Deaf President - Research Paper Example

The 1988 and 2006 Deaf President Now Protests Introduction The first recorded event of Deaf President Now took place on March, 1988 (Hutcheson, Christiansen & Barnartt, 1996, P.385, L.12). At some point in life, the oppressed and neglected people in the society declare they have had enough of the stereotyping and stigmatization (Orlans, 1989, P.12, C.1, L.35). Therefore, although the United States thought enough to establish a school for the deaf, prejudices and discrimination still persisted. The conflict began when two language pioneers disagreed on the best way to deal with deaf people. Edward Miner Gallaudet believed that the use of sign language was appropriate while dealing with the deaf. On the other hand, Alexander Graham Bell thought that teachers should implement the use of oral language as a way to talk to the deaf. The hearing people thought that they knew what was best for deaf people, vigorously suppressing the application of sign language (Orlans, 1989, P.12, C.1, L.28). The article below takes the reader through the events of two Deaf President Now rallies that occurred in 1988 and 2006. Background information Deaf President Now is a spark ignited and announced in 1988, the University Board Trustees at Gallaudet University elected a hearing person as the eighth president. During the past years, the deaf community at the college advocated for a deaf person to stand as their leader. During that period, there were more than 100 deaf people on the campus with doctorate credentials, and a number of them held management positions in the University (Orlnas, 1989, P.9, C.2, L.40). Gallaudet University, founded by an act of congress in 1864 in Washington D.C, was set up to serve the deaf. In 1987, Jerry C. Lee resigned from his presidential position, and the deaf students commenced their campaigns for a deaf president (Orlnas, 1989, P.9) However, after the university elected Elisabeth A. Zinser as the eighth hearing president, the protests began. The demonstration was due to political reasons. The cause of the protests was, as a result, for the need for a deaf president. Ever since the establishment of the facility, all the elected presidents were not deaf (Orlnas, 1989, P.8). Edward Miner Gallaudet was the first person to serve as the University’s president, and he served for 46 years. The second president was Dr. Percival Hall, a hearing man who served as a campus leader for 36 years. His successor, who ruled for 25 years, Dr. Leonard M. Elstad, was also a hearing man. Dr. Edward C. Merrill became the fourth hearing president of the university and served between 1969 and 1983 (Orlans, 1989, P.8, C. 2, L.6). It was during the election period for the fifth president that motions for a deaf president began. However, that did not succeed because Dr. W. Lloyd Johns stood as the fifth president of the University. In 1983, Jerry Lee stepped in as the sixth president of Gallaudet University. In 1987, he decided to step down from his seat due to the rising rate of protests from students (Orlans, 1989, P.9, C.2, L.28). Immediately, the Board of Trustees established a committee and appointed a qualified person to assess the deaf and hearing aspirants who were vying for the presidential position. On February 28, 1988, the committee announced three presidential finalists: Dr. Harvey Corson and Dr. I. King Jordan, who were both deaf. Finally, Dr. Elizabeth Zinser was the third finalist and was a hearing person (Orlans, 1989, P.11, C.3, L.18). Events and participants of DPN1 On March 6, 1988, the Board declared Dr. Elisabeth Zinser as the eighth president of Gallaudet University (Mercer, 1998, A41, 1, 18). That date marked the beginning of a weeklong protest from the stakeholders at Gallaudet University. On Monday, March 7, students at the university barricaded university gates using hot-wired buses and heavy-duty bicycle chains, moving them around the school while deflating their tires. The students’ main aim was to flush out the Board and have them listen to their needs. The demands were the resignation of President Zinser and Jane Bassett Spilman, who was the chairperson of the board. The other demand was the reconstitution of the Board of Trustees with a 51% superiority of deaf affiliates. However, despite the chaos, the board ignored the students, which led to a march of supporters to the Capitol Building. Four students led the protest: Jerry Covell, Greg Hlibok, Tim Rarus and Bridgetta Bourne (Wohlstein, 1997, P.183, L.12). The following day, on March 8, the protests continued within the school compound as students burned effigies of Spilman and Zinser. On March 9, the students prohibited the reopening of the school during spring break. Zinser came out and said that only the board had the right to declare the president. March 10, Zinser compromised with the second and fourth demands, but the protestors were not yet content. One of the events, most renowned moments was when Jordan proclaimed that he only had anger towards the board. He further said that the world needed to focus its attention on key issues. The four needs justified; Elisabeth Zinser resigned. March 11, more than 2500 protesters marched towards Capitol Hill chanting that they still have a dream. Finally, on March 13, students and staff members rejoiced the acceptance of the four demands. I. King Jordan became the University’s president (Orlans, 1989, P.13, C.2, L.18). Impacts of DPN1 The deaf community supported the protests as they felt that as an institution for the deaf, Gallaudet should stand as a role model for the deaf people and other deaf institutions. The deaf people believed that they only had a chance in the society by electing a deaf president who would represent them as an able part of the public. Meanwhile, at the campus’s communication centre, hearing protesters obtained supplies from outside parties such as businessmen and allies as a way to fund the ongoing protests (Orlans, 1989, P.12, C.2, L.24). Most of the hearing people felt that only they had the ability to understand and lead the deaf even in matters involving the deaf. The events of the protests had a greater impact on the deaf people. The deaf community gained strength in the fact that they had a deaf leader. The protests allowed the acceptance of the four demands, but the newly elected president Jordan had a difficult time dealing with a board that did not vote for him in the first place. DPN2 In the outcome of the preceding election, in September 2005, Jordan announced his resignation from office and supported Jane Fernandez’s candidacy. In October 2006, the four students from the official DPN 1988 issued a statement that was harshly critical to both Fernandez and Jordan. That marked the beginning of yet another DPN protest. The protests began in early May 2006 and suspended for five months during the summer. They later resumed in October (Christiansen, 2009, P.69, L.2). Events and participants of May protest DPN2 Prior to the protests as the committee searched for representatives of the commission, no form of discrimination took place. The vast mass of search committee members inducted into the campus was deaf or hard hearing. The group representatives included both undergraduate and graduate students, Trustee Board affiliates, professional staff and alumni of the school (Christiansen, 2009, P.69, L.10). People connected to the university were enthusiastic about the search team and looked forward to participating in the hunt. As the committee urged people to come forward as aspirants, it requested for people on campus and from the Deaf community as nominees. The institution’s consultancy team spent most of its time evaluating and recruiting possible candidates for the presidency position (Christiansen, 2009, P.69, L.29). However, several issues began to crop up, such as time limitation and debates on whether or not the president of Gallaudet had to have a terminal degree. That became an issue because most people within the campus, both deaf and hearing, did not have these credentials. In one of the announcements, the group acknowledged that a successful contestant should have a terminal degree, fluent in American Sign Language and English (Christiansen, 2009, P.70, L.9). However, after lengthy meetings, an official vote determined which aspirants would experience further consideration. The six semifinalists were all deaf, of both genders and at least one person of color. Subsequently, the team chose three finalists: Ronald Stern, Jane Fernandez and Stephen Weiner (Christiansen, 2009, P.73, L.20). As the exploration was about to end, the campus anticipation went counter to the committee’s expectations. Soon after the announcement of the finalists for the presidential post in late April, the criticisms started. The first objection was on the fact that Stern lacked a terminal degree, which he, however, confirmed to obtain while still running the office if elected. The second and most disturbing issue was that the team did not consider any person of color as an aspirant. That was apparent to almost everyone in the university since all finalists were white (Christiansen, 2009, P.73). A number of unions in the university, including the Coalition of Organizations for Students of Color at Gallaudet, wrote a letter to the committee raising their concern. In the letter, the union members questioned the fact that the commission overlooked a person of color who possessed all the necessary requirements, including a terminal degree. The letter accused the committee of having created a ‘hostile environment’ and considered Fernandez as pre-ordained. It later wrote another letter to the board of trustees on May 1, the day of Jane Fernandez’s appointment (Christiansen, 2009, P.74, L.16). On April 24, a letter addressed to the search committee, the University committee and the board of trustees said that the absence of a person of color questioned the genuineness of the facility’s multiculturalism. According to the perpetrators of the letter, that act of seclusion actually displayed an act of racism. Finally, the letter announced that the whole elections procedure, including the appointment of the search group and the three nominees, lacked equity and transparency. All the letters provided declared that there was racism (Christiansen, 2009). On May 1, the board made a unanimous announcement that Jane Fernandez was the ninth president of Gallaudet University. From the crowd, it was visibly apparent that most people were angry; whereas some walked out. Ryan Commerson, a graduate student, made his way to the auditorium, interrupting the meeting, and declared that the decision would not go unchallenged. Officers around the campus hastily took him away as people gathered outside (Christiansen, 2009, P.78, L.28). Within minutes of the announcement, institution staff, students and alumni barricaded the gates. Over the next two weeks, the school established structures in which meetings between the board and the protesters took place. The former tried to persuade the latter to accept the outcome but in vain. During the protests the faculty, staff, students and alumni (FSSA) team developed a website and had a media representative. They held meetings, and a week after the announcement, they came up with five resolutions (Christiansen, 2009, P.79, L.17). Events and participants of October protests As people resumed on October 2006, the protests picked up from the last time with emotion levels elevating. Some of the activities that took place were hunger strikes and candle lit vigils, walkouts from classes and university offices, destruction of school property and bomb threats. During the period of October 9, when protesters interrupted the reopening of classes, Jordan threatened to have people arrested. Soon as the school reopened, arrests began. Throughout the entire month of October, the Deaf Community urged the board to do something about the issue. Finally, in Octobers 29, the board let go of its grip on Jane Fernandez, which many people applauded greatly (Christiansen, 2009, P.81, L.1). Impacts Many people inclusive of the staff, alumni, students and faculty, supported the protests. In the case of the 2006 demonstrations, the school advocated the protests whereas the election body was against it. The FSSA group, among other unions, found in the organization believed that the board should apply both equity and transparency. On the other hand, the board opposed since it thought that Jane was the best choice, which was a biased choice. The protests had a tremendous impact on both the hearing and the deaf since they all stood on the same team. Most people got arrested during the protests (Christiansen, 2009, P.80, L.13). The objections required that the school should implement multiracial rights and disregard any form of racism. Everyone had the right to leadership regardless of his or her color, ability or disability. If they possess the right qualifications, other factors should not hinder him or her from leading. In response to the five resolutions, the commission passed four and failed one. The first resolution towards demotion of Jane Fernandez failed. The other four that the board passed included a public address by Fernandez renouncing her position as head. Second, advocating a reopening of the search process. The third resolution was the expression of a vote of no confidence in Dr. Jane Fernandez as president-elect. The final resolution declared a vote of no confidence in the board’s option to appoint Fernandez as the president (Christiansen, 2009, P.79, L.21). Comparison of DPN1 and DPN2 A comparison between the first and second DPNs shows a sense of discrimination by the university board of trustees. Both protests acted as a way to express lack of satisfaction with how the board respected human rights and equality. In both events, students and other protestors took part in chaotic activities that disrupted the normal learning process. Additionally, both occurrences had demands relating to the demotion of the president elected by the board and the adjustment of certain aspects of the board. Finally, in both demonstrations, both the elected leader and the chairman of the board renounced their positions. However, there are a number of differences. In 1988, the political conflict was based on the fact that the board chose a hearing leader. In the 2006 demos, the political conflict resulted from racial discrimination presented by the board. The other difference is that the second protest took a longer period to settle compared to the first (Christiansen, 2009, P.79, L.3). Advantages and disadvantages of the protests From the two protest events described above, the audience clearly understood that they were both beneficial and disadvantageous. The 1988 protest, whose main political agenda was the need for a deaf president, bore good fruits. Only through a deaf leader could the deaf achieve their goals in the society. During the Civil Rights Movements by the African American community, they felt oppressed, and they had to work in order to end their oppression. The deaf community had to fight for their position and equality in the society in order to prosper. The protests aided in creating public awareness on the need for equality among members of the community regardless of physical health. Through the protests in 2006, a deaf man had a terminal degree, an aspect admirable to the society. A deaf person with a terminal degree and all qualities needed for a university president, regardless of the disability, stands as a great achievement to the society. Additionally, the 2006 protests were advantageous to the deaf and hearing community since it brought a sense of solidarity. They all stood as a team and fought for what was right. However, the demonstrations also have their shortcomings. In the 1988 protests, the conflict brought about disparity between the deaf and the hearing while the 2006 demos led to the disparity between the school and the associates of the board. Through the election process, the hearing section of the community showed discrimination towards the deaf, which lead to stigmatization and low self esteem. Protests reveal the weaknesses with a society. Both the deaf and the hearing demonstrated the inability to conform through holding chaotic demonstrations. Conclusion In conclusion, from the two protests above it is apparent that the board of trustees at Gallaudet University needs to practice equality and transparency. However, like many other public institutions, issues of corruption, racial imbalance and inequality present themselves. Through the protests expressed, the public gains an insight into some of the difficulties physically impaired people go through and some of the racial discrimination displayed at the workplace. Each institution needs to revisit and practice ethical ways of leadership. The 1988 and 2006 events at Gallaudet University teach us to respect everyone despite their deafness; they are equally important and need a chance similar to other human beings. References Christiansen, J. B. (2009). The 2006 Protest at Gallaudet University: Reflections and Explanations. Sign Language Studies, 10(1), 69-89. Hutcheson, P. A., Christiansen, J. B., & Barnartt, S. N. (1996). Deaf President Now! The 1988 Revolution at Gallaudet University. History of Education Quarterly, 36(3), 385. Mercer, J. (1998). An unusual reunion at Gallaudet--10 years after push for `Deaf President Now.. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 44(28), A41. Orlans, H. (1989, January 21). Change. The Revolution at Gallaudet, 1, 8-16. (THE REVOLUTION AT GALLAUDET. (1989). Change, 21(1), 9-18.) Wohlstein, R. T. (1997). Deaf President Now! The 1988 revolution at Gallaudet university. Contemporary Sociology, 26(2), 183. Read More