I have two request from the community. One, do not give up. Two, begin to ask Gallaudet University to justify the fact that a white man with masters is more qualified than a black man with a Ph.D. To this day, I have never heard a reason to justify that.
This is the message to the person who used my name…do not lose hope for victory is close.
With best regards,
Noah Beckman
SBG President
How cowardly.
The very same man who told a dissenting student group of color back in April, “Sorry, we must follow the majority, based on polls, the majority wants the process to continue, so the SBG cannot support your fight about Glenn”, is now claiming to be concerned about the same thing.
Quick quiz — who is the majority on campus, numberwise?
Of course, white people.
Who are the minority to begin with, numberwise?
People of color. Well, duh!
Thank you, Student Body Government (SBG), for faithfully representing “everyone”. I mean, “the majority”.
And now he is highlighting Dr. Glenn Anderson as a reason to be involved in this protest?
Tsk tsk. How very convenient.
Do you, by chance, remember, back in April, a group called Coalition of Organizations for Students of Color (COSC)?
COSC was started by Black Deaf Students Union (BDSU), Asian Pacific Association, International Students Club (ISC), with external support of National Black Deaf Advocates (NBDA) and some staff members of color. (Latino students and Rainbow Society, for some reason I do not know, refused to be a part of COSC…FSSA yes, but not COSC.)
If you will re-read the eloquent position papers COSC and NBDA issued, nowhere in these documents did they call for Fernandes to resign. They didn’t have beef with Fernandes. Even when they were on FSSA, they did not ask for that demand.
Fast forward to today.
Is BDSU even part of the FSSA?
No.
In fact both the past and current Presidents of BDSU are opposed to this fictitious protest. There are no BDSU representatives on the FSSA today.
Is NBDA part of this protest calling for JK to resign?
No.
And I know this because I am the Vice President of a NBDA chapter with direct contact with the NBDA Board.
Is Asian Deaf Congress part of this protest calling for JK to resign?
No.
Representative of APA Aryln P. resigned from FSSA for the same reason Representative of BDSU David King resigned — they saw the FSSA in its true light. The light wasn’t pretty.
Only ISC is still with FSSA, but that is no longer “COSC”.
Huh? What happened?
Do you not find it rather odd that this “protest” is “supposedly” about social justice, about combating racism and audism…and you cannot tell me that organizations for deaf people of color with long history of experiencing racism are even endorsing this “protest”!
What’s wrong with the picture?
You do not even have the original COSC involved in this fictitious protest supposedly “fighting for” the very thing they believe in, social justice!
Perhaps because we aren’t fooled. Even David King, a COSC leader, former FSSA member, and now currently anti-protest leader, got a email from Frances Kendall, the author of the book White Privilege, complimenting him and calling this protest the height of white privilege and an example of racism and audism! Imagine that…a noted expert of racism and audism is not fooled about the fictitious reasons being perpetrated!
This is a FSSA/SBG/Football Players/GUAA/(fill in the blanks) “protest” hijacking the original reasons from COSC, coz “we’ve had enough of the racism, audism, oppression” sure sounded a lot better than “we don’t like her and her leadership style. We wanna turn back time, back to April!” Even went as far as to stealing the black coffin concept from COSC!
Ask yourself — from the announcement of the three finalists to the announcement of Jane Fernandes, where was the FSSA? Where was the SBG? Where, oh indeed, where were the same protestors now occupying HMB calling for “social justice”, to dismantle racism and audism?
Answer:
They didn’t want to join the protest called for by the Coalition. When explained the Dr. Glenn Anderson - Ron Stern discrepancy, the responses ran from : “Well, maybe Dr. Glenn bombed the interview”, “Doctorate degrees are passe anyway, Ray Kroc of McDonalds didn’t have a college education but look what he did for America!”, “Maybe he was too old, this position *is* stressful, you know…”, “I heard he has a history of illness. That’s why he missed the ceremony for I.J.King last year.” (Guess what, I asked Dr. Anderson about this and he told me that in his 16 years of service, he has never missed one Board meeting, and the reason he was not at the said event was because he had food poisoning!) This silly speculation ride went on and on for two to three weeks prior to the announcement of Jane Fernandes.
But the most damaging one and the true reason for the resistance went something like this:
“Yes it does seem odd, but I really want Ron Stern, he’d be great for Gallaudet, and I don’t want to stop the process, may never get this opportunity to get him.”
Guess who said this last statement? Ryan Commerson, one of the most vocal current protest’s leaders, as told to David King, who in turn shared that with me the same day. And today, we feel like vomiting everytime we see Mr. Ryan Commerson in his vlogs lecturing the public about the “-isms”, about the right for social justice. Coming right out of the hypocrite’s mouth.
To add injury to insult, the SBG told us that they’d hold a *political* student rally to reconsider this and the rally turned out to be a light-hearted pep rally calling for the process to not be interfered with because the summer was coming and they wanted to know now.
FSSA wasn’t even formed until May 2nd, after the announcement of Jane Fernandes as President.
NBDA set up a press conference and asked the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) to stand with them to call for the process to be halted. The NAD said no, they must maintain neutrality, which is fine. I just wanted to point out that no other national or local organization of and by the deaf other than Asian Deaf Congress (if my memory serves me correctly) and Atlanta Black Deaf Advocates (which I am the Vice President of) came out in support of the original protest by students of color.
NBDA issued these two position papers:
http://www.nbda.org/images/download/NBDA_Position_paper.pdf
http://www.nbda.org/images/download/NBDA_Logo_3.pdf
The bottom line — with a few exceptions, the very same protestors you are seeing now, calling for a re-do of the process for “social justice” are the same people who either were on the fence or did not want to join the original protest…until Jane Fernandes was announced as the 9th President of Gallaudet University.
This is why I oppose this protest, because it has nothing to do with what they claim to be fighting for. In my opinion, this protest is an extreme case of sore losers not willing to accept what they reaped — pushing on the process hoping to get either Mr. Stern or Dr. Weiner. Sorry, like Michael Moore wasn’t fooled about the WMD in Iraq, I am not fooled about the various hidden agendas covered by empty social justice rhetoric.
Kristi Merriweather is a deaf high school teacher for the deaf in Atlanta and Vice President of Atlanta Black Deaf Advocates. A visitor to my abode will find a friendly tabby cat, an outdated Sorenson VP-100, antique hearing aids from the early 1980s, and too many books and shoes. She loves traveling when the moola is right.
© 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.
Repost-
I will admit that it is a nice counter-argument. Tell me if I’m wrong but I detected in the tone of your comment that you praised David King to the heavens. I guess it’s nice to have a sexist in lieu racist or “audist” on your side:
“Look at me into my eyes, I am David King and who the hell you think you are? Who the f**ks are your sl*ts? Name them or get lost with your cheap blackmailing and character assaulting.”
Isn’t it? Even as a Ayn Rand conservative female, it insults me. From here, David King is losing his credibility as a “leader” in the political-battling climate and my respect, assuming that it’d mean anything to you or that leader.
Every leader has their dark side. Hadn’t someone said that beggars cannot be choosers?
Although, you had presented a nice counter-argument.
Hi Jean,
Praising him to high heavens? I dunno about that, wasn’t my goal here, but hey. Yes I did mentioned his name a lot here, in order to be transparent as I can be as about where I have gotten this information from. After all, I *am* in Atlanta, you know. Many of these information came from seeing stuff on the Internet and direct email interaction via my trusty Sidekick which looks like it’s due for a replacement soon, but the rest (e.g. SBG’s stance) had to come from somewhere. I must have reliable sources, and David has proven to be one of them. He was appointed by BDSU to be their “spokesperson/negotiator” with various student groups, including SBG, that was how he got to see what they were really rooting for. He wasn’t even interested in this presidential process at first, he was just helping out BDSU, who were, as many of us were, very upset about the final three. I do not think he predicted to be where he is now, seven months later.
Despite certain tones at times, his word has been backed up by my other sources who, because of their position at Gallaudet, cannot be outspoken or to be revealed as a source. You can see that I choose to focus on the content.
Of course, leaders are human beings and human beings all have a dark side, I am a leader right now and I admit at times I’ve shown my bitchy side. But I keep workin’ at it. Our free will is where we decide which side will win out in every circumstances.(Dang, I wished Anakin resisted the Dark Side…but all went well with the Force at the end, didn’t it? hmmm…)
Hi KBM. Ha ha, I know there’ll be a Star Wars reference as a response to my comment. Anyway, I reckon I was a little harsh on you in reference to the “praise” comment. I shouldn’t have done that but otherwise, I’m still standing by my response above. You can read more below where I responded to Julie Feldman’s comment to expound my argument.
Referring to the sources you adduced in your post. Last summer, the one thing I learned when I had a position in the Public Policy Research in Sociopolitical area as a summer job [like everyone else, I need some extra bucks] for a Republican Secretary of State is what I saw or heard in a political climate wasn’t always what transpired in public. Sorry, that was a subtle riddle but to clarify it, the sources you referred to may only reveal to you to serve or benefit their political purposes. Or economical purposes.
While not agreeing with your position on the protest, I admired you for standing up and believing in what you think is right thing for yourself or the future. And thank you for telling us what the other story of the protest is. In spite of that, it, of course, hasn’t changed my mind or heart. The frenzy ASL-hating/Deaf culture-hating mentality on the other side (it does NOT apply to the protest or part of it and Fernandes’s paradoxical leadership) has slightly radicalized me and, naturally, because of that, I’m wary of them and scared for my future offsprings. Had they not showed any respect or neighborly consideration for d/Deaf or their choices who wish to adopt ASL as their communication language, FSSA’s movement is my only choice to safeguard the future for my offsprings if they’re born Deaf.
Bonne chance (Good luck).
I do not agree with your implication that those on the “other side” who may oppose the protest are “ASL-hating/Deaf culture-hating” people.
I realize that you said the label does not “apply” to the protest. It can be inferred from your statement that the FSSA is the movement safeguarding future deaf offspring.
Yes, there are some, “ASL-hating/Deaf culture-hating” people. That is unfortunate. They need to open their minds and hearts.
And I must note that some people consider some of the protesters and their websites as “frezied” and full of “hating”. There are extremists on *both* sides who are not helping the current crisis.
A positive, not destructive, outcome for both sides must be reached for the sake of the entire community.
Hi Shane. I believe I implied clearly enough that my comment wasn’t referring to people who opposed the protest. I was referring to the frenzy ASL-hating/Deaf culture-hating people who commented at various weblogs, expressing their abhorrence towards pro-ASL, pro-Deaf culture, et al. There is no way to interpret my statement differently.
I’m pretty sure that my eyes weren’t lying to me. =P
On “extremists” statement, I already commented on that part below: “I daresay we can argue that there is no difference between the extremists in the FSSA and anti-Gallaudet protest groups.”
And last but not least, as you mentioned, “It can be inferred from your statement that the FSSA is the movement safeguarding future deaf offspring.”
True but the FSSA noticably expressed their unanimous support for Deaf’s rights to adopt ASL as their communication language. That’s only the path I see from here. Or unless I missed something here?
Jean,
Fair enough. I misunderstood you.
There is no difference between the extremists on both sides, we can agree on that. I hope we can agree that those extremists are not helping matters. I may even venture to assume that extremists have more control over both sides of the conflict than they should.
There are individuals who want to see a positive outcome and their voices have been drowned out by the shouting and attention-grabbing antics of the extremists.
On another point, you said “FSSA’s movement is my only choice to safeguard the future for my offsprings if they’re born Deaf.” The FSSA is not your only choice, there are organizations, places of education, and movements that have advocated a deaf child’s right to learn ASL.
Jean,
Irrelevant. That’s like saying we shouldn’t take anything you say (about these protests) seriously because you’re hearing.
Very well said, Jane! David King has an attitude of an arrogant bully. His view of women is outrageous. The guy has zero credibility.
Zoltan, you are known for criticizing David King all around. It is like David’s name is a plague to you. The more you criticize David King for no cause, the more you are destroying your own credibility. If as an adult, you have nothing good to say about someone, it is wiser to remain silence and say nothing. From what I understand, your relationship with David was student and teacher level. So you really do not know his private life. From what I have seen and read so far, David remains a great leader in our community. As Kristi said, we have our dark side. I do and I can be very bitchy. I agree that protesters are not being fair to David King since he step down. All names calling against him will not a make open-minded or neutral minded person to think that the protesters were honest. I agree that David never predicted he would be in this situation.
Jean, I do understand your feeling. If you are looking for a prefect leader and leadership in David King or anywhere, then you will be disappointed. Do we judge a leader and their capability to lead by one mistake? I agree David’s poor chose of words like “S**t” was unfortunate. Maybe if you quote the content on ridorlive that angered David King should help. This is not an excuse, yet as any leader should do, he apologized. Bill Clinton lied to court about Monica Lewinski but he is still a great leader today. President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq and yet is voted for second term. Basically what I am saying is that, we should be fair to David if we honestly want to preach social justice and fairness.
You do have a point and I can’t argue with you regarding the great leaders who had their own faults, flaws and bad moments. However I understand that there is more to David King than we thought or “heard”. But that’s the other webloggers’ speculation where I wouldn’t encourage myself and others to argue about. Recently, I pushed the argument I made below to respond to Julie’s comment. I’d guess you’d disagree with the point I made but we can always agree to disagree.
And you’re right that it was my mistake for not quoting the Ridor’s comment. Thank you for pointing it out.
Jean, thank you for being honest here. I have known David King for quite sometime and I do know he have some shortcomings and at some points, I disagree with him. But one thing I can say to you if you had a chance to meet with David King and sit down with him, is that you will find him to be very open minded, pleasant, honest and friendly. He admits when he is wrong without making excuses. You are right about webloggers’ speculation. What we all can agree upon is that if David King has not left FSSA, name calling would have not occurred. Now how are we going to justify their accusations on David? How fair are the accusations? It is for you to decide. Ask people who are talking about David King if David has done anything against them personally? Why are they busy talking about him and his private life? Simple because he disagreed with NOT the protest but the approach and tactics of the protest? I understand that Zoltan (testing_the_truth) discovered his academic performance on gallynet just because he disagreed with David’s position on protest. Zoltan have describled David as a very intelligent, brilliant, strong and determined student. But still he is calling David names because he have personal goals to score through the protest. How sad? I was made to understand that Zoltan is on reprisal mission because he was denied tenure by Gallaudet administration. That is why I suggested that his continual attack on David is destroying his own credibility.
“Look at me into my eyes, I am David King and who the hell you think you are? Who the f**ks are your sl*ts?”
I am sorry to say but this is what David uttered at a blog and it has nothing to do with me of any other person who writes here. It is all about David, who holds this particulat view of women. This is abhorrent!
As I’ve said before: Zoltan is in no position to speak objectively on the topic, and he’s once again proven he can’t.
Who is Zoltan? Your spouse or something?
If it was I was going to suggest two of you go see a marriage counselor.
Zoltan Szekely, PhD, was a math instructor at Gallaudet. He was an international faculty who lost his job because he was denied tenure at Gallaudet University, which technically implied that his performance is unsatisficatory, for the university to consider him tenure. You will understand why he is very bitter against anyone who probably dont stand well for the protesters. Thanks
Lol, Nicky, I see you cut back you slanderous vice. Vey good. Still, not sufficient. You I was fired from Gallaudet, I have never made a secret out of it. But it is the other way around: I was fired because I opposed the practices of Gallaudet administration.
And Nicky, I am so sorry, but the protestors don’t even know who I am. They protest because of me, okay? But the know who Jane Fernandes is, and this make them protest. You just need some reality check on this, okay?
Now I let you steam yourself further on in your vices.
They don’t protest because of me, okay?
Umm, zoltan? Nicky didn’t say they did.
Zoltan:
Sorry about that I was not aware of your situation at Gallaudet. What Gallaudet techers need is a union and protection for all faculty members.
Too many faculty members forgot to duck when Jane was swinging her ax.
She also keeps other people now to swing the ax. One is Karen Kimmel her ‘ax-sister’ whom she appointed to Dean during the summer recess 2 years ago. Familiar method?
One reason faculty is so much against Fernandes is that they know: if Jane is the president, then her ilks will take control at each and every level axing whomever they can reach.
KBM,
Entirely on target but the common thread is dislike, distrust and disrespect for Fernandes. Don’t let their snubbing of blacks blind you to that. You don’t have to like their true reasons or their tactics to agree with what they are trying to achieve.
Honey, we have a reason to criticize Fernandes, okay? The goverment has a reason to criticise academic affairs at Gallaudet. She has to go.
You may hide your head in the sand, you only make yourself look funny.
I hear you, you have a reason to criticize Fernandes. Be aware that not everyone shares your opinion of Fernandes. I am not denying that the academic affairs needed to be addressed. It is a valid concern requiring much more solutions than a simplistic “resign, JK”. My posting is about the fact that people, including those who are so concerned about Fernandes being detrimental to Galladuet, did not fight to halt the process in its tracks.
You spoke about the past six years, because you know that our actions in the past *does* have consequences. Same principle here. Even if we don’t succeed in halting the process, at least we can say without doubt we are doing this because the process was flawed, period, not because we ended up with Fernandes instead of the other two candidates.
We are going around complaining about Fernandes, demanding she resign, and all the while we’re doing that, we’re missing the big inclusive picture that everyone, including COSC and FSSA, would have agreed upon…stop the flawed process not because it has Fernandes in it, but because it is flawed period!
Dateline segment:
“I hear that you are very disturbed that a black man with a PhD was passed over for a white man. That is one of the reasons the process is considered as flawed. I’d like to know more. I’ve heard charges that the protestors allowed the flawed process to continue. By the way, may I also speak with the leaders of the original protest (COSC)?
(What are you gonna say then?)
“I can introduce you to the ISC representative on FSSA.”
“Yes, and COSC too, right? I want to get an accurate picture of what happened before … (looking at notes) May 2nd, before FSSA came into being.”
“Um, um, things have changed, there is no COCS. We’re still united. Our numbers continue to grow. Bottom line is, Fernandes cannot lead Galladuet! She has caused a decline in academic quality on campus for six years as Provost. The faculty voted no confidence in her. She is an incompetent leader! The BOT is not listening to us. We have been oppressed by IKJ and JK long enough and we have had enough! Time for JK to resign!”
“Yes, I understand that. Now, I’m hearing from the other side, the counter-protesters if you will, they claim that this protest is being used as a Monday morning quarterbacking to “redo” a process that was relatively unchallenged by the general campus. What do you say to that?”
“Um, we were wrong, we did…ignored them at the beginning, and we were blinded by our hope we would be heard and that Stern–er, I mean, Dr. Weiner–would be selected.”
“But I’m confused. I thought you said the process was flawed? So are you saying that, by if Dr. Weiner had been selected, that would make the process, um, “unflawed” or “legitimiate”?
“Yes,er..no, no,no! It’d still be flawed! We demand JK to resign so the process can be reopened!”
“…?Okay. Back in April, when you had the three finalists, including Fernandes in which you are calling as incompetent and Mr. Stern in which you are claiming as largely unqualified, can you explain what steps did the student body including alumni and faculty,in general,take as measures to halt this flawed process? I understand that there was a pep rally as well?”
“Well, yeah, we… there was a group called “notwithoutus” and we also developed evaluation forms and attended the candidates’ forums and made it clear that we favored, um, certain candidates,and we were sure we’d be listened to and..”
“Excuse me, evaluation forms? But I thought you said the process was flawed- why proceed with evaluation forms, unless you…never mind. And the faculty?”
“Oh, yes, the faculty overwhelming voted no confidence in Fernandes!How can she lead without the faculty!?”
“Ah, okay, so they also overwhelming called for the process to be halted?”
“Um…not really, not yet at that point, but later on…yeah.”
(Uncomfortable silence).
“And, I believe the alumni, some of them, made vlogs - you know visual blogs, we sign instead of typing - talking about how it’s time to stop the oppression and time for a deafcentric president to run the University, and …”
“Excuse me, I’m sorry but, can you explain to me what “deafcentric” means…”
“Positive promoter of ASL and Deaf Culture, seeing things from a deaf perspective”
“Ah and Fernandes, who (flipping through notes) is tenured in American Sign Language,…”
(Note that we keep getting off the track of the flawed process premise…)
blah blah blah blah blah
End interview.
Commentator #1: And so there you have it, Gallaudet University finds itself still embroiled in an upheaval as a result of a flawed process that was, for some odd reason, continued to proceed largely unchallenged by the majority toward its end. I must say, Hugh, I’m still confused about this protest’s aim. For one thing, my conversations with several of the original protestors, who called themseles Coalition of Organizatons of Students of Color, are no longer part of this protest and,in fact, some of them have indeed characterized this as an extreme case of sore losers. They issued this following statement involving an attachment of a position paper they sent, accussing the search committee and the Board for not practicing diversity and calling for the process to be redone. (statement read)
Commentator #2: I am confused as well too. I remember covering the DPN with Rather and Jennings, I remember how when everybody was clear about what the issues were. And the outcome was so different too, a happier one. Well, I hope for a peaceful resolution for Galladuet soon.
And, now it’s time to move on to the next story…
P.S.- According to the BDSU president, LaToya is not a BDSU member, so there is still no BDSU representative on FSSA.
Tell it KBM,
That is tantamount to saying it is ok for hearing people to leave deaf people behind in terms of accessibility because they are trying to achieve something bigger.
Isn’t the FSSA Slogan “Unity for Gallaudet”? The organization has excluded the very group that planted the seed for the protest against the *search process*.
Your logic is correct, it would seem. However,
The issues at Gallaudet have kept growing in numbers. It is difficult to identify which ones are valid, but they all hold a commonality: Rejection of Fernandes.
For the BDSU to say the protestors were/are exclusionary is understandable. For KBM to say she therefore supports Fernandes, however, is to treat this issue as two-sided: light & dark, good & bad, and so forth. If you are against Fernandes, it doesn’t have to mean you are for the FSSA.
The BDSU was among the first to protest (at the University).
AND among the first to back out (not because of the University but because of the other protestors).
They gave up faster than anyone, and for a reason I don’t agree with. Disagreeing with concurrent protests is not a reason to abandon your fight.
For KBM to posit that because the BDSU is not with FSSA she is with Fernandes, is not my kind of logic.
Now, the discontentment with FSSA: the longer you have been away, the wider the chasm between you and them will get, inevitably. Who would expect any faction to stay close to your goals without your input to steer them? They need to hear from the BDSU; the BDSU needs to tell them; KBM is taking potshots thinking she is achieving something.
I do not think that KBM incidated that she is for or against Dr. Jane Fernandes. Correct me if I am wrong.
Your assessment is probably correct, all of the current protesters hold one commonality, “Rejection of Fernandes.”
Perhaps the protest would have a larger following and base of supporters it the message was focused on the search process, which KBM (and perhaps the BDSU) felt was flawed?
I agree. Merriweather makes a very salient point in her analysis. Accurate in many ways.
Thank you for sharing your enlightened viewpoint on this affair.
Thank you Kristi. You were eloquent last spring, and you’re eloquent now.
I am loving this. LOVING THIS. Because these extremists have just killed the very thing they were trying to save. Now, no parent will think twice about mainstreaming their deaf kids.
I should say hearing parents but the vast majority are hearing anyway.
Now the whole world can see for itself that the deaf community is not one big happy family. It’s the most petty, hateful, judgemental, and vindicative group of people who ever walked the face of the earth but hey, thats what happens when you isolate yourself away from the world - you don’t know how to act or get along with anyone, not even yourselves.
And I hope these kids realize being arrested will show up on a background report when you apply for a job. Break the law, you will pay the price. How hard is that to understand? How will you justify that on your interview?
Q: why were you arrested?
A: she doesn’t say hi!
Hilarious! I need a chuckle once in a while amidst the storm of controversy.
Yes, it looks like we ignored you in the beginning.
We shouldn’t have. The process should have been halted right there before it was narowed down.
However, whatever our reasons…don’t you agree that the process was flawed and that it needs to be reopened?
Do you agree that JKF needs to go now?
Sure, hate us…call us hypocrites…but JFK has to go!
[…] DeafDC has been a great source of information lately, including the posts Fictitious Protest for Fictitious Reasons and Worlds Apart. To say that the deaf community’s sidekicks are blazing and blogs everywhere are going back and forth on this issue is to put it mildly. We are all affected by this. […]
So be also affected, please, by 135 brave youngsters who were arrested last night for making a stand and peacefully protesting. Would you???
I would dispute with the term, “peacefully”, and I would also dispute excluding the fact that they were breaking the law.
Lol!! Let me tell you Kristi, what IS the real fictious about the situation:
Jane Kelleher Fernandes had six full years as Provost to improve Gallaudet education. But she chose to do nothing. Even worse, she caused previously un-fathomable damage to the academic life by pushing down admission standards, promoting a hatred toward sciences and punishing those faculty who achieve. This anti-academic incompetence was duly recognized by official governmental reports widely available on Internet. HAVE YOU HEARD OF THEM, HONEY???
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/......2005.html
http://www.ed.gov/about/report.....audet.html
Now, Jane says she wants to improve academics as President. Wow! Who will believe her? It is too little too late. She should have worked on this BEFORE applying for President. But she chose to waste six precious years, and waste a generation of Gallaudet students on the altars of her incompetence. She is no more than a fictious president for a fictious university, that does not exist. Not at Gallaudet, for sure.
Too bad, if you snooze for 3 weeks, what did you think was going to happen? Of course the adage is, you snooze, you lose. If you really felt Fernandes was gonna to do Gally grave harm, then I guess you should have done your protest early, no?
Especially when you had no guarantee that a man with a masters and neglible higher ed adminstration experience was gonna be picked over two finalists with experience and a PhD, so technically, it was really more of a 50-50 race between JK and Dr. Weiner.
But no matter. I’ve stated repeatedly, the process was already flawed, yet the “majority” of the current protestors made the fatal decision of not attempting to halt the process between the time of the selection of the three finalists and the announcement of J. Fernandes. Watch the pep rally video, and remind me what did they say. Enlighten us. Did they say the process is flawed? (Silence.) Or perhaps you were crossing your finger for one of the other two candidates of an already flawed process to be selected?
Dunno…hope not.
But one thing is quite *clear* to me and several people- if Weiner or Stern had been selected, there would have never been a “protest” like this! Is anybody out there willing to challenge the probability of this specific statement?
Yes, I knew all about the report, back then in May, no need for me to read it again now. Even with that report’s existence, these protestors out there on the outside, willing to brave the cold temperatures and jail, still failed to lift a finger to join a protest.
Your comments focusing on Fernandes’ faults, Fernandes this and Fernandes that, and nothing about the flawed final three tells me that you are being unhappy about the *outcome* of a flawed process your protestors technically and indirectly *supported* by allowing it to mechanically march on without this kind of resistance I am now seeing. Well, too darn bad. A day late and a dollar short. Social justice, yeah, right.
I still stand by my characterization of this as a fictitious protest for fictitious reasons.
Kristi, you know exactly that we started the protest early. we protested in April, in May, all Summer long, in September and in October. You are funny to claim that we did not protest enough. And it is not yet over! We’ll continue until Fernandes was gone!
You live in a fictious world of your own fantasies.
KBM asks a very good question that should be answered:
“But one thing is quite *clear* to me and several people- if Weiner or Stern had been selected, there would have never been a “protest” like this! Is anybody out there willing to challenge the probability of this specific statement?”
not me! KBM, you nailed it when you said the protestors are unhappy with the outcome of the selection, not the process. that’s it in a nutshell, and it’s clear as day to those of us on the outside looking in. I don’t know why the protestors still believe that anybody is being fooled.
Ditto. And the one thing that’s getting to be a bit tiring is the constant belittling and derisiveness against those who have an opinion about the protest. If those who do have an ax to grind for whatever reasons, don’t show them here in all of its subtleties aimed at people here in this forum.
I also have a question: If Glenn Anderson is in the final three, but then Jane is selected anyway, would there been an outcry from black students? Would there been a protest? Just ponder before you shoot a quickie for this one.
I seriously doubt it, and it has nothing to liking or disliking Fernandes but about the perception that diversity was given a fair fight.
Fernandes/Anderson/Weiner (or anyone else like Rosen, Scroggins) = equivalent experiences, all doctorate degree holders. *Fair fight*.
Fernandes/Weiner/Stern = What the??? HOLD THE PRESS!!!
You are badly mistaken if you think the only problem was that Stern did not have a Ph.D. You refuse to see the flawed process in full complexity, which has Dr. Anderson’s case as one important but not the only point.
If Dr. Anderson is in the final three and Jane wins over him, then the process would be the same way flawed, and there would have been a loud outcry.
*cough**cough*bs*cough**cough*
Had Anderson won, nobody..nada..would’ve objected to the “flawed process”. The Admin wouldn’t have been investigated. Or have an independent inquiry. Etc..
Nyquil, please.
You make me curious. At what point would you find flawedness if Anderson won? When how, why?
TTT, actually the onus would be on you to point them out since you are the one saying all along that it was a flawed process from the start to the end and thus have not answered KBM’s question:
“But one thing is quite *clear* to me and several people- if Weiner or Stern had been selected, there would have never been a “protest” like this! Is anybody out there willing to challenge the probability of this specific statement?”
We’re waiting……
Also, saying “honey” (twice) to another female poster here is a sign of disrespect in the context you’ve written lately. It is certainly not used as a term of endearment here. That’s for sure. Let’s not insult our intelligence with an excuse reply.
“We protested in April…and in October?” Who is this “we” that you are referring to? COSC or FSSA? If it was COSC, it started in April, some days after the announcement of the final three, was at its peak at the time of the announcement of Fernandes. After that, slowly each player withdrew throughout the summer, culminating in late August/early September (can’t remember which) when David (for BDSU) and Aryln (for APA) sent open letters explaining about their resignation from FSSA. They cited being disillusioned and in conflict with how FSSA was handling things.
If it was FSSA you are referring to, sorry, history have recorded them as publicly emerging in some rally on May 2nd, 2006.
I personally started to protest at the beginning of April at the annual Congressional Baskedball Game in the Fields House.
I’m confused, can you elaborate on this? You protested about exactly what- the process itself or? And you protested individually or with a group, what? Not with FSSA- it’s not possible because there was no FSSA until May 2nd, which is what I thought your argument was about. You never stated who the “we” you are referring to.
I protested an educational policy that was the trademark of Jane Fernandes as Provost.
By the beginning of April it was clear that the quality of education won’t be an issue at the presidential search. Everybody who was not studip could see that the criteria list was custom tailored to fit Fernandes. The first 4 or 5 criteria did not have anything to do with education. The PART failure, the direct proof of Jane’s painful incompetence in academic affairs was pushed out of sight.
There was a group of concerned faculty who saw that Jordan is pushing Jane for president. They tried to block this in the Faculty Senate. That is how the poll came about by the wisdom of Senate Vice Chair Lois Bragg at the end of April. This poll is large asset for the protest now.
I belonged to the group of concerned faculty but I did not work in the Faculty Senate. I protested the educational policy at the annual Congressional basketball game by distributing flyers to U.S. Congressmen and Senators who came to play the basketball game. I also handed out many flyers to students.
In April a student group named “Not Without Us” also intensified its demand of participation in the presidential selection. There were many signs of unrest and justified concern, among them the fact the Dr. Anderson was eliminated.
The eruption happened on May 1st when Fernandes was announced. It was a very natural thing to happen after the concerns and worries in April were not remedied.
You are for a lost cause by pushing this “too late” mantra. The full-fledged protest started just about the right time.
I see. This (Congressional basketball/flyers)are news to me, actually. I cannot comment on it as I was unaware of that.
The “notwithoutus.org” was a pro-Stern group, masquarerating as a neutral group for students. Mr. Commerson was one of the leaders of that group, I’ve already stated what he told David when he met with him about COSC. Enough said.
What I do know is that with my numerous appeals to the Gallaudet community via gallylnet, people were playing the silly speculation game. When asked why they were dragging their feet, someone told me that it is better to wait until the announcement and see who won, that’s what DPN did.
HUH????? Can someone explain to me the wisdom of this move?
Take it for what you like. For me, their choice to wait to “erupt” on May 1st only casted it in a “sore loser”’s light.
KBM,
You are more than correct. Notwithoutus.org was purely working for Mr. Ron Stern. There was never any concern about elimination of Dr. Glenn Anderson, except the one rose by students of color and few faculty like Laurene Simms and Staff like Darian Slemo, Lindsay, Mark, etc that show true concerns over Glenn’s elimination. Zoltan’s flyers have nothing to do with protest, nothing to do with Glenn, nothing to do with Presidential Search process. The only group that protests is the students of color. I hope this clear some misinformation. Zoltan was asking for call of better education, which can occur under Stern or Weiner or Fernandes’ administration.
The faculty voted in 2/3 that Fernandes was UNACCEPTABLE. How many times do you have to be reminded? It was a full fledged opposition in April. It was a clear indication of the faculty’s assessment of the process.
Black students claim priority in protesting against the elimination of Dr. Anderson. They may be right tin this particular point. Then some black students split and claim that by priority they have the right to betray the protest altogether, denounce and cry foul of other people who protest.
But I can’t see at all where this right is coming from. From where?? If I see a murder and cry out ‘murder’ then later I cannot say this was not a murder, just because I cried out ‘murder’ first. Please, don’t be such a baby. This does not make sense at all.
You folks, who are still harping on the timeline of the protest, are daydreaming somewhere on the moon. Dream sweet!
My flyers: I particularly protested against Jane Fernandes’ trademark educational policy of destroying academic standards. I did not know who Ron Stern was. I did not know Steve Weiner was running for office. I knew that a Fernandes persidency would be a disasetr. 2/3 of faculty knew that.
Sorry, but students of colors only colored this opinion, they did not invented or changed it. It was a long-held opinion of many based on many years of experience.
Testing_the_truth:
KBM’s argument is not that you did not protest enough…
You did not protest EARLY. Her group did, and was told to shut up, in a nutshell.
If your daughter is raped and she keeps silence until she is raped the second time, does she have a right to complain? Or she does not have right to complain at the second time, because she did not complain at the first time???
Come on, people, don’t lose your sense of reality, please!!
Your article doesn’t even make sense… First of all you were against the search process, and