections and linkages between and among the points that were raised, a weakness that has dire implications with regard to her leadership abilities, or lack thereof
How can one lead the university if this person is unable to exhibit a full awareness of how the university works and what its strengths and weaknesses are?
The faculty members had neither sought nor expected overt agreement to result from this dialogue, but had hoped for at minimum some degree of genuine recognition or understanding of the causes that brought about the formation of the FSSA, and a mutual sharing of where each party stands in order to begin to bridge existing gaps. Not having achieved that goal is extremely disheartening, to say the least, to all of us. Without that understanding, there is little hope for bridging any gaps.
I can understand why they feel this way. It appears they have done their work, but Fernandes hadn't done hers yet, even though she had resigned from her Provost position some time ago to concentrate on her 'Presidential Training".
Any comments?
Comments (6)
That's a good analysis, MishaZena. Fernandes is proving to the world that she is either dishonest or incompetent, or both.
Her stupidity is the reason why she hasn't resigned yet. She has virtually no support from the Gallaudet community, yet she stubbornly persists in the illusion that somehow the problems will be resolved.
No, they won't be resolved. Denial is the key factor here. She seems psychologically incapable of accurately addressing the situation.
The Board of Trustee members and out of touch and do not check blogs or read up on what's happening at Gallaudet. They rely on reading a few e-mails sent to them by Brueggemann, which is just stuff she from Jordan that she re-words and sends out as her own.
I know. I've read some of it. In one e-mail to the Board, Bruggemann stupidly referred to Gallyprotest.org as a "thread on the Internet," instead of understanding that it is a self-standing Web site. Then she went on to say that they would be unable to change the date or location of the "retreat" at the Dulles Hyatt due to the fact that it would be perceived as "flight."
None of these people in the academic cabal really understand what is going on. That's why they are in for a rude, rude awakening when reality finally sets in and they discover that Fernandes is destroying Gallaudet.
Brian
PS The Board members call the stuff from Brueggemann "reading material." Sounds like brainwashing to me. And then the Jordan administration issues press releases on behalf of the Board, which are really press releases from the Jordan administration. Do they think we're idiots?
I agree. This is getting ridiculous. Something need to be done to break this impasse.