The recent announcement of the Presidential finalists brought back some great memories as well as some ugly ones. The great memories lie in the students' revolutionary resolve to follow through with their movement despite the odds stacked against them. How the community managed to harness their own internal fire to achieve something seemingly impossible is no small thing, and it has transformed many of us in positive ways, some of which are still being felt today. The ugly memories are of the blatant arrogance exhibited by the campus security officers, certain Board members, and of Irving K. Jordan's manipulation and distortion of the media spin on the real reasons of the protest. Also, probably the ugliest memory of all is the fraction on campus regarding racism, sexism, and audism that were evident and pervasive throughout the Presidential Search Process and the Protest from the beginning to the end. The administrators' cowardly unwillingness to allow the community members to engage in meaningful dialogue to hash out the attitudes, perceptions, as well as the misconceptions ended up bringing Gallaudet's morale to an all time low.
Much damage has been done and not a lot was done to allow healing to take place. The university’s accreditation was nearly revoked due to Jordan and Fernandes's failure to do their job. Thanks to Davila's fiscal conservativeness and solid old school principled leadership, he steered the ship out of Fernandes’s 'Perfect Storm' rhetoric. Let us extend our heartfelt thanks to Davila and the committed faculty, staff, students, and alumni's hard work in revamping the curriculum, as well as the creation of the new mission statement that was long overdue, and the development of the strategic goals with stronger teeth.
Now Gallaudet has been steered and aligned in place for a world of possibilities, we must ask: Where do we go from here?
Before we ponder this question, we need to think of a response to a question that Dr. Dirksen Bauman presented to his graduate students as part of a final exam for one of his classes in 2007: Is deafness worth preserving?
That very question was like a razor slicing through a thick shroud of naive hopefulness and superficiality that lay behind the "Deaf Culture Cherish Must!" rally cry that was oft seen for the past two or three decades.
"Deafness" is synonymous for 'calamity' in the eyes of the world's ideology. It's the worst thing that can happen to anybody, according to popular medical/audiological belief.
With the rise of cochlear implants and the increased popularity of AVT (auditory verbal therapy) which philosophy is to teach babies how to "listen" and "speak" using their CI’s without any visual 'assistance' including sign language, more and more deaf babies are being aggressively discouraged from learning sign language based on gross ideological misconceptions.
Now, another question we must ask is: Who will attend Gallaudet in 15 - 20 years?
Ok... the burning question: Who should be the next President of Gallaudet?
I don't have a clear preference. I believe that all the candidates have the potential to lead Gallaudet. However, who is the right one for NOW? Which one of them has a keen understanding of where we are now, and how we should 'define' what 'deaf' entails? Because of the current framework in asking what 'deaf' means, we continue to see low literacy rates among deaf children in both ASL and English, we continue to see Deaf Education programs being run without accountability, we continue to see attacks on American Sign Language for deaf babies (despite popularity among hearing babies), we continue to see low employment rates for deaf people, and perhaps most pressing of all is that deaf people have zero political clout.
What has Gallaudet done about all this? Historically, not a damn thing. Gallaudet resisted recognizing the bilingual nature of the university until 2007 in its mission statement despite William Stokoe's breakthrough research in 1965, in addition to a widely published acclaim by numerous researchers for multilingualism. Gallaudet resisted training teachers in Bilingual Education until after 2001. Gallaudet is a multi-million funded dollar institute and therefore in a position to have a significant influence on the ideological shift in the human consciousness regarding "D-E-A-F" and yet, does the university flex its muscles? No.
This is a proposition, or perhaps, a challenge to the Board to pick a President who has the guts to stand up to the world and sign "YAWP!!!" We need a visionary for a President, who will not resort to reactive and defensive decisions in responding to the future "demographics" as a result of the continuing onslaught brought on by ideological misconceptions. The resonance of Pierre Desloges, Agatha Tiegel Hanson, and Andrew Foster must be felt as the next President takes charge in leading Gallaudet into the realm of coming up with an innovative framework. If the next President of Gallaudet does not have what it takes to lead this potentially fine institute of higher education and create a paradigm shift on what it means to be human, then we should begin preparing for its vigil. It is up to the Board and the next President to either bow to the current ideology or grab it boldly and entice it to dance as if nobody's watching.
Respectfully yours,
Ryan Commerson
'01 and G '08
