At a recent Gallaudet Board of Trustee meeting, a Board member informed the protesters that they have reached a “stalemate.”
The protest position:
Re-open the Presidential Search Process with the removal of the current President-Select
The Board’s position:
We cannot ask Dr. Jane Fernandes to step down as President-Select
Both sides have dug in for the long haul and are resolute on their ultimate demands. Unfortunately, a stalemate has negative repercussions for the entire deaf and hard of hearing community. So much is at stake. A resolution must be reached, and soon.
What can break a stalemate?
Getting To Yes, written by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton says that parties involved in a negotiation perceive a situation as a “stalemate” because they do not consider alternatives.
The subtitle of the book, “Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” sounds like something many of us want to see out of this crisis, a resolution where no one gives in.
The authors say that the problem in any negotiation is bargaining over positions which they call, “positional bargaining” and when it involves many parties; it is next to impossible to reach an agreement. This is happening at Gallaudet.
My favorite example of a successful agreement from the book is:
Consider the story of two men quarreling in a library. One wants the window open and the other wants it closed. They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three quarters of the way. No solution satisfies them both.
Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants the window open: ‘To get some fresh air.’ She asks the other why he wants it closed: ‘To avoid the draft.’ After thinking a minute, she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing fresh air without a draft.
The authors go on to suggest, “For a wise solution, reconcile interests, not positions.”
What are the interests at Gallaudet?
What are the alternatives?
What could “open the window in the other room” to everyone’s satisfaction?
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
31 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think the trustees already tried to offer a satisfactory compromise that would let everyone save face. Fernandes would stay, but the protesters would get meaningful input into the selection of the Provost, no reprisals, and the concerns they raised about diversity, audism, and so forth would be addressed by the whole campus.
The protesters have rejected this compromise, saying in effect that anything but Fernandes’ resignation is unacceptable. This puts the trustees in a hard position, because I don’t think they can legally rescind the offer to Fernandes even if they wanted to.
I think the protests could have been very useful if the protesters were willing to compromise. Now I worry for the future of Gallaudet.
If both trustees and FSSA refuse to compromise, should Congress intervene to break the stalemate? Or a mediator from outside??
Chris,
The Board of Trustee offer may have been “positional bargaining”. In order to reach an agreement, both sides need to find common interests. I do not believe that has happened yet.
HUH? Compromise? What is there to compromise? As soon as students started the protest, the university, IKJ and Jane Fernandez decided to come up with the protesting procedure policy (correct my terms please!). Is that a way to oppress freedom of expression? What is the line in that? Was there a compromise happening? Looks to me that the administration decided to do this without even sitting down with the protestors about their feelings and perspective. Board of Trustees and the administration officers haven’t even make the time to sit down with them, LATELY. They will count the meeting in Spring as the official one, what about more meetings according to students’ wish? What about actually sitting down with the objectors and come up with agreements? Students, in general, have commented that they sent emails asking for the meeting to discuss their concern…and no avail. What is there, I ask you, to compromise, really? Honestly? HUH?
“What is there, I ask you, to compromise, really?”
Well, that was Shane’s question, and it appears your answer is “nothing.” Which means we’re in for a long unpleasant struggle.
Stalemate means checkmate! IKJ would be very wise if he stepped out, begone, and let JKF step in to show true colors. This lame duck leadership is at its worse. We are not very healthy in this manner. It’s sad, sad, sad!
The BoT, IKJ, and JKF hold all the strings, and the protestors are showing themselves to be just a nuisance. GU can go right on having classes and doing business as usual, and the protestors can’t do anything to bring the university to a screeching halt. I believe the trustees have tried to dialogue with the protestors. FSSA just cannot seem to articulate its issues in a straightforward manner. If their behavior on the videos is anything to go by, they are very emotional. Their behavior is a lot more like temperamental teenagers than rational adults, which many of them are, let’s remember that. Like for example, during the interim provost search, SBG and GSA were invited to participate. They chose not to. What happened? IKJ went right ahead with the business at hand and picked Dr. Michael Moore. Everyone seems happy about that. No one is harassing Dr. Moore or smearing his reputation. The next things that are going to happen is that JKF will take the lead in addressing the issues that came up as a result of the protest. If the protestors, again, choose not to participate, then everyone will see that their behavior is like that of spoiled children who are not getting their way. As most parents know, it’s fruitless to negotiate with a child. You can only give them choices .
Curious Eyes,
The protesters are definitely emotional. One interesting thing that the authors of “Getting to Yes” discussed is that during a dialogue to find common interests, everyone must be allowed to “blow their steam” and vent their emotions. And all emotions should be ackowledged as legitimate. Everyone should put themselves in the other person’s shoes to understand where they are coming from.
That hasn’t happened yet.
Exactly. so, when, if ever, will the protestors get beyond emotional and get to rational? I do know that some of their concerns are real and valid. I know what it feels like when it seems that no one listens or even cares. Unfortunately, it’s been a long, long time since I’ve felt that way, because I learned through the school of hard knocks how to both listen and communicate. It’s a two way street. The BoT is listening. Are the protestors communicating? By that, I mean do they know how to state their message so that it can be heard, understood, and accepted? It’s an adult skill that takes years of practice to master. I think JKF’s idea of bringing a professional mediator to GU is a wonderful one. I really hope that the protestors take her up on it. That would be a first step toward real compromise.
Shane, a part of being an adult is being able to control yourself, and let go of your emotions in appropriate situations.
I think it’s unreasonable for us to be asked to acknowledge the protests to be legitimate when they cannot even be coherent about WHY they’re protesting! For a protest to be effective, it needs BOTH emotion and logic, and this protest is sorely lacking in LOGIC!
Couldn’t said it any better. The students should be focusing on how Gallaudet needs to improve - its curriculums, administration-faculty-students relations, and such - and give it to Fernandes to see if she’s up for the job.
I can’t help but wondering if Fernandes decide to step down, who will be the next candidate? My intuition says it will be someone who is more deaf and perhaps less qualified that Fernandes and that will make the students happy. Interesting, eh?
Bottom line for the current stalemate is that Jane Fernandez places herself above Gallaudet. She is making Dr. Elisabeth A. Zinser look better and better each day. Dr. Zinser saw that she did not have the support of FSSA, then humbled herself and chose to step down for the SAKE OF GALLAUDET!!! But what about Dr. Fernandez? She loves herself more than she does for Gallaudet… IF ANY!!!
I’d be interested in learning more about BOT’s offer to compromise, especially pertaining to the search for provost. No reprisals is a given, but I doubt if JKF or anyone in her administration is willing to genuinely address issues about audism, which should have been addressed during the DPN days. I don’t know what the BOT members are thinking, if they really did think JKF can work towards resolving them. She had several years as provost, IJK had many more, to addreess this. “Deaf President Now” wasn’t the only chant heard during the DPN movement. Something like “Born Deaf President Now” also surfaced, and IJK surely heard about this but chose to do nothing to address the concerns of those holding this particular view. Now we are seeing ramifications from this failure to act on not only the language issue but several others as well.
It will be very difficult for many of us sympathetic to the protest to accept JKF as Gallaudet’s president. However, as I said in another post here, the selection of the best possible provost might be key to the resolution. We have to have more than just “meaningful input.” We already gave the BOT “meaningful input” and look what has happened.
Then on top of getting an ASL-signing, (born) Deaf provost, we have an independent audit of Gallaudet finances, the removal of the Jordan names from SAC and the gallery (they do not deserve to be honored in this way and at this time), the appropriate changes to language policy (which can be instituted immediately), among other things. Regarding concerns about diversity, one idea is to establish an independent task force containing mostly of outside experts who will consult and assist the Gallaudet community on this particular matter.
Still we have to get rid of the system created by IJK that has been hurting Gallaudet. If the new provost can bring in a new system, I think many of us will try to press for a resolution. But when will Gallaudet get the provost we all need?
So its is about Jane Fernades not being deaf enough? You want an ASL deaf only as the president of Gally, right?
I’ve been getting many conflicting reasons why there’s a protest vs Jan Fernades.
I’ve been hearing some Deaf complaining about how the Media distorted this as a protest about not being deaf enough. But when I read posts like this, I keep wondering why this instead of her track record as an administrator. I’ve been told it’s less than stellar.
Is the purpose of Gally to serve the deaf all over the world or the ASL deaf only?
I do think that issues like audism should be adressed though.
They want a leader who can lead the D/deaf. Audism, Deafism is merely a distraction from the real issue.
Gallaudet PR Office is playing the “Not Deaf Enough” card because they do not want the issue to focus on finances and if finances is an issue then Congress have to intervene.
Congress is getting a whiff of this now and after the elections then Gallaudet will be in the picture.
Is there a history of funny finances even before the whole protest began? Do you have evidence or documention that will warrant Congress’s attention? That’s a pretty serious accustation to make.
Betenoir:
Check http://www.gufssa.com for information that leads to the protest that we’re seeing now. Update yourself if you are willing to go all the way from the start on that website. Hope this helps.
There is a way out of the stalemate: the action of Congress!
The statement from Thomas Humphries caliming that the BoT cannot handle the situation anymore (this is the meaning of ’stalemate’) is an open admission of missing authority. Therefore all authority should be taken over by the overseer: the Congress.
Congress may suspend the designate and re-open the presidential search with Congress supervision. Meantime, a temporary Board may be created by those Board members who showed a minimum level of commitment to democratic principles during the crisis. Those Board members who intimidated others by totalitarian attitude into submission to Jordan’s Cosa Nostra, should be eliminated from the Board!
An overall investigation of Jordan’s reign of 18 years as president should be initiated. The reasons for failure of education at Gallaudet University must be identified and responsibility assigned. The Board must be reformed along the lines of inclusivity and more autonomy for the Deaf.
Overall, the Middle Age-type Byzantine power structure of the institution must aligned with the needs of the 21st century. Deaf people deserve the best! We are no nore satified with the so-so quality so natural under the conditions of colonization.
We refuse to be colonized by Audism. We demand
1. empowerment,
2. more autonomy and
3. social justice
for the Deaf, especially for the Deaf at Gallaudet University now!
The Gallaudet protests have intensified greatly to the point it’s making a mockery of the deaf rights movement. In 1988, deaf pride was given a huge boost with the Deaf President Now. Now what is it? Deaf Protest Now? What good is coming out of the Gallaudet protests? Theyre protesting a president because she’s not deaf enough. The HLA (SHHH) folks are very upset over the protest.
So you want to send Congress and the public the message that deaf people cannot manage their own affairs. We need hearing people (Congress) to step in like benevolent caretakers and make sure our squabbles are sorted out. Isn’t that the definition of colonialism? Is that really how we want to position ourselves?
Also, you seem to forget that last spring a member of Congress came to Kendall Green and reviewed the search process. He declared JKF very qualified.
Also last spring, the FSSA sent letters to all members of Congress. Did you see any action coming out of that?
Congress has a war to worry about, an environmental disaster(global warming), and many other major issues. I doubt they see the Gallaudet protests as a very big priority.
The protesters and the administration should work out a compromise solution as soon as possible for the good of Gallaudet and all the deaf community.
No, we want to go to Congress to remove the roadblocks preventing us from managing our affairs effectively.
Testing_the_Truth: you’re Deaf?
He, Testing_the_Truth, is hard of hearing
Zoltan is hard of hearing?
yes. Zoltan was working in Gallaudet for 10 years. (I think)
I knew he was at Gally…just never thought of him as “hard of hearing”.
Yes I am! I worked at Gally 7 years.
Remind me again why the Board of Trustees refuse to reopen the search process - I assume it’s because of the legal ramifications that Fernandes may cause toward the university or….?
A possible alternative - allowing a “trial & error” period for Fernandes - which she would address or change whatever the protestors are demanding for? If she did not succeed within a specified timeframe, then perhaps the university would consider reopening the search process? This way, this would obviously force Fernandes to work her ass off to prove herself in which I believe she deserves a chance - despite her awkward signing abilities.
But on the other hand, I have this feeling that this alternative may not work. I can’t explain why though, but it’s what my intuition says. Anyone?
I assume that they didn’t want to be castrated, to lose all power.
Who will be truly qualified to be the meditator(s) for both parties, FSSA and the Gallaudet BOTs?
Meditators themselves must be natively fluent in ASL and deeply acquainted with deaf culture and history. So all the parties at the bargaining table will be well-represented.
RLM
The U.S. Congress are in the middle of the midterm election which hang to the control of power helm toward either parties.
Why we always say “Congress” to solve the Galladuet problems? I am sure that we could find several people to rebutt and mediate the tennis volleys between the FSSA and Gallaudet BOTs.
I personally embrace the recent student protest actions which are very overdue for many years.
The so-called deaf rights movement of the post-DPN era are purely “band-aid” solutions improvised and dictated by the likes of IKJ and individuals whose slowly suffocate the existence of culturally deaf people.