ACTA's Must-Reads
« Governance at Gallaudet | Main | ACTA condemns Gallaudet's decision »
Gallaudet board caves
Yesterday, in a special meeting scheduled to address students' relentless and disruptive protesting of president-elect Jane K. Fernandes, the Gallaudet Board of Trustees rescinded its offer of appointment to her. The decision follows months of anger, outrage, and intensive resistance to Fernandes' appointment, and amounts to a worrisome gesture of appeasement on the part of Gallaudet's Board. The Gallaudet website prominently displayed ACTA's press release advising the Board not to bend to the extortionate pressure placed on it by students and faculty who do not and should not control the decision about who will be the next president. But the heckler's veto has won at Gallaudet, despite strong support for Fernandes from the outgoing president I. King Jordan (that support cost Jordan his own popularity and earned him a "no confidence" vote from the Faculty Senate).
Not only has the Board shown itself unwilling to lead--or to insist that its chosen leader be given the opportunity to lead--but it has also reversed its original position on whether to punish those students who violated both university policy and the law with their excessive and disruptive protests. InsideHigherEd.com notes that while the Board's initial statement declared that students would be held accountable for their actions--"The Board of Trustees respects the right of people to express their views in a peaceful manner. ... However, individuals who violated the law and Gallaudet University's Code of Conduct will be held accountable. We expect the university to honor its long tradition of respect for each other and property and to return to normal"--a three-hour confab with Gallaudet students convinced the Board to reverse itself.
The Gallaudet Board may feel it has dodged a bullet with its decisions. But it has in fact set a dangerous precedent for the future. There's no better way to hobble university governance than by sending the strong message that the loudest, most unreasonable voices will be the ones trustees and administrators listen to.
Posted by acta online at October 30, 2006 06:47 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/236
Comments
Acta holds the following to be self-evident.
Dartmouth:Rich conservative alumni bucking the administration to get on the board of trusties is a good thing.
Gallaudet: Poor students bucking the the administration to influence the choice of president is a bad thing.
Could you please reconcile the apparently contradictory positions for me?
Posted by: veblen at October 30, 2006 09:23 AM
Veblen--
Do you think that the situation might be a bit more complicated than that?
Posted by: Federal Dog at October 30, 2006 06:25 PM
Veblen, you answer your own question. The answer is plainly: rich conservative = good, poor students = bad. Federal Dog writes about how centralized bureaucracies cannot respond to the needs of individuals, but god forbid if university students want some say in who rules over them -- then we all must side with the bureaucracy (or shadow cabinet).
Posted by: Kylie Minogue at October 30, 2006 10:39 PM
Federal Dog, Are you aware of any complicating factors which lift the apparent contradiction? If so , please explain them to me.
Posted by: veblen at October 30, 2006 11:39 PM
"Federal Dog writes about how centralized bureaucracies cannot respond to the needs of individuals"
What? Where did I do THAT?
veblen -- thanks for your candor. It was apparent anyway that you have no grasp of the situation. It really is an intellectual and ethical obligation to inform yourself before mounting ridiculously simplistic attacks about something of which you remain admittedly ignorant.
Posted by: Federal Dog at October 31, 2006 07:35 AM
Federal Dog, I expressed intellectual curiosity and in return I received ridicule. Prove to me that you yourself understand the distinction by providing a full explanation of it. If you can not do that, then we may all assume that none exists.
Posted by: veblen at October 31, 2006 09:28 AM
I'm not your RA, veblen. If you can't bother to even minimally inform yourself, don't bother to comment on ACTA's position.
Posted by: Federal Dog at October 31, 2006 06:03 PM
Federal Dog, first I receive ridicule from you and now it is contempt which you give. Your student must truly enjoy company.
Posted by: veblen at October 31, 2006 08:50 PM
With 82% of the faculty, 89% of the graduate students, and 83% of the Clerc Center Teachers and Staff demanding the immediate withdrawl of JK (Jane Fernandes) as well as a poll last April showing that 81% of undergraduates did not support her appointment, it seems that the "loudest, most unreasonable voices" were also the vast majority of students, faculty, and alumni (the main components of the university, save the administration). Perhaps it wasn't the loudest aspect that swayed the Board of Trustees...
But then again, ACTA needs to spin the story in some manor to support their attack on the Board of Trustees.
Also, referring to this as a student protest does a great disservice to all the alumns and faculty that were dedicated to the protest. Although, it certainly helps ACTA to down play the magnitude of the opposition against JK.
Posted by: marcaro at October 31, 2006 09:28 PM
but god forbid if university students want some say in who rules over them -- then we all must side with the bureaucracy (or shadow cabinet).
The corporation called "Galludet University" provides services for a fee. It is not ruling over students, whose association with it is voluntary. That there are disciplinary rules is a reflection that 1.) the students subject to them are on someone's else's property; 2.)the agreement between the student and the institution has provision which include an understanding that the student will obey the statutory law (including its prohibitions on harrassment and disorderly conduct); and 3.) the parent of the legally but not functionally adult student is a stakeholder who is paying the piper to some extent.
As for the faculty, if they want to work at a producer co-operative, they should assume the financial risks that go with that. Faculty members are salaried employees. They are not paid dividends in proportion to the corporation's sales. (And this particular corporation is a chronic dole recipient to boot).
I have an idea: a vote of the trustees to abolish tenure. Given the same quantum of job security as the indisputably useful journeymen who keep the HVAC systems running at Galludet, some of these kvetching professors might just decide that their boss is someone with whom they can live. That is how the other 99% lives.
Posted by: Art Deco at October 31, 2006 09:28 PM