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!
October 31, 2006 at 1:12 am
The removal of Jane Kelleher Fernandes from the position is only a first step toward genuinely reforming Gallaudet University. The Agents of Colonization and their Byzantine power structure must be uprooted next. Otherwise they will grow back on our heads blocking any further progress.
The Board respectfully asked the students to continue with ‘cleaning up’. So why not do that?! The Board declared that the best interest of the school was the removal of the designate. Therefore whoever worked for the designate, often with undignified methods, worked against Gallaudet interest! Therefore, consequences are expected to take place.
We have every reason to celebrate, but we need to keep in mind: the empowerment of the Deaf community at Gallaudet is not yet complete until reforms — based on self-determination and cultural autonomy — are not worked out and are not implemented. Only the success of reforms can crown our efforts with a sense of genuine achievement.