CoSC Members Respond to FSSA Open Letter

Memorandum

To: BOT and Gallaudet Community
Subject: Open Letter in Response to LaToya Plummer and Delia
Lozano-Martinez’s Memorandum.
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen of Trustees, and members of Gallaudet Community,
Our attention has been drew to a Memorandum dated November 14, 2006
and co-signed by Mistresses LaToya Plummer and Delia Lozano-Martinez
which was addressed to Board of Trustees of Gallaudet University, and
was also made public on http://www.gufssa.org and widely circulated through gufssa@googlegroups.com listserv. We wish to respond to the said unfortunate memorandum that sent grossly false message that the organizations of students of color are operation under the atmosphere of conflicts, hostility, and unwillingness to work along with SBG. The said memorandum also wrongly accused original signers of Coalition of Organizations of Students of Color to be persons who harbor anger.

There is a lot of revisionism going on and that is both disturbing
and unfortunate. The Coalition of Students of Color is NOT yet a
formal organization. However, at the very beginning as all of us
know, an informal coalition made up of the International Students
Club, Asian Pacific Association and the Black Deaf Students Union
convened to protest what we felt was a flawed process. The simple
reason for our belief was that the selection of a candidate without a
PhD was problematic given there was a candidate who was an African
American who we believed was much more qualified. We never had any
intention of singling out any of the finalists for personal attacks
and in fact, we fought hard and long within FSSA to get the focus on
the Board of Trustees rather than on any of the finalists. The
belief was simply that since it was the PSC (with its 6 BOT members
and lets not forget, 4 faculty and 2 students all of whom actually
believed the PSC had conducted a fair and flawless search) that had
made this flawed decision; it is the BOT that is ultimately
responsible for their decision.

In our first letter (which was never opposed by any group), we
specifically requested that the BOT in their final deliberations NOT
accept any of the 3 candidates and simply reopen the process with the
rationale that the 3 candidates were NOT selected via a fair process
and we requested that the BOT reassure deaf people of color that
their decision was NOT a blanket statement to the effect that a deaf
person of color, specifically black deaf males, need not even
consider applying for a post when they may be qualified because a
white deaf person with lesser qualifications will always be
considered superior. Isn’t this a clear case of white deaf
privilege? Isn’t this enough reason to question the BOT’s decision?
We guess not since everybody except this group representing
racial minority student organizations believed everybody should trust
the process. The reason for trusting the process was merely because
the candidate everyone wanted was NOT chosen and the candidate
everybody did NOT want was chosen. Now the original letter from the
students of color specifically warned of the chaos that would ensure
should the BOT ignore our suggestions for a clean, chaos free
retraction BEFORE they made the final selection. We even predicted
the toll it would have on the deaf community in general. They of
course were proven correct.

Since we refused to change our principles which were to NOT attack
any individual, and since the FSSA gradually shifted towards the
decision to attack Dr. Fernandes, is it not obvious that there is a
conflict in philosophy here? One group wants to attack an individual
while the other believes pressuring the BOT is the proper strategy.
Well, history will show that in the end, the BOT was so scared of the
spotlight shifting towards them that they simply cracked. What if
everybody had joined the students of color in the very beginning and
put pressure on the BOT to rethink their decision? Would we have
attacked Dr. Fernandes with the rage we all witnessed? Would we have
attacked each other with the venom on display on blogs and discussion
forums? Would 134 students have volunteered to sacrifice themselves?
Would students wishing to attend classes uninterrupted felt compelled
to form a dissenting group even though many within this dissenting
group may have agreed on the protests demand for reopening of the
process because they too felt it was flawed, but did not agree that
the reason it was flawed was because of Dr. Fernandes’ leadership but
rather the fact the BOT and the PSC offended reasonable person
standards by selecting a candidate they felt was NOT qualified for
the position as a finalist by virtue of his not possessing a terminal
degree? Would students be struggling to catch up with classes in what
is perhaps the strangest semester they may ever experience? Would we
have had our GUAA splitting from the university? Would we have the
NAD compromising its status as a fully inclusive advocacy
organization with the interests of ALL deaf people (or is the NAD
actually exclusive and representative of only a certain segment of
the deaf and hard of hearing community of signers?); would we be
revisionist in suggesting that Dr. Jordan has accomplished nothing of
value to deaf and disabled people in his 18 years as President and
focusing only on his flaws? Would we have the outside world looking
at us negatively?

LaToya was not a student when the coalition convened. She became a
student after she received assistance from Dr. Fernandes. Delia was
not president of LSU when the coalition first convened. Joel Garcia,
the Vice President then involved with LSU in the previous
administration, suggested to us that the LSU at that time did not
have leadership and were in the process of electing officers so could
not participate in the signing of that original letter. However, he
and later Delia were actively involved in discussions along with the
other minority organization representatives. Nobody objected to that
original letter. Nobody objected to the second letter either. There
is objection to the 3rd letter which is somewhat ironic when you
actually read its contents. Why would there be objections to the
perceived intent of the protagonists? Why is it difficult to look at
the contents of the letter and decide if they have merit or not? Is
it because this letter did not come from the FSSA? Does this suggest
that because of this, this group is operating outside the controls of
the FSSA? Is it because the FSSA has its own group of people of
color who believe that all issues pertaining to students of color
have no merit unless coming from within FSSA? We cannot convince
ourselves that FSSA would endorse such narrow thinking. FSSA to us
is more than that, better than that. At least we sincerely hope so.
All of us were in the early stages deeply involved with FSSA and all
of us saw the formation of a collective vision which was a wonderful
process but we also saw changes in strategy and purpose which was not
what we supported. We support an INCLUSIVE university because our
members represent diversity in all its forms including language
because many of our members are not from schools for the deaf or from
deaf families.

Our motto was and still is “Diversity NOW, Enough is Enough”. We
cannot in good conscience support a Gallaudet that is exclusive and
that will not support diversity. We cannot agree that if we do not
fit (When in Rome do as the Romans do), we should be told to go
elsewhere. Where else can we discover and appreciate our deaf
identity? Where else can we learn and appreciate our beautiful
visual language? We believe that we have as much right to attend
Gallaudet as a born deaf person of deaf parents who attended a deaf
school and is a native signer has the right to attend Harvard
University. We do not believe that person should be told by Harvard
that this is an English speaking university and that they cannot and
will not provide interpreters. We could never accept that just as we
cannot accept that Howard University should be reserved for Black
people who speak Ebonics. Howard University has Asian, Hispanic,
white and disabled students all of whom speak English in ways that
reflect their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Is there anything
wrong with that?

We talk about choices and freedoms and yet when a legitimate group of
students who represent legitimate organizations registered with
Campus Activities and recognized by the SBG get together to voice
their opinion, position or perspective, what do we get? Two people
of color are used to attack this coalition. Why? Because they were
not invited as signers of the 3rd letter? That is merely because the
intent was to have the 3rd letter signed by the original signers of
the first two letters. LSU is the only organization that has
officially supported FSSA’s strategy to attack Dr. Fernandes while
APA and BDSU have maintained the same position as they did in the
beginning. ISC has had a representative within FSSA but has never
officially indicated its support for the strategies which disrupted
classes. No member of any of these organizations was coerced into
signing the 3rd letter and anyone of them could have opted out. It
was purely voluntarily.

The suggestion that these groups of legitimate organizations are
dividing students of color is a strange one. How are they dividing
students of color when they represent legitimate organizations? Is
the group that meets with Dr. Cheryl Wu and Dr. Laurene Simms under
FSSA considered the legitimate and official representatives of all
students of color on campus? How is that so? Because of LaToya and
Delia’s involvement in the protest? Students of color have the
freedom and rights to choose as they wish just as it is true of the
white deaf community. Is this a betrayal or a simple exercise of
democratic freedoms this great country freely offers its
citizens? Why is this dividing? What is to stop Delia and LaToya or
the FSSA group joining our legitimate student organizations and
working towards protecting diversity and INCLUSIVENESS at Gallaudet
University? Did they find any fault with the 3rd letter? Are they
objecting because the BOT agreed to give them a meeting and also
agreed to their request for representation in the IPSAC? The FSSA
was extended the opportunity to select representatives so why is that
a problem when this opportunity is extended to this coalition of
minority student organizations?

Now to suggest that the coalition is rejecting LSU is of course
simply untrue. LSU and ISC Advisor Mr. Lindsay Dunn has always told
us that if we wish to be involved in the protest, it was fine as long
as it was for the right reasons, the right way then there would be
the right result. He and Ms. Nguyen have never tried to influence
our individual views and for that we respect them. Joel Garcia was
active in the protest and continues to be Mr. Dunn’s mentee. Why
would we be opposed to their involvement when we know they too are
victims of racism? Hispanics are among the most diverse people and
include people of African, European and Indian and Asian descent.
Arlyn is from the Philippines where Spanish is spoken and yet the
people are of Asian descent.

LaToya and Delia as well as the others who were actively involved in
the protest deserve applause for displaying powerful leadership and
showing that diversity at Gallaudet can work if we are given a
chance. While we still do not agree with the motives and strategy,
we have nothing but respect and admiration for them. However, we
also hope they can give us the same respect we give them. We are not
interested in dividing our community and are very much interested in
cooperation. Noah Beckman can confirm or refute the idea that COSC
intends to work against the SBG. In fact, David and Noah have had
meetings to discuss concerns and each one of us has great admiration
and respect for Noah for being honest and open in his interview with
Newsweek. Few white people have shown the courage he has shown and
we thank him for that. We desire to work within the SBG and to make
sure the community of students of color is protected from racism and
neglect in whatever new system the Interim President will introduce.

Going by LaToya’s statement yesterday at G-Area of KJSAC, when
confronted politely by Candace Jones and David King about her motive
behind the memorandum, she claimed to have the support and
endorsement of Dr. Laurene Simms and Darien Burwell in the presence
of Thuan Nguyen and one Doris. If her statement is true, it would be
clear that division within students of color are being created by
black faculty and staff and we strongly believe such action is unfair
to LaToya and Delia who deserve to be told truth about the
consequence of their action toward the students of color community.

Sincerely,
Signed by:
David Musa King
Niesha Washington
Arlyn Penaranda