October 6, 2006
Young, Pissed Off, and With Time Between Classes
Most of us can fondly look back on our college days and remember feeling intellectually invigorated and rebellious, hoping to use time between classes to protest against any institution that stepped in our way. Whether sweatshops or affirmative action, there was always something to rage against. Students in a number of District-based universities are carrying on that fine tradition, and in big ways.
Early last year a group of Georgetown University students launched a hunger strike to demand living wages for the university's custodial staff, eventually spending nine days without food and attracting widespread attention until administration officials caved to their demands. Later that year, students at American University rebelled against President Benjamin Ladner when news surfaced that he'd very liberally charged over $500,000 in personal and travel expenses to the university. Ladner was eventually fired, though his hefty severance has provoked a Senate investigation. This year students at Gallaudet University rose up against the appointment of the university's new president, Jane Fernandes, and according a Post report today, defied guesses that the summer would dampen their anger and have taken over a classroom building.
Is there anything new or particularly surprising about these protests? Not really. College students often go through these phases. But the protests at American and Gallaudet are significant because they deal directly with issues of university governance, not larger gripes that extend beyond the bounds of the campus. The students at American — a small though dedicated group of them — made their point powerfully and persistently enough that dismissing Ladner remained the only possible option. More importantly, many of the students leading the crusade against Ladner invoked larger societal themes — transparency in governance, accountability for wrong-doing, and pushing institutions to do exactly what they expect everyone in their charge to do. The Gallaudet protests are more complicated because they deal with deeper identity issues in the deaf community, though they also invoke openness in decision-making as a rallying cry.
Of course, many students, myself included, often grow out of those rebellious college days. That doesn't mean lessons aren't learned, though. The best that we can hope for is that the students leading these protests emerge wiser as to the ways of power and influence. Maybe, just maybe, they can apply what they learned on campus to what's happening beyond the Ivory Tower. Heck, we know a certain institution in Washington that could use a little lesson on accountability, transparency, and honesty.
|
Seems to me, Gallaudet officials just aren't hearing the students concerns. :P
It's a sad commentary on DC that here in the seat of the nation's government -- that rebellion and protest are something you feel you have to "grow" out of.
The students at American and Gallaudet should be applauded for using what is essentially a dead technique to facilitate real change. The G'town students, as is typical, deserve no kudos for buying into their own rich-parent remorse and supporting the worthless "Living Wage" notion.
The best escorts are generally AU students - they will do anything, and seem to enjoy their work.
"Rage against"? "Phases"? "Grow out of"? What's next, citing the old Churchill (?) chestnut about young and liberal and having a heart, old and conservative and having a brain? Did you really mean to imply that protest is only for the young and naive? Only can only hope, Martin, that you grow out of your intellectual laziness and sneering condescension towards those currently politically engaged.
WithTheWorld,
I have been and remain politically engaged. My point was, and this has been verified by many a people that have gone to college, is that those four years often offer students more chances to express themselves through protest. Most students, in my experience, grow out of the means of protest they used in college once they graduate. This, again in my opinion, qualifies as a phase. That doesn't mean that they stop being engaged; it's that they find different ways to do so.
The GU students must feel ridiculous when they leave the protest and drive north for the weekend in their BMW's. Hunter Cashdollar
I was young and restless when I was at Gallaudet in the 1970's. There were times we were "rebellious" but all were for petty reasons. Yes those helped us build experience in unity, in debate, in social and political relations. But now, I see the current Gallaudet students protesters being so much more sophiscated in their social injustice awareness. And even though I am now in the 50's, I am inspired and will support with my older body, a bit wiser mind, and my hard earned dollars! It s the PASSION against social injustices...and I delight that our Deaf youth are not aimless, but gaining political experiences and clear focus. That's hope for our future!
I have come to believe that the FSSA at Gallaudet has a valid cause, although they differ on what it is. There have been many instances of Gallaudet not abiding by the letter and certainly not the spirit of ADA and accessibility for all of it students, in hiring practices, and other points. Jane as provost HAS been responsible for many employment decisions. When I look at the roster and look at the people employed in high positions and I say to myself, I know people better qualified than those people. Why is Gallaudet not truly seeking out talent? I favor an outside review of all the hiring practices since Jane has become provost-- in every circumstance, everybody she's appointed in a position of authority to hire people, everybody. This issue is as much as with the current I. King Jordan (IKJ) administration as it is with the upcoming president. After all, if people were satisified with IKJ's skill in choosing people for talent, they would NOT object so strongly to somebody who seems "handpicked" by IKJ for the position.
I was a graduate student at AU last year, and was embarrassed at the reaction of the student body in regards to President Ladner. They took the leaks of the anti-Ladner faction of the board as the absolute truth, and "forced" those very same people into the action that they wanted to take in the first place. I have never met Mr. Ladner, and only know the facts that were reported in the media as the story was breaking. This story painted a picture of a board that wrote a bad contract, and a man that took advantage of that contract. Were his actions over the top? It seems so. But university presidents fund-raise for a living. And they do it through hosting parties. The fact that current and past board members, and especially the school treasurer, avoided their fiduciary responsibility for years in regards to Ladner's expenses, and then threw him overboard after a segment of the student body demanded his ouster, is outrageous.
Can someone explain to me what the Galludet student's complaints about Jane Fernandes are? I can understand the complaints about the process, but what I've heard about Fernandes from the protesters were that she wasn't "deaf" enough, not that she wasn't qualified.
Daniel-San- from what I understand previous presidents used the funds, but Ladner abused it. For example, from the Post:
"Ladner... acknowledged some missteps -- such as not immediately reimbursing the university for his son's 13-course engagement party dinner last year -- but rejected an independent report that questioned more than half a million dollars in spending in the past three years."
He's getting paid 650+K a year and is still dipping into the fund to pay for his kid's party? His defense was that it wasn't explicitly forbidden by his contract (which is true) but that doesn't mean he didn't abuse it.
(and I laughed at OutOfStep's comment- see you in hell, OOS:)
Mojotron3000, I suggest you to visit my blogsite, RidorLIVE.com, to see the reasons behind the Gallaudet protest against the selection of 9th President Jane K. Fernandes.
1. AS the Provost of Gallaudet, she alienated the faculty, staff, students and alumni on many accounts: Shutting down the yearbook, threatening organizations with restrictions, replaced professors that she regarded as "outspoken", surrounded herself with "yes-sayers".
2. Fernandes is aloof, condescending and all talk. Few years ago, we requested the administration to institute the Audism Mandates. The administration agreed but no actions were taken since then.
3. SBG has requested a meeting with the Provost each year to discuss about the issues for the academic year. The Provost never made a gesture.
It is NOT about "not deaf enough" as Mercy Coogan, the Director of Gallaudet Public Relations attempted to paint this.
It is much more complicated. Let me give you the best example: Last September 2005 when I. King Jordan announced his retirement, he inadvertently said "Our President -- No, I mean, the Provost, Fernandes" -- that raised a red flag that he was going to push for Fernandes.
And we were right after all. The search process was flawed. Most college searches were done within two years, but in Gallaudet's case, it was all done in less than 3 months. Something is wrong with the picture?
And where did we say "not deaf enough" in this scenario? None at all, really.
R-
R-, thanks for that. FYI, that's how it was portrayed in the news- http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1947073&page=1
I had heard "her management style" as a complaint but without your specifics I didn't know what that meant, thanks.