The State of Deaf Organizations in 2006 – Defective

The ramifications of  Gallaudet University’s protests didn’t just end on campus; instead, it reinvigorated Deaf pride and brought together diverse groups under the banner of “Unity for Gallaudet.” It also reinvigorated many Deaf people to reassess themselves in regards to Deafhood and what it means to be Deaf to the point where even book groups began to sprout up across the country discussing relevant texts on Deafhood and other similar issues.

“Think tanks,” as those espoused by Joey Baer, were cropping up nationwide as well, to discuss Deaf cultural issues. And yet there has not been much said about the nature of Deaf organizations as they stand today nor has anyone willingly come forward to point out what is obviously needed for us to empower ourselves even further: The need for all of us to be actively involved with our local and state Deaf organizations.  Ask a Deaf person, any where throughout the nation, and he or she is likely to agree with the statement that most of the local and state Deaf organizations nationwide are riddled with incompetence, organizational inertia or a lack of cohesive direction. 

Rumors about this or that person embezzling or pocketing organization funds is so ingrained in the Deaf community that it has apparently gotten to the point where it’s considered to be an acceptable practice. Indeed, it has apparently become a necessary evil, something that many are willing to look away from just as long as they feel that the person who committed such a deed is still doing their job “pretty well.” I was appalled recently to see a Deaf association president completely admit to his association board, knowing he would have been caught eventually, to using the association’s bank card to purchase gas, food, beverages, and lodgings (along with a hotel room mini-bar bill!) for a conference trip despite initial promises to the board that he would personally pay for such expenses. 

The board’s punishment for the unauthorized purchases, which clearly constituted embezzlement or, at the very least, misuse of organization funds? A verbal reminder that the association’s bank card was not to be used for personal expenses. The supposedly humbled president then promised the board that he would pay back all of the expenses incurred and that he had even made a partial payment prior to the board’s knowledge of the situation. But the story doesn’t end there. In fact, it gets better. 

Later that evening, the general membership meeting was held after the board’s meeting. The association secretary, a strong supporter of the president, happened to also be serving as temporary treasurer since the previous treasurer resigned due to the president’s financial activities making the treasurer “very uncomfortable.” The secretary made an incredulous motion: To “forgive” the president’s debt of the expenses. 

The reasoning offered by one person who supported it was that the association “could afford it.” The motion didn’t even specify exactly how much the debt was, which was nearly $1,000. And yet the motion was passed by members at a meeting in which barely 20% of the organization’s members were in attendance. That sort of experience, no doubt shared by many a person who can’t comprehend how or why their boards and memberships have acted in such a manner, is endemic in the Deaf community. 

And yet this sort of behavior is regularly accepted by the Deaf community. Why? In conversations with many people in regards to that particular experience, I became re-acquainted with a familiar phrase: “What happens in the Deaf community stays in the Deaf community.” 

Yes, many have told me, what happened was wrong but it would have been more wrong for any of us to have escalated the matter to the point where arrests, lawsuits, and public exposure might have been made.  The message was clear to me: If any Deaf person is arrested, sued, or exposed in the media, it would be an embarrassment upon all of us in the Deaf community, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the clear guilt of the offending Deaf person. 

And yet I am crushed by this mindset… The kind of mindset that allows members of our own community to inappropriately benefit themselves with impunity at the cost of their organization’s finances and well-being, again and again. 

The kind of mindset that allows members of own community to purposely excuse and look away from such inappropriate behavior. The kind of mindset that allows those who do disservice to us as a community to remain in positions of power or let them off with a slap on the wrist. 

More importantly, this is the kind of mindset that holds us back from fully empowering ourselves. How can we, as a cultural group, empower ourselves if we’re not willing to make our members accountable for their actions? 

Fortunately, the recent protest at Gallaudet is likely to be of great benefit, not only to the campus, but also to Deaf organizations across the nation. The protest received significant amounts of media coverage in which we were painfully and publicly forced to choose sides in regards to the acceptance of a deaf person as president. 

We had to publicly refute the selection of a deaf person, someone who was “one of us,” at least in identity, in front of the “hearing world,” something that has never happened to us before. Since we’ve apparently crossed this immense invisible line in regards to publicly denying “one of us” from becoming what is perhaps the most visible representative of the Deaf community, what’s stopping us from demanding accountability from our local and state leaders as well? 

If you see your local or state organization as being corrupt or ineffective, instead of sneering and gossiping about it from the sidelines, do something about it: JOIN THE ORGANIZATION!  

FIND PEOPLE WHO THINK LIKE YOU DO AND WORK TOGETHER TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE! “I won’t join that organization because so-and-so is the leader of the organization and I don’t like him or her” is a poor excuse to not join. If anything, it should be a reason to join because the best way to make change is from within. 

The Gallaudet protest of 2006 has sparked something much more deeper within all of us… Hopefully, it will carry over to our local and state Deaf organizations as well, otherwise, the protest might only be noted as an isolated incident limited to the campus. 

The choice is up to you. - Rob Voreck

Call for Ken Levinson’s Resignation or Removal from BoT

As reported by Mishka Zena and Bibliomarket, BoT Member Ken Levinson has once again revealed his insensitivity and elitism towards the Deaf community.

This is supposed to be a person representing the best interests and welfare for Gallaudet University as a board of trustees member? If Levinson wishes to do what’s best for Gallaudet’s interests and welfare, he would immediately submit his resignation.

Otherwise, the BoT needs to take action:

“Section 2.2.10  Removal.  The Board, by vote of a majority of all Voting Trustees then in office, is authorized to remove any Trustee (except the Public Members) who may refuse or neglect to discharge the duties of a Trustee, or whose removal, in the judgment of said majority, is in the interest and welfare of the University. Notice of any proposed removal shall be provided to all Board members at least ten days in advance of such vote.”

There is no question that, if Levinson will not resign, it is in Gallaudet’s best interest and welfare for the BoT to remove him.

The board and administration has repeatedly said that it is now time to heal the wounds and divisiveness that has fractured the Deaf Community and yet we have Levinson, as a board member, still wounding and alienating the Deaf Community with his incredibly offensive comments.

Levinson has got to go. His continued presence on the BoT is a festering wound that cannot heal until he gives up or is removed from his seat.

Send an email asking for Levinson’s resignation or removal to Patti Kunkle, Board of Trustees Liaison, at patti.kunkle@gallaudet.edu and request your correspondence to be forwarded to the Board for action.

However, do keep in mind that the BoT bylaws also say that any communication to the Board  “shall be presented to the President for review and recommendations before presentation to the Board; provided, however, that any person may report directly to the Board any material misappropriation of University resources.”

So, unless Bernie Holt comes out and reiterates his claim of fiscal misappropriation by the University, which is another issue entirely, Patti’s boss, IKJ, gets to read your correspondence and make recommendations to the Board.

How’s that for impartiality? 

IKJ didn’t want to be the next Benjamin Ladner?

On October 26th,  the Washington Post published an article that read in part:

“Gallaudet retained Dickstein Shapiro , a Washington-based law and lobbying firm, to “educate” lawmakers about the situation on campus and lobby on appropriations issues.

“We want to make sure that people on the Hill understand the reality of what’s happening on campus,” said Amy Weiss of Point Blank Public Affairs , who was hired by the university to help with public relations during the crisis.

Gallaudet, like other interest groups and corporations that get caught up in a crisis or are involved in a major transaction, wanted to avoid a situation where some member of Congress gets upset and puts a hold on its federal funding or otherwise gets involved. Federal tax dollars provide nearly 70 percent of the school’s budget, or $104.5 million for fiscal 2006, Weiss said.”

Notice the bold font up there? “. . .where some member of Congress gets upset. . .or otherwise gets involved.”

Is it just me or is I King Jordan deathly afraid of seeing a repeat of what the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance sent to the Board of American University last year in regards to the disgraceful resignation of American University President Benjamin Ladner, who allegedly abused his position for monetary gain?

Want to see what American University was asked to provide?

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2005/prg102805.pdf

I assure you, it is definitely worth reading to see just what can happen if the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee gets it in his head to take a look into Gallaudet’s finances.

I’d imagine Paul Kelly’s head would explode the moment he read what was expected from Gallaudet by Congress.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post article shows, IKJ and Point Blank Public Affairs, the PR consulting firm hired by the administration, was way ahead of us in getting his message out to them before we did.

 It was basically a pre-emptive strike on Congress before any constituents (i.e. us) could make any reasonable comments that would be well-recieved by our elected representatives.

You have to admire their brazen tactics. . .

“The deafies are too slow to realize they can exert some influence on Congress so we’ll just “educate” Congress about why the deafies are so wrong about Gallaudet and make sure that Congress doesn’t take the deafies’ comments seriously because we’ll tell Congress the protestors are all just self-centered, anti-Hearing, dysfunctional, and isolated trouble-makers.”

. . .Yeah, I can imagine Amy Weiss of Point Blank Public Affairs making such a comment in the administration’s planning sessions.

Washington Post article link here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501793.html

Bombshell! Gally PR Department was cut completely “out of the loop” by IKJ administration during protests!

During the protests, it became a habit for many, including myself, to repeatedly direct our wrath and ire at the Gallaudet University Public Relations Department for consistently issuing press releases made up of gross distortions, half-truths, and outright lies.

Saying that you work for the Gallaudet PR Department these days must be worse than admitting that you’re the person responsible for denying SSI claims.

However, I asked myself: Just how complicit was the PR Department in regards to the messages being sent out on the administration’s behalf? Were they truly responsible for the messages?

I followed up on this line of thinking with several sources familiar with the situation. These sources have disclosed to the GU Private Investigator that such anger was incorrectly directed at the PR department as a whole and that, in fact, the staff of the PR Department was “cut out of the loop” during the protests, helpless to do anything other than publicly issuing statements and press releases as directed by the administration and its contracted consultants.

You read that right, folks…Gallaudet’s own PR department, which would presumably be far more understanding of Deaf Culture and thus more likely to use less inflammatory language than had been publicly issued, was cast aside by the administration in favor of outside consultants who wrote, shaped, and devised statements and press releases and ordered the PR department to publish these messages on behalf of the administration.

Of course, as any one familiar with the protests know, the press releases were outrageously offensive or in complete denial of what was happening on campus, which in turn further incensed the protestors and, more importantly, drew more support for the protestors. The immediate backlash resulted in severe criticism of the PR department from many quarters.

My sources lend credibility to my opinion that the Gallaudet PR department was nothing more than a patsy, a pawn, and a tool used by the administration and its contracted consultants.

I have every reason to believe these sources and I find them to be sincere and pained by what has happened at Gallaudet to their friends, family, and associates.

Because of this, I offer my apologies to the people of the Gallaudet University Public Relations office for any critical comments I have made that have been wrongfully directed to you as a whole.

Are you a Gallaudet insider and wish to provide information that you feel should be made public but aren’t comfortable going public? Have proof that your friends, family, and associates were wrongly portrayed in public or taken advantage of by the administration? Email me at guprivateinvestigator@gmail.com.

Patricia Kunkle – Loyal to IKJ or to the BoT?

There have been much speculation about how the President’s Office is the contact point for the Board of Trustees and about the particular role played by Patti Kunkle, Executive Assistant to IKJ and Board Liaison.

Kunkle’s role was addressed in the administration’s “Facts and Myths” statement on May 5th:

“Myth:  Patricia Kunkle, who is liaison to the Gallaudet Board of Trustees and who is the executive assistant to President I. King Jordan, had an undue influence in the selection process, representing Dr. Jordan’s preference that Dr. Jane K. Fernandes would be selected the next president. 

Fact:  Patricia Kunkle was asked by the Board to serve as assistant to the Presidential Search Committee.  She was bound by the same rules of confidentiality that applied to all members of the Committee.  She did not talk to Dr. Jordan about the details of the search, nor did she convey any of Dr. Jordan’s wishes or preferences to the Committee. She has served as the President’s executive assistant since 1999 and board liaison since 2003. She has demonstrated herself to be a person of integrity and high confidence.”

[Edit: I recently received an email from a credible source saying that Patti Kunkle herself was likely the author, if not one of the contributors, of the above citation! -PI] 

First, the Board of Trustees was incredibly naive in asking the executive assistant to the president to serve as an assistant to the presidential search committee.

Second, to whom does Kunkle owe her loyalty to? Certainly not to the BoT but to her own boss, I King Jordan. Note that this statement was issued back in May and does not address certain other issues, namely whether Kunkle intercepted or modified communications intended for the BoT either under her own initiative or under IKJ’s orders.

More importantly, Private Investigator has it on good authority that since May, Kunkle was actively and closely involved in working with Jane Norman and consulting firms to produce pro-administration/con-protest spins on behalf of not only her boss, IKJ, but for Jane Fernandes as well.

How is it considered ethical much less a sign of intergrity for Kunkle, who is supposed to be a neutral facilitator in communications between the public and with the BoT and yet, at the same time, is actively involved in planning and promoting her boss(es) agendas? 

How can any reasonable person believe that Kunkle can serve in the role as executive assistant to the president, which demands unwavering loyalty,  and be neutral in her role as liaison for the BoT?

How can any reasonable person believe that the BoT can effectively govern the university if it is not given unfiltered information?

Apparently, the president and BoT aren’t reasonable people as Kunkle still serves as the liaison, and effectively the coordinator of BoT activities, for the Board to this very day.

Are you a Gallaudet insider and wish to provide information that you feel should be made public but aren’t comfortable going public? Have proof that your friends, family, and associates were wrongly portrayed in public or taken advantage of by the administration? Email me at guprivateinvestigator@gmail.com.

Senator McCain and Now Brueggemann Gone from BoT – Who’s next?!

It appears that the “house cleaning” of the board of trustees that many wish to see has already started thanks to the two recent resignations.

 The healing process HAS begun.

 McCain, while I bizarrely think he’s still a viable candidate for US President, did diddly squat during his tenure as a BoT member. Apparently, his track record for attending BoT meetings was worse than my own track record of attending classes while I was a student at Gallaudet and THAT’s definitely not one worth bragging about.

The next Senator seated on the BoT needs to be a freshman Senator, one that is keenly interested in Gallaudet University and still fresh enough to retain curiousity and exert some degree of involvement, instead of an older Senator who joins simply to go through the motions and having the privelege of adding the position to their exhaustive list on their political resumes.

 As for Brueggemann, one of her comments in her notice of resignation was particularly revealing:

“Since I became Acting Chair in May 2006, my personal life, and my professional work as a scholar, teacher, and administrator at my own university, have suffered considerably. I can no longer justify these personal and professional costs.”

I certainly would be frazzled at the sight of people protesting outside of my house and office as well. We should be glad that she has the good sense to resign for whatever reason. Prior to her resignation, she didn’t earn any brownie points with me by virtue of her lack of reasonable and timely response as leader of the BoT.

Regardless, I still say good luck to you, Miss Brueggemann.

Now, Private Investigator wants to hear from you as to who’s the next likely person to resign, whether its from the BoT or administration!

Gallaudet PR: Protests NEVER happened?!

In an incredible display of revisionist history, the Gallaudet PR Department completely removed EVERY press release, editorial, and letter link regarding the protests from the www.gallaudet.edu website!

I’ve gone through my previous postings and found only one press release that was still on Gallaudet’s website, but not linked elsewhere on the website.

In other words, a new visitor to Gallaudet’s website would NEVER know that the protests had happened.

I ask this: “Had the Gallaudet administration been shamed into removing all protests references knowing that it instigated and inflamed the protests to begin with? Or is the administration simply presenting this dangerously false appearance to the public: That the protests never happened in the first place?”

IKJ’s Reconciliation Message – Unapologetic and Still in Denial

I’ve been watching Gallaudet’s News postings over the past few days ever since it announced the BoT’s decision to oust Fernandes.

More importantly, I was watching to see whether the PR Department would post more editorials that were pro-Fernandes as it had done in the past. It is important to emphasize just how overwhelming the Deaf community’s support was for the protests, to the extent that the administration could only counter by publishing pro-Fernandes statements from editorial boards that had no inkling of what the protests were about, much less what Deaf culture is.

Thankfully, the PR Department hasn’t posted any further editorials…so far.

But, I King Jordan did issue a message asking for “Reconciliation on Campus,” which I eagerly read.

I became disenheartened to see that I King Jordan simply is still in denial and unapologetic in how his own actions, and of those serving under him, during the protests had been far more damaging to the Deaf community than the actions of the protestors themselves.

My comments are in italics… 

  http://news.gallaudet.edu/?id=9655

Reconciliation on Campus: Message from I. King Jordan

Dear Students, Faculty, Staff, and Teachers:

I don’t have to tell you that the past months of intense discord have taken their toll on our community. Certainly the impact of what we have been through will resonate among all of us on campus and among alumni throughout the world for many years to come.

Of course you don’t have to tell us about the toll you’ve taken on “our” community; thanks to your mind-boggling decisions and actions,  Jordan! And, oh, yes, we will certainly be speaking ill of you for many years to come…about how you turned your back on the very people that made you who you are.

I deeply regret that Dr. Fernandes was not given an opportunity to become Gallaudet’s next President and carry out her vision for the University. She has devoted the past 11 years to making Gallaudet an inclusive educational environment of high quality for all deaf and hard of hearing students, and I believe she would have led the University to new heights of achievement. However, that is not to be, and we must look to the future of Gallaudet, to address the issues that have been raised, and to reconcile our differences.

Jordan, your pro-Fernandes statement has absolutely no place in this “reconciliation” message from you. The Board of Trustees, which oversees you, has made its decision and for you to openly regret the Board’s decision is tantamount to insubordination. If a high-ranking officer in a corporation made such a similar comment, that officer would have been likewise terminated by the Board. Either that, or this is yet another indication of the widely-held belief that you retain (or rather, had retained) significant influence on the Board. 

As we work to ensure a safe and productive teaching, learning, and working environment for all members of our community, I ask each of you to join me in bringing about reconciliation on campus. One way to begin is for each of us to look within ourselves and think of what we can do to help bring about healing. I realize that the issues before us evoke passionate feelings, but I believe we can—and must—devote that same passion to addressing these issues and healing our community. Concerns that have been debated with heat must be discussed and resolved through collaboration of the administration, board, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and all those committed to the well-being of the University.

I take affront at your comments, Jordan! ”Safe” environment? I’d like to remind you, Jordan, that it was you and your divisive comments and decisions that led to: 1) Protestors assaulted and threatened by DPS; 2) Protestors injured as a result of DPS and PPD personnel attempting to re-open the MSSD gate by force; 3) Protestors placing their health and lives at risk by being willing to starve themselves as a result of you and your decisions!

However, I am more insulted by your comment of asking US to join YOU in bringing about reconciliation. YOU are the one who should be joining US in reconciling our differences…and it begins with YOU apologizing to us!

After all, you DID say that we need to look into ourselves and think about what we need to do to begin the healing, didn’t you? Well, Jordan, we are all waiting for your apology.

During the almost 19 years of my presidency, we have accomplished great things together. I know our community will get through this challenging period, but it will require hard work from all of us. After all, no matter what position each of us took in recent months, we share a common love and concern for Gallaudet University. May that shared love give us the desire and strength to rebuild relationships, and work together for Gallaudet’s future.

I. King Jordan
President

 It is truly unfortunate, Jordan, that you didn’t realize that there are many of us who love Gallaudet and are more concerned about it than you are. It must have been astonishing for you to see not only the campus rise up against you but the nation and the rest of the world as well!

Don’t ever underestimate the power of a unified Deaf Community, Jordan. One would have thought that you’d be the first to know this, considering the circrumstances that brought you to the presidency in the first place.

Yes, the Deaf Community can be bogged down in bickering, politics, and gossip…but when an event or series of events, such as those that unfolded at Gallaudet, inflames them, the sight of a unified Deaf Community is truly one to behold.

While I await your apology, Jordan, I’d actually like to thank you. Your inflammtory decisions and tactics at Gallaudet served to not only unite us but to illuminate us as well! Across the nation, there are now reports of the Deaf Community beginning to expose the audism and management by intimidation occuring elsewhere!

Jordan, the final chapter in your Gallaudet biography is a disgraceful one caused by none other than yourself; however, there is a silver lining. You can at least brag that you were one of the original instigators that renewed and inspired the Deaf Community to reassert itself in the beginning years of the 21st Century. 

Memorable Quotes of the Protest

The most memorable quote, or rather mostly widely repeated media quote, of the 1988 DPN protests was: “Deaf people can do anything…except hear.”

What are the most memorable quotes from the “Unity for Gallaudet” protest of 2006?

I’d say the runaway winner would be “Unity for Gallaudet!” just because of its sheer simplicity but here are some others to consider:

“I’m the only one who can lead the university” – Allegedly by Jane Fernandes to faculty members informing her of the 82% vote asking for her resignation.

““King, we helped you in 1988 and now you are arresting me.” – Allegedly by Tim Rarus, one of the original DPN protestors.  (Note: There have been other published variations of this quote. Tim, what DID you say?!)

“What we are dealing with on campus is anarchy and terrorism. . .” – Jane Fernandes in an email to the Board of Trustees.

“Not Deaf enough” – Widely publicized by the administration to great effect on why Fernandes wasn’t acceptable to the protestors instead of the fact that Fernandes was simply incompetent to lead Gallaudet as president. Still being used in the aftermath of her termination.

“Buckle up, Paul Kelly!” – My own notorious quote referring to Paul Kelly’s citation for failure to wear a seatbelt in May as part of a posting in which I disclosed many other details.  I like to think that this quote was also a warning letting him and the adminstration know that they were in for a rough ride and that they weren’t just dealing with  students on campus.

I wanted to show them that the game they were playing (having DPS take pictures of protestors, dumping fertilizer on a known and planned protest site, etc.) had been elevated to a larger playing field with formidable opponents coming onto the field.

[And, Paul, I do have to remind people to remember you as the guy who grinned at the sight of the backhoe razing the protestors' tents at the MSSD gate but then you showed your professionalism by turning into a raving lunatic who screamed at the DC Metro Police to arrest the protestors who remained at the gate afterward. Really classy, Paul, definitely conduct befitting a Vice President. I wish you well when your employment with Gallaudet University is likely to cease in the first quarter of 2007.]

I didn’t know how far-reaching my comments went until I saw Jordan’s press release in which he stated:

 ”They have encouraged the harassment of board and administration members and their families by publishing their home and work numbers as well as other personal information, and then encouraging others to use that information to continuously disrupt their lives.”

Holy Schnikes!

“I want to take this opportunity to let you know what’s happening at HMB and to ask your support in helping to resolve this unfortunate situation. We all have an important role to play.” – IKJ’s opening paragraph in an open letter that was not only posted and issued as a press release but also emailed to Gallaudet alumni through an email list that GUAA had asked access for but was denied use of just the day before, thus creating an unpredicted backlash from alumni. 

“I am deeply troubled by the divisions among us and by the anger that overtook reason, respect, and civility.” - Quote from IKJ in regards to the Board’s decision to terminate Fernandes. In other words, IKJ is saying that angry, crazy, disrespectful, and uncivil people convinced the Board of Trustees to terminate Fernandes. Talk about another slap in the face to the Deaf community during the waning days of his presidency!

If that means I’m angry, crazy, disrespectful, and uncivil for being on the side of protestors, I’ll gladly accept that label any day.

There have been many other memorable quotes that inspired or inflammed us. Post your own memorable quotes here as well!

A “Disaster” if IKJ Stayed on as President?

In the same HigherEd article referenced in my last posting, the following statement closed out the article: 

“Richard Lytle, a professor of education, said that in the wake of the last few months, it would be “a disaster” if the board kept Jordan on. Added Lytle: “The big question is: Who will pick up the process and lead this university?”

Letting Jordan hang on for two months would be a “disaster?” Harsh words, no doubt!

And just why would it be a disaster?

Let me count the “conspiracy theories:”

• It would ensure that students, faculty, and staff involved with the protests would be punished as severely as Jordan can get away with without raising the ire of the BoT.
• It would ensure that all emails and documents pertaining to the administration’s actions and decisions with the protests that may be used against them in future litigation have been destroyed.
• It would ensure that Paul Kelly has ample time to review and conceal any financial records that might support the accussations of fiscal improprieties during Jordan’s tenure.
• It would ensure that Jordan will still have the authority for promotions, demotions, pay raises, pay decreases, hirings, and firings for the next two months.

You know what? As far-fetched as the theories may be, it WOULD make sense to at least suspend Jordan from his duties as president…just to be safe!

After all, this was the president who not only allegedly concealed pertinent information from the board in its presidential selection process but also certainly mistated the true nature of the protests to not only the board but to the nation as well!

That alone is worth suspending Jordan from his duties for the remainder of his presidency!