Sun., July 29, 2012, 2:19 pm ET, reposted with emendations, July 29, 2024
Special note: Imparato abruptly resigned from his position as CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) in late October 2010.
RE-RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE Friday, December 22, 2006 Contents: 1) Commentary on censorship and Irving Jordan’s spying activities on the protesters 2) Transcript of Andrew J. Imparato interview on the “Here and Now” program, May 9, 2006 3) Proposed letter to Congress by the FSSA Committee on Congressional Relations and Research (Excerpt, May 9, 2006) 4) “Has Jane K. Fernandes become a symbol of SCARE (Social Injustice, Coldness, Audism, Racism and Egocentrism)?” by Barbara Di Giovanni 1) Commentary on censorship and Irving Jordan’s spying activities on the protesters Commentary: The long octopus arms of oppression belonging to Irving Jordan continue to operate, apparently. A recent post on the DeafDC.com blog that was critical of Jordan and accused him of spying on protesters and disrupting their activities has been censored by DeafDC personnel. The post, written by this commentator, was added to the DeafDC blog at 6:51 pm Eastern on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 and read as follows: QUOTE: Brian Riley
(#53808) | 2006-12-19 18:51:41
Neil,
Jordan sent stooges in to disrupt the protesters’ activities.
Be wary of what you read and don’t make any assumptions. UNQUOTE This was in response to a previous post that inquired about a protest Web site and whether suspicious changes had been made on the site. The post (above) was censored by DeafDC personnel and is no longer present on the DeafDC blog, as of Thursday, December 21, 2006. The current thread can be read here: http://www.deafdc.com/blog/shane-feldman/2006-12-19/fssa-threatens-gallaudet-board Here is a pdf file which records the original thread, as it existed at 6:52 pm Eastern, on December 19, 2006 (See page 6 of the pdf file to see the post before it was censored and removed): http://gallyprotest.org/deafdc.pdf This is not the first time that Jordan has pressured people to censor posts on blogs. Many other incidents of censorship similar to this have occurred since last May. As for the question of whether or not Jordan spied on the protesters, we wish to extend the proper benefit of the doubt to specific people, yet at the same time, certain of them must be called on to account for irregularities in their behavior. Reference the case of the irregular behavior of Andrew J. Imparato, the CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). According to AAPD’s own Web site, Irving Jordan was a founder of the organization: http://www.aapd-dc.org/docs/info.php QUOTE: AAPD was founded by these five key disability rights activists and leaders: Justin Dart, former Chair of the President’s Committee; Dr. Sylvia Walker of Howard University; Paul Hearne, President of The Dole Foundation; John D. Kemp, President & CEO, Very Special Arts; and I. King Jordan, President of Gallaudet University. UNQUOTE On the afternoon of Saturday, May 6, 2006, Imparato appeared as a “mystery guest” before a group of protesters meeting in the first-floor conference room of Fowler Hall. He was introduced and then acted as an adviser to the group. He gave advice as to how the protesters should call for greater transparency in a new presidential search process and also gave advice on related issues. Imparato avoided mentioning that he was connected to Irving Jordan. We find it highly inappropriate that he appeared before the protest group without mentioning that Jordan was a founding member of the organization that he (Imparato, as the CEO) represented, i.e., the AAPD. Also, no mention was made of the fact that one of Jordan’s high-level special assistants was a member of the AAPD Board who, as of December 21, 2006, is still a member of the AAPD Board of Directors. Neither was any mention made of the fact that the self-purported protester, Carol Erting, who pushed the “mystery guest” on the protest group (claiming that Jordan would intervene and block the guest’s appearance if he found out) was a long-term friend of Jordan’s. On May 6th, Imparato also made arrangements to help the protest group in further ways, at some point offering to help the protesters with more of their specific activities. Three days later, unbeknownst to the protesters, Imparato appeared, via telephone, on WBUR, the Boston affiliate of National Public Radio, on the morning of Tuesday, May 9, 2006. The program was broadcast on approximately 45 radio stations nationwide. Here is a transcript of the interview: ========================================================== 2) Transcript of Andrew J. Imparato interview on the “Here and Now” program, May 9, 2006 ROBIN YOUNG (host): They debated for the past week at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, the nation’s only liberal arts college for the deaf. Last week the Board of trustees appointed Provost Jane Fernandes as President over the objections of student protesters. And last night, Fernandes received a vote of “no confidence” from faculty. Well, is it her leadership abilities? Or, are some also upset that, while Fernandes has been deaf since birth, she reads lips and speaks, and only later in life began to use sign language? The controversy has once again focused attention on what the outgoing President of Gallaudet calls “identity politics” in the American deaf community. Joining us on the line is Andrew Imparato. He is President [sic] of the American Association of People with Disabilities. He’s been closely following this issue at Gallaudet. Welcome Andrew. ANDREW IMPARATO (speaking on the telephone): Thank you. Thanks for having me. YOUNG: And we understand that despite the faculty vote of “no confidence” last night, the trustees are today backing Fernandes, and she’s also saying she won’t resign. But what else are you hearing? What are students saying? IMPARATO: Well, you know, I think that it’s important to recognize that a lot of people on the campus, students, faculty, staff and alumni, who are expressing concerns, are not saying that the primary issue is that she’s not deaf–culturally deaf enough–or that she grew up speaking. What I’m hearing people say is that she’s not competent as an administrator, that she lacks the vision and the capacity to lead Gallaudet and make it the best university that it can be. So, I know that she and the president of the university are both saying that this is about the fact that she’s not culturally deaf enough, but that’s not what I’m hearing from the students, faculty, staff and alumni who are protesting. YOUNG: We understand that there are those that feel that there were better, stronger candidates, but let’s go back to that point that Jane Fernandes makes, that she believes she’s perceived as “not deaf enough.” What does that mean in the deaf community? Tell us about this controversy between people who can and do speak, and those who sign. IMPARATO: Well, you know I think it’s complex. In the deaf community, people who grow up in a family where both of their parents are deaf tend to be more culturally deaf, in part, because they grow up in an environment where American Sign Language is the language that everybody uses. So it becomes, you know, very much a part of their culture from the moment they start to acquire language as a young child. There are, you know, lots of different forms of hearing loss, you know. If you think about people that you might know who are, you know, over 70, or over 80. A lot of them experience hearing loss, but they’re not a part of the Deaf culture– YOUNG: Right. And Jane Fernandes says that there’s a perception that there’s a kind of “perfect deaf person” who is, as you said, born deaf to deaf parents, learns sign language, goes to deaf schools, marries a deaf person. But what do you think? Do you think that there is a little bit of that in this debate, because the outgoing university President, I. King Jordan, also says that what’s underlying this is a refusal to accept change. IMPARATO: Well, from my perspective, I think that the protesters certainly are concerned about the kind of change that a President Fernandes would represent. But I don’t know that that means they’re opposed to just any type of change. What I hear them arguing is that they want to, you know, increase the academic standards of excellence at Gallaudet, they want, you know, morale to be better. They want the community to come together, and they see her as a divisive presence, as somebody who was autocratic in her role as Provost, and as somebody who’s not going to bring the community together. YOUNG: Do they worry that, you know, someone who can speak might be more inclined to, oh, take part in other, new things happening for the deaf community, for instance cochlear implants–devices that enable the deaf to hear–technology where the deaf can use computers? How dramatically is new technology changing the deaf community, and perhaps does she represent some of that, too? I don’t know. Just asking. IMPARATO: You know I think all of those issues are real issues within the deaf community, and they’re much broader than one university. I mean, those are issues around, you know, Deaf culture, and how, you know, medical interventions interact with the Deaf culture, and that that’s a debate that has been going on for a while, and as the medical interventions get more sophisticated, I think that the debate is only going to increase. YOUNG: Is there a concern that American Sign Language, so precious to so many deaf people, might be dying out because of people speaking, as Jane Fernandes does, or using this new, modern technology? IMPARATO: Yes, I mean, I don’t know if this is a perfect analogy, but I would analogize between the concerns about preserving Deaf culture to the concerns that I hear from a lot of Jewish people who want their children to marry other Jewish people, in part, so that the Jewish culture can continue. YOUNG: Hmm. It’s called “identity politics” by the current, and soon to be outgoing, President, I. King Jordan. I remember seeing recently a documentary on this issue, and deaf parents were profoundly affected by the children’s choices. In one scene, sobbing, you know, feeling betrayed, because their children chose cochlear implants, something that made them feel cut off, you know, from their children. Could you try to communicate how emotional these issues are. IMPARATO: Well, you know, I think they’re very emotional. They do go to, you know, a strong feeling of how, you know, one’s culture is important and you want to preserve your culture. But I have to say, you know, when I was with the protesters this weekend, what impressed me from the protesters were how unified they were, and how there didn’t seem to be lines between the people who are, you know, quote-unquote “perfectly deaf,” or you know, an integral part of Deaf culture, and folks who are outsiders to that. YOUNG: Andrew, it sounds as if you are sympathetic to the student protesters and the faculty who also voted “no confidence” in Jane Fernandes. It sounds as if–Do you think the trustees made a bad choice? IMPARATO: You know, I don’t feel like I have enough facts to take a position like that. I’m sympathetic to both sides, and my primary interest here is to, you know, try to help resolve what seems like a irreconcilable conflict right now. Because I don’t think it’s in the interest of either side to have the conflict bleed into the summer and into the academic year in the fall. And I’m afraid that if, you know, people don’t come to the table and really try to negotiate in good faith this week, the result is going to be more protest, starting in August. YOUNG: Let me ask you this, you said you’re hearing criticism of Jane Fernandes’ leadership abilities and her style, what are the trustees saying in her support? IMPARATO: Well, I think that the trustees would point to the fact that this is not a popularity contest. They’re looking for a leader who’s a very strong manager and has a strong vision for the future of the university. And I think a lot of them believe in their hearts that her unpopularity has to do with the fact that she’s had to make some tough decisions in her 11 years at Gallaudet, and some of those decisions alienated key people on the campus, and that those folks are kind of instigating this protest. I also think that Board of Trustees is concerned that the people leading the protest are so aggressive and so well respected within the deaf community that even people who might not agree with them are too intimidated to speak out. YOUNG: That’s Andrew Imparato, he’s President [sic] of the American Association of People with Disabilities. They’re based in Washington, DC. We’ll continue to follow this story. [End radio interview.] AUDIO ONLY: http://www.here-now.org/shows/2006/05/20060509_9.asp (Commentary, continued from Item 1, above:) Clearly, in the opinion of this commentator, Andrew Imparato had been in communication with Irving Jordan within the days leading up to this interview. This is evident in his reference to the protest supposedly being instigated by “key people on the campus,” as he (Imparato) said in his interview. Even though he claimed that he was conveying a viewpoint that came from the Board of Trustees, we can safely assume that Imparato is actually conveying the opinion of Irving Jordan. Jordan tried to convince Board members that there was a “cabal” (his term) of six professors who “threatened” students with having their grades lowered if they did not participate in the protest, and that (according to Jordan’s bizarre, invented scenario) the student involvement of the protest was artificially created by those six professors and was not genuine. Later events proved Jordan wrong, because virtually the entire Americo-Canadian deaf community rose up in righteous anger in support of the protesters, thus, forcing the Board’s hand. Imparato’s comments in the radio interview, by this commentator’s opinion, reflect Jordan’s efforts to inculcate his (Jordan’s) invented view (about the “key people on the campus”) into the public’s consciousness. Further evidence that Imparato was participating in a Jordan-led publicity campaign is given by that fact that Jordan was appearing before the National Press Club on the same day. Clearly, Jordan was pulling out all the stops in order to influence public opinion, with the ultimate goal of impressing upon the Board of Trustees the inevitability of a Fernandes presidency. As these events were taking place, on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, the protesters were finishing up a letter intended to be presented to Members of Congress. Here is an excerpt of the letter: 3) Proposed letter to Congress by the FSSA Committee on Congressional Relations and Research (Excerpt, May 9, 2006)
We, the joint Faculty-Student-Staff-Alumni Committee of Gallaudet University (FSSA), being co-equal Americans and supporters of the American ideals of freedom and self-determination, call on you, our members of Congress, to investigate and take action on the matter of the recent selection of Jane Fernandes to be the next president of Gallaudet University–a choice which is completely unacceptable to us and is inimical to the purpose of Gallaudet University–an institution of higher learning where the pursuit of excellence must rightly be the number one goal.
Jane Fernandes has shown by her actions over the past six years as our university provost that she does not share that same ideals of excellence that we possess. Under her tenure as provost we have seen academic standards falling and expectations being lowered–all of which is completely unnecessary and preventable. But it came about because of her backwards attitude and her inability to truly understand who we are. It is true that she is deaf herself, but deafness itself–though the experience does have certain influences–deafness itself is not the defining characteristic of one’s outlook on life–nor should it be.
We simply cannot accept the Board of Trustees’ decision that she, as an individual, is the best candidate for the job. We beseech you to not misunderstand us and mistakenly think our protest represents a minor internecine conflict within the deaf community. To think along those lines is to fall victim to diversionary tactics.
Gallaudet, as a quasi-public agency, was established by an act of Congress in 1864, with the articles of incorporation being revised by the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986. Even if Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees has followed all of the rules of articles of incorporation correctly (in hiring Fernandes), when any decision made by the Board of Trustees is recognized as being inimical to the best interests of Gallaudet University, and hence also inimical to the interests of the American people, it is the responsibility of the American people, including its deaf citizens, to call on their elected representatives in Congress to take action to rectify the situation. As stakeholders in the success of Gallaudet, we simply cannot passively accept the decision of our Board.
We are exceedingly grateful to the American people for their vote of confidence in us and their willingness to fund the lion’s share of our university’s budget. We do not wish to appeal to any sense of entitlement or demand. We hope our fellow American citizens will agree with us that once the decision has been made to grant the funds, a spirit of fairness and equity should accompany the implementation of plans and projects which are so enabled.
Let us not get distracted by terms which convey multiple layers of meanings, as propounded by fringe academic theorists and fringe political activists. When we declare that the presidential search committee of Gallaudet did not consider a sufficiently diverse group of candidates, we simply mean to use the term in its best possible sense and appeal to a sense of fair play and equal treatment.
Likewise, the term “multiculturalism” has been often used in the particularist sense, and has been seen as a call to cultural separatism. Instead, we use the term in the pluralist sense as a way to describe our vision of being a part of the whole of American culture, while still cherishing those cultural characteristics that are dear to us.
We realize that the mission of Gallaudet is to serve all types of individuals with varying abilities in the use of American Sign Language and varying abilities to speak and hear. We find that we must speak out now...
[End excerpt] (Commentary, continued from Item 2, above:) After four days of work involving several protesters, the letter to Congress was completed on the evening of Tuesday, May 9. However, a power shift had taken place within the organization over the course of the preceding four days, beginning on the day of Imparato’s appearance before the group. As part of the power shift, Imparato had managed to insert himself into the decision-making process. When a prominent protest leader attempted to make an announcement to the residents of Tent City about plans for a trip to Congress the next day (Wednesday), this leader [TH] was informed by the new protest power players, specifically by Jeff Lewis, that Imparato must first give his approval. This commentator [BR], being a member of the protest committee that drafted the letter, then proceeded to contact Imparato by telephone. Imparato gave his e-mail address, and the letter was immediately e-mailed to him for his approval. Shortly thereafter, the new power players [Carol Erting, Richard Lytle, Jeff Lewis] had this commentator ejected from the campus without having any legitimate reason to do so whatsoever. An embargo was placed on the letter to Congress, the trip the next day was canceled, and the letter was never delivered. In this commentator’s opinion, we can easily assume that Imparato forwarded the letter straight to Irving Jordan, who then told Imparato how he wished him to proceed. How do we know? No direct evidence is available and will probably not become available until such time that a proper Congressional investigation turns up more clues, but for now it suffices to note that in his radio interview, Imparato portrayed himself as being a mediator between the protest group and the Jordan-Kunkle-Fernandes troika. Here is the language he used: QUOTE I’m sympathetic to both sides, and my primary interest here is to, you know, try to help resolve what seems like a irreconcilable conflict right now. UNQUOTE Clearly, Imparato’s appearance before the protest group, in this commentator’s opinion, was disingenuous. At no time during the meeting of Saturday, May 6, 2006 did Imparato present himself as being any type of mediator. For him to claim that he was a sort of mediator three days later in a radio interview is outrageous and unacceptable behavior (for which he might very well be called into account in front of Congress.) Strategy-wise, it would make sense for Jordan to push for pretended “negotiations.” Either Fernandes would be sworn in as President in January, or not. There would be no middle ground. Any movement in the direction of “negotiations” could only benefit Jordan and Fernandes. Once Fernandes was sworn in, then all bets would be off and all prior agreements with the protesters could easily be distorted in their original intent and put off into oblivion–the sort of tactics with which Jordan is very familiar. 4) “Has Jane K. Fernandes become a symbol of SCARE (Social Injustice, Coldness, Audism, Racism and Egocentrism)?” By Barbara Di Giovanni
October 6, 2006
There are waves of distrust and fear rushing through Gallaudet campus. Right now it is pointless to debate whether Jane K. Fernandes is a potential leader of Gallaudet since we all know the fact that the majority today does not agree with the selection of Fernandes. But the question is why? Selected documents (interviews, newspaper quotes, testimonies, etc.) have been gathered in this article to show the BIG picture of the protest. It is relevant to gather crucial facts through primary sources rather than relying on secondary sources which usually produce distorted views, possible misconceptions and skepticism. It has become increasingly obvious that the students, the faculty and the alumni have already set their unapproved tone about the future Gallaudet president especially when they confronted their experiences with her as a provost. Fernandes chose not to take the advice of university presidents that she needed to seek a position at another school since as a provost she had to make decisions and choices that weren’t popular. (Hearing Loss, September/October 2006). She knew the risks involved but went ahead to apply for the position. It is chaotic right now at Gallaudet thanks to her not following the invaluable advice of other university presidents.
At first, I tried not to be one-sided when hearing negative comments about Fernandes so I relied on actual documents that include interviews, newspaper articles and short presentations that she gave as a provost and from eyewitnesses who were there. I only saw one of a very few positive articles on Fernandes as a provost and a list of supporting letters for her from the 9thprez.com website. On the other hand, there was a history of difficult relations between a group of faculty, staff and students. Based on testimonies from websites, Dr. Lynn Jacobwitz’s presentation and an experience confronted by a parent in a letter plus countless letters by respectable deaf leaders in the websites such as gufssa.com., the sources on finding cons are overwhelming. Even my former high school student (an easy-going and cooperating type) told me that as a Gallaudet student, he couldn’t even work with Fernandes and had to withdraw the project relating to freshman seminar because of the hardship and struggle to get along with this provost. He later found out that he was not alone as it had been too common among the majority of Gallaudet students.
The media has been receiving various messages such as demanding Fernandes to resign because she is considered “not deaf enough”. Some articles stated, “Although Fernandes was born deaf, protesters have claimed she isn’t “deaf enough.” (i.e. not deaf enough article). Now recent news articles are showing that Fernandes is the one who is claiming that she thinks she is not deaf enough. During the interview with Fernandes found from the Examiner website, she said, “I am a victim of a deaf cultural war. I’m not the right kind of deaf person”. This quote reinforces her playing the “deaf card” and it is hindering the real reasons behind the protest to the public.
One of the many reasons that Laurent Clerc Center teacher and staff disapproved Fernandes is that “Fernandes put a stop to the Teacher Evaluation System that was used for many years. When problems escalated, she had the revised TES implemented. Dr. Fernandes did not bother with follow-up review to make sure the process was just and fair.” One of the important qualities of an effective leader is to follow up with such project. Even before she became a provost, she was planted in the position by her supporter, Gallaudet President I.K. Jordan without following appropriate procedure. From the campus progress news website, Alison Aubrecht, who holds two degrees from Gallaudet and now works for the university as a personal counselor at the Model Secondary School for the Deaf (MSSD), [explained that] “Fernandes was provost for six years and her performance was unsatisfactory, Fernandes was appointed by King Jordan without faculty participation, and the faculty gave her a vote of no confidence because she was unwilling to share governance with them.” I.K. Jordan even admitted he made this mistake six years ago in the recent interview.
There is one (of many) video clip interview that brought me to a point that I can’t fathom the idea for her to be a world leader of today’s deaf culture and community. This video clip; David O. Reynolds from TVDEAF.com, has showed us that Fernandes has expressed that combining English and ASL can be practiced by individuals who are fluent in both languages as she is referring to simultaneous communication. Reynolds stated “it is like mixing oil and water”. Fernandes even admitted in this video interview that she is not fluent in ASL. Her signing ability may not exceed to the higher register of ASL level Imagine a not-so-proficient English–speaking Presidential candidate was selected to run an Ivy League college such as Oxford. What would the community think and react? However this is not primarily the reason for her to resign. One of the requirements as stated in the Gallaudet President qualification is that the President is to be fluent in American Sign Language and English. It is amazing how she managed to be an acting director of ASL Programs at Northeastern University in Boston and even a chair of the Department of Sign Language communication at Gallaudet long before she became the provost at Gallaudet where is the home is in the heart of Deaf Mecca. It is no question that on paper, her qualifications sound so appealing whereas the perspective by the Gallaudet community carries a completely opposite perception of who Fernandes really is based on what they have seen and worked with her in person.
Statistics don’t lie and we all know we cannot ignore the numbers. Moreover, one of the American democratic principles is based on how majority rules in decision-making. It is amazing that she quoted, “I don’t believe for one second that my resignation would help. I think that my resignation would hurt the university very badly, and I think that my resignation would result in years of instability in the governance of the university itself, and right now, we have a very strong and unified governance, and I need to be able to take control and lead the university.” How can she, with her standoffish reaction, actually think she can be an effective president for Gallaudet University that is swarmed by an opposing majority? She is hurting Gallaudet more by refusing to give in to the demands that are supported by the majority not only by the Gallaudet community but the world. Fernandes has transformed to a symbol of SCARE (social injustice, coldness, audism, racism and egocentrism) although she claimed that she has been working diligently to improve these areas but the perception of the majority of students, faculty, staff, alumni and constituents does not feel the positive impact from Fernandes when working as a provost. It is time for Fernandes to wake up and smell the coffee.
Say SCARE no more!!
–Barbara Di Giovanni posted by DeafProgressivist @ 8:07 AM http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/2006/11/has-jane-k-fernandes-become-symbol-of.html www.gallyprotest.org Press Release Thursday, December 21, 2006 Contents: 1) Article in the December “Monitor on Psychology” about Irving Jordan 2) Commentary on the Soviet-style controls of the Jordan Administration: 3) Gallaudet Board of Trustees engages in cover-up of legal improprieties 1) Article in the December “Monitor on Psychology” about Irving Jordan [Please see the Gallyprotest editorial-response comments interspersed in the article below.--Emended, July 29, 2024] Monitor on Psychology
Volume 37, No. 11 December 2006 |
Not going quietly I. King Jordan, a psychologist and Gallaudet’s first deaf president, fights one of his toughest battles as he steps down. By Christopher Munsey
Monitor Staff I. King Jordan, PhD, has lived his life by the slogan he coined during the 1988 “Deaf President Now” movement that made him Gallaudet University’s first deaf president: “Deaf people can do anything but hear.” [Editorial response (7/29/2024): This slogan was actually coined by Frederick C. Schreiber in a speech given in 1972 titled: "Potentials for Employment of the Deaf at Levels in Keeping with Their Intellectual Capabilities." Jordan has been lying about the origin of this saying for many years.] During his 18 years as president of the federally supported school for the deaf and hard of hearing in Washington, D.C., Jordan says he’s used his training as an experimental psychologist to guide his leadership style and help him make some tough decisions: He gathers the facts, listens to the different stakeholders, then acts. “If I truly believe I’ve made the right decision, then I stay with it,” says Jordan, 63. That tenacity garnered him great success over the years, but it most recently undermined his popularity when he continued to stand by the choice of Jane K. Fernandes, PhD, as the next Gallaudet president. In protest, students blockaded the school and protested on Capitol Hill. Students cited a variety of reasons for opposition to Fernandes, with some alleging poor leadership, management by intimidation and other forms of divisive leadership. Others charged that, though deaf and fluent in sign language, Fernandes didn’t grow up signing and isn’t oriented toward deaf culture. [Editorial response (12/11/2006): This so-called “tenacity,” in the context of pursuing counterproductive goals, such as what Jordan was doing, is a vice, not a virtue.] Jordan and school administrators negotiated with the students for several days [sic] without a resolution. The students wanted Fernandes, the school’s former provost, to resign—a demand that Jordan described as non-negotiable. [Editorial response: It was the Board’s decision to make, not Jordan’s. And beyond that, it was Congress’s decision to allow the Board or disallow the Board to make those types of decisions, because the Federal Government has delegated power to the Board. The Gallaudet Board of Trustees is not the final authority in the matter, rather, the final authority resides in the power of the People of the United States of America, including deaf people. Jordan’s stance was not only wrong, it was illegal.] Jordan himself rode a wave of protest into the presidency in 1988 after the Gallaudet Board of Trustees first named a hearing candidate as president. [Editorial response: Thus making Jordan a hypocrite extraordinaire.] So loud were the student protests, which closed the school, that the board’s initial pick resigned. Jordan, who was born hearing but became deaf from head trauma suffered in a motorcycle accident when he was 21, was named instead. But as president, he refused to back down from his support of Fernandes, even approving arrests of protesters. Ultimately, however, Fernandes’s opponents prevailed, and she lost her status as president-designate. A controversial figure? During the standoff, faculty had also overwhelmingly approved resolutions demanding the resignation of Fernandes as president-designate, and expressed a loss of confidence in the board. In a press release following the arrests, Jordan described the experience as the saddest night of his life, but stood by his decision to order the actions necessary to reopen the school. [Editorial response: The Faculty Senate also voted no-confidence in Irving Jordan. Did Jordan not mention this fact to the reporter?] Jordan lost his final battle, when, on Oct. 29, the Board of Trustees voted to terminate Fernandes’s contract as president-designate. The action left Jordan without an immediate successor. As of Monitor press time, the board had organized an advisory committee to recommend candidates for the post of interim president. Among those opposing Jordan’s support of Fernandes was Andy Lange, a 1983 graduate and president of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association, who traveled to Gallaudet from Sioux Falls, S.D., to join in the protests. “[Gallaudet] is considered a Mecca for deaf people; deaf people treasure this institution,” says Lange, who also served as president of the National Association of the Deaf from 2003 to 2006. Part of what they treasure is its message of empowerment for the deaf, which is why they pushed for a deaf president in 1988. Jordan, who had began [sic] his Gallaudet career as a psychology professor, was then academic dean and a presidential candidate. He did not take a direct role in organizing or leading the protests, but did express opposition to the board’s initial decision. [Editorial response: See Gallaudet Professor Robert E. Johnson’s remarks about Jordan obfuscating on this point, beginning at the top of page 8 where he talks about how Jordan claimed he never supported the protest in 1988 : www.gallyprotest.org/johnson.pdf ] Once president, Jordan says he faced strong skepticism from some colleagues. People told him point-blank that his deafness would hinder his leadership claiming, for example, that he wouldn’t be able to communicate effectively with the congressional leaders who oversee Gallaudet’s budget. “Deaf people are told all their lives, you can’t do this—you can’t do that,” says Jordan, whose last day as president is Dec. 31. But he proved his doubters wrong with such successes as organizing the school’s first-ever campaign to build an endowment from alumni and corporate contributions, which as of July had grown to $171 million, according to school officials. Glenn B. Anderson, PhD, the former chair of Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees, also credits Jordan with attracting talented faculty to the school, spearheading the renovation of several historic buildings on campus, and using private money to improve the school’s facilities. New buildings, such as the Student Academic Center and the Sorenson Language and Communication Center, currently under construction, cater to the learning styles of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, and emphasize a visual style of learning, such as raised platforms for instructors. [Editorial response: If Jordan did such a wonderful job, then he should have been confident that a naming committee would have chosen to put his name on the Student Academic Center. However, no naming committee was ever established to consider the various possibilities.] As president, Jordan also gained increases in funding from Congress, which appropriated almost $107 million for the school in fiscal year 2006. [Editorial response: He did it by playing on the sympathy of the members of Congress by portraying deafness as a disability, thus causing further entrenchment of the pathological mindset into the public consciousness, a folly that is not worth any amount of money.] In addition he pushed to establish Gallaudet’s clinical psychology doctorate program, which since its 1990 inception has produced 43 clinical psychologists fluent in sign language and skilled at communicating with deaf and hard-of-hearing people, says psychology department chair Virginia Gutman, PhD. [Editorial response: A lot of the psychologists produced by this program will be busy helping people with problems and issues that Jordan himself caused by oppressing deaf people, through his longstanding support of mainstreaming, cochlear implants and other mainly counterproductive programs.] “These psychologists, including a dozen who are themselves deaf or hard of hearing, are providing services to the vastly underserved deaf population all over the country,” she says. Jordan’s activism has extended beyond the university gates. Many credit him with helping to motivate Congress to pass laws giving deaf people, and all people with disabilities, better access to education. Jordan lobbied particularly hard for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has opened up job and educational opportunities for people with disabilities, and for the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, which mandates that all new televisions with screens larger than 13 inches be equipped with decoder chips for closed-captioning. From high school rebel to college president Jordan’s early life didn’t mark him for such prominence. He grew up in Glen Riddle, Pa., a rural area southwest of Philadelphia. One of four children, he sang in the choir of the local Episcopal church, ran barefoot from May to October when he wasn’t in school, enjoying what he describes as almost idyllic childhood. But he rebelled during high school, never taking a book home, refusing to study and graduating in five years instead of four. He then joined the Navy, laboring as a junior sailor on the aircraft carrier Enterprise and eventually as an administrative assistant for the ship’s legal officer. Jordan’s life as a deaf person began April 23, 1965, when the motorcycle he was riding collided with another vehicle. Days later, he woke up from a coma at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Trying to speak, he couldn’t get anyone’s attention for what felt like days, as the air needed to form speech sucked in and out of a tracheotomy tube inserted through his throat. As family gathered around his hospital bed, a friend from back home who had a deaf aunt said, “He’s deaf!” after watching him try to communicate. During those weeks in the hospital, doctors told him he had trauma-induced hearing loss and that he’d eventually get his hearing back, a hope he held on to for months. Medically discharged from the Navy, Jordan entered Gallaudet in the fall of 1966, hoping to major in chemistry or biology. He didn’t know sign language, and still remembers how frustrated he felt trying to keep up in class, but he persevered. As a sophomore, he took a psychology class, and encouraged by professor Sylvia Rosenblatt, PhD, who was deaf, “fell in love” with psychology. Jordan says he became a “whole person” at Gallaudet. He celebrates the anniversary of his accident as his “deaf birthday” and says his experiences at Gallaudet gave him a new life. [Editorial response: Yet he gave a speech at a conference of the Association of Late-Deafened Adults in 2002, saying: “I stayed in denial for years and years. I thought of myself as a deaf person who couldn’t hear” (page 2): http://gallyprotest.org/alda.pdf. Even as late as 13 years after his accident, in 1978, he said: “I am not a real member of the deaf community”: http://gallyprotest.org/fake.pdf) “I came in as a young freshman with no direction and no knowledge of sign language or deaf culture. I was a hearing person who couldn’t hear, and then I saw deaf adults who were successful and happy, so I said, ‘OK, I can do this,’” Jordan says. He credits his career to the encouragement he got at Gallaudet, especially psychology professors, who he says practically “grabbed him by the collar and shook him” to make sure he applied to graduate school. At the University of Tennessee, Jordan earned a doctorate in experimental psychology in four years, writing his dissertation on the efficacy of American Sign Language (ASL), as compared with spoken language. Jordan says his work helped establish that ASL can convey the same amount of meaning as spoken language. [Editorial response: Then why, for his entire 19-year tenure as President of Gallaudet, adamantly refuse to use ASL?] Graduate school was difficult. No provisions were made for his deafness, and Jordan says he woke at 4 a.m. every day to spend hours “reading and reading and reading” in the undergraduate library. At noon, he had lunch with his wife and young children before heading to class sessions in the late afternoon. More recently in the aftermath of the board’s decision against Fernandes, Jordan appealed for a return to civility on campus. “We should not look for a resolution to the struggle of recent months in terms of winners and losers. If we do, Gallaudet and our students will be the losers.” [Editorial response: This is an obfuscatory statement that conveys no real meaning. Obviously, the protesters succeeded in their efforts to oust Fernandes. They persisted in their efforts because they saw the potential for real improvement at Gallaudet by finding a proper President who would steer the university on a different course. At no time did they ever stoop to the level of reducing the protest to the level of one-upsmanship and game playing, as Jordan would have us believe. He is projecting his psychology onto others, evidently.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/quietly.html =================================================== 2) Commentary on the Soviet-style controls of the Jordan Administration: A memo was released Tuesday, which was ostensibly written by a member of the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. See:
http://news.gufssa.com/2006/12/19/middle-states-accreditation-visiting-team/
This memo is presumed to be written by a member of the Jordan administration, probably Patricia Kunkle, and has been sent out in the Board’s name. The memo probably would not have been released without Irving Jordan’s authorization, as there are indications that the Jordan-Kunkle pair are still exercising their political dominance at Gallaudet by virtue of their control of the official means of communication, including the Trustees@Gallaudet.edu e-mail account.
In a typical Soviet-style fashion of creating propaganda and carefully controlling its distribution, the memo above has (to-date) not been posted on http://news.gallaudet.edu or http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dailydigest/
Friday’s memo that announced the resumption of reprisals has also not been posted on Gallaudet.edu:
http://groups.google.com/group/gallyprotest/msg/f73fa23b355d3aba
To-date, Gallyprotest has not seen a single e-mail issued from the Trustees@Gallaudet.edu e-mail account that came directly from the Board of Trustees or that was written by a Board of Trustees member. All of them have apparently been written by either the Jordan-Kunkle couple, or by Mercy Coogan.
During the summer, the Jordan administration routinely issued information and press releases on the Board’s behalf, which is a clear conflict of interest and an obvious violation of the Education of the Deaf Act:
http://gallyprotest.org/#EducationoftheDeafAct
This bulletin posted on Gallaudet.edu on is a typical example:
http://news.gallaudet.edu/?id=9064
The so-called “retreat” was an attempt on the Jordan administration’s part to indoctrinate the Board by having them attend secret meetings at the Dulles Hyatt on July 28 and 29 [2006], wherein they would break into groups and discuss topics pre-selected by Jordan and Kunkle. In the Soviet-style method of indoctrination, Board members were sent a package of “reading materials” that they were expected to digest, which contained notes on the upcoming topics for discussion.
Board Secretary Bill Graham was seen briefly looking over the notes on his flight from Chicago to Dulles on July 28, but he spent most of the flight reading a novel. Several days previous to that, Bill Graham met with this commentator [BR] in his office at Microsoft and made the innocent remark that his membership on the Board did not require much work, that it was mostly a matter of showing up for meetings and signing a lot of papers.
Since Bill Graham is the Secretary of the Board of Trustees, his remark shows that Jordan and Kunkle have been in control of the Board of Trustees for the last several years and that Board members have simply been asked to sign papers that have already been prepared by Jordan’s attorneys, and have been expected to vote on proposals put forward by Jordan (for example, the proposal to re-name the Student Academic Center in Jordan’s honor and an art gallery in honor of his legal spouse, in spite of the fact that no proper committee at Gallaudet was established or consulted.)
A more recent example of information control on the part of the Jordan-Kunkle team is the fact that no transcript of incoming President Robert Davila has been posted on Gallaudet.edu:
http://pr.gallaudet.edu/presidentialsearch/?ID=9954
Gallyprotest typed up a transcript, which is available for online viewing here:
http://bibliomarket.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/transcript-dr-davilas-acceptance-speech/
(The reference to Davila being an undersecretary for 18 years was an apparent interpreting error, caused by unclear signing by Pamela Holmes. Davila was at the US Department of Education for 4 years, from 1989 to 1993. Gallyprotest corrected the error in the “revised” version of the transcript in the link above).
To print out the transcript of President Davila’s acceptance speech, please click here:
http://groups.google.com/group/gallyprotest/msg/9c863787164c1fba?dmode=print
The online video of the acceptance speech was not made available for archival viewing until 8:00 pm on the day of the speech, and that was only done after two scathing press releases had been issued by Gallyprotest:
http://groups.google.com/group/gallyprotest/msg/72b1bb2c1d7050f6
Also, Jordan has placed an embargo on the 2006 Gallaudet protest videos posted on www.bisontv.com, the Web site having been disabled by his (Jordan’s) orders.
A letter written by FSSA attorney Edward W. Correia on October 25, 2006 (the day of the assaults on the protesters by Department of Public Safety officers and Physical Plant Department employees) was censored by Irving Jordan and was never conveyed to the Board of Trustees, per the attorney’s official request. To read the letter, click on the following link and scroll down to read Item 3:
http://groups.google.com/group/gallyprotest/msg/2c9965dcda63934c
This censorship of the attorney’s letter is a serious matter and would be considered reason for termination for cause in most universities. The Board should have fired both Jordan and Kunkle immediately when they learned that the letter was withheld from them, instead, they allow Jordan to continue the Soviet-style censorship and allow a generous severance package to be arranged for Patricia Kunkle.
On top of all these outrages, Jordan and Kunkle continue to attend social functions at Gallaudet, such as the recent faculty-staff holiday party held on December 8 at House One, where 19-inch wooden rulers were distributed as gifts, and they do so with a straight face, as if nothing is wrong.
Jordan has had a long-term association with Congressman Steny Hoyer, going back to the early days of his Presidency at Gallaudet. Evidently, Jordan feels that he is protected from being investigated by Congress, due to Hoyer now having been appointed as the Number 2 man (Majority Leader) in the House of Representatives:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600514.html
It seems, therefore, that our hopes for an investigation of Jordan, Kunkle and Kelly should be directed toward Senator Edward Kennedy:
http://kennedy.senate.gov/
Senator Kennedy will probably become the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate–the committee which is widely regarded as being the key committee in the Senate that oversees Gallaudet:
http://help.senate.gov/
The other committee in the Senate that oversees Gallaudet is the Committee on Appropriations, which oversees Gallaudet mainly through the Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/labor/topics.cfm?code=labor
The main committee that oversees Gallaudet in the House is the House Committee on Appropriations, which oversees Gallaudet mainly through its own Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutTheCommittee.Subcommittees&SubcommitteeId=11
A complete list of Congressional committees and the corresponding subcommittees responsible for overseeing Gallaudet is presented on the Gallyprotest blog ( www.gallyprotest.org/blog) via the following link:
http://gpli.blogspot.com/2006/12/congressional-committees-responsible.html
Per the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (as amended), the Federal Government has delegated power to the Gallaudet Board of Trustees to run Gallaudet. Gallaudet accordingly, is not technically a “private” university, though the US Dept. of Education claims that it is. Such language, in the context of dealings with the Federal Government, is essentially meaningless and is only technical-legal language. Amtrak is nominally “private,” but the Supreme Court ruled that it is a public agency.
In actually, Gallaudet is a quasi-governmental agency, as was clearly explained by Congressman John Phillips in 1954. See page 20 of the official transcript of a Congressional committee hearing ( = 23 of the pdf file):
www.gallyprotest.org/gallaudet_is_not_private.pdf
“[Gallaudet] is a private institution in the sense that it has operated under a charter, but related to government supervision and cooperation since 1857. It has had government help since 1857. It has always been considered a government or quasi-government institution.”–Rep. John J. Phillips (R-California, simultaneously a member of the Gallaudet Board of Trustees), testifying during a hearing of the House Committee on Education and Labor on May 5, 1954.
The Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (EDA) kept the same legal structure for Gallaudet that had existed all along. In fact, EDA does not refer to Gallaudet as being “private,” but calls it a “body corporate”. From Title 20, Section 4301 of the US Code:
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+4377+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2820%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%284301%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
Here’s an alternate link:
http://tinyurl.com/t9pen 3) Gallaudet Board of Trustees engages in cover-up of legal improprieties
Currently a cover up is taking place at Gallaudet, because the Board of Directors of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association (GUAA) had made a prior announcement that they were not consulted, per the mandates of the Education of the Deaf Act, in order to nominate a member to serve Gallaudet Board of Trustees.
Per Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 4303:
“... one [Gallaudet Board of Trustees member] shall be elected pursuant to regulations of the Board of Trustees, on nomination by the Gallaudet University Alumni Association, for a term of three years.”
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+4379+0++%28Gallaudet%20University%20Alumni%20Association%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
See the press release about the announcement made by the Gallaudet University Alumni Association Board of Directors on October 4, 2006 (scroll down to read Item 3):
http://groups.google.com/group/gallyprotest/msg/467ad2e47047c949
It is being claimed by the Board of Trustees that paperwork for a recent nomination by the GUAA Board of Directors for an available seat on the Gallaudet board was properly filed, yet a copy of the alleged paperwork has not been provided to the public for inspection and the announcement made by the Gallaudet University Alumni Association Board of Directors on October 4, 2006 (that they had been kept in the dark on the matter) has not been retracted by the GUAA board. This is a very serious matter, which, when explained, will provide a perfect example of the maneuvering, manipulating and obfuscating that Irving Jordan has been perpetrating against the Gallaudet community for so many years. We await the answer to the mystery: Why would the GUAA make an announcement, saying they discussed the matter and determined that the Gallaudet Board of Trustees has violated the Education of the Deaf Act, only for the Gallaudet board to respond in turn by claiming (without providing proof) that the proper paperwork was filed? Obviously, someone is not telling the truth about this matter. See Grievance number 9 in: “Nine Points of Grievance Presented to the Gallaudet Board of Trustees”: http://gpli.blogspot.com/2006/12/nine-points-of-grievance-presented-to.html
(Note: July 29, 2024; The proposed letter to Congress was also e-mailed to Kelby Brick on the evening of May 9, 2006.) |
No comments:
Post a Comment