Jordan met one of McCain’s staffers in his legislative office, if I am repeating the story correctly. Jordan mentioned he was in the Navy and the staffer wanted to know what ship he was on, but Jordan wasn’t able to answer!

I’m not sure what that story means, but that’s the story I was told. Was Jordan really on a ship in the Navy? Who knows the answer. Was Jordan lying about it?

McCain? Who knows? I think he left to devote on his presidential campaign and didn’t want to be ‘tainted’ with Gallaudet due to negative media coverage.

I think that Davila has the clean hands and moral authority after this mess to clear up the whole affair, one way or another.

Anon, the statements were made the day after BoT rescinded the presidential appointment of Fernandes and after the active part of the protest ended. That would be at the end of Oct. However, the date Pramuk and Goldberg informed the PUG representatives, I am not sure, but it was also after Fernandes’s resignation.

I totally agree that the ultimate person to decide the reprisals is Jordan. However, Pramuk shouldn’t have made these statements if he was unable to follow up. Because the protesters, especially the students and FSSA, felt misled and now betrayed.

Assuming (and this still hasn’t been proven) Carl Pramuk and other administration folks made promises to the student reps, did he, in fact, have the authority to make those promises? As I recall, the ultimate authority is or was IKJ. Also, even if Pramuk made these promises, it could be argued the campus code of conduct precluded him from doing so.

Also, when I said you need to clarify the timeline involved, I was thinking of this particular situation where the administration thought that it had an agreement with the student reps about not occupying buildings only to find out that there weren’t, as in the occupation of the HMB, the administration could have thought that all promises made before that could be null and void. So, the point is, the promise, if, in fact made, could have been changed by later events. Also, promises made to one person may not have been applicable to other people, if that makes sense.

Now, statements made by individual members of the Board of Trustees are not legally applicable. The Board of Trustees exists as a single unitary group and statements made in its name are legally actionable. When the BoT said that the disciplinary action could proceed, the BoT should have known the consequences of its actions. After all, the BoT said that it had reviewed the proposed disciplinary actions and found that they were correct. Now, if, in fact, individual trustees are saying they didn’t know what the consequences are, that doesn’t say very much for their independence and thought as well as effectiveness.

I think we, as a community, need to put more pressure on the BoTs and ask more questions regarding the evidence they got from IKJ admin.

Have someone from BoT come forward and explain IN PERSON – not by email or newspaper.

Or has this already been done?

This is indeed very frustrating.

Davila’s hands are tied but hopefully he can help somewhat?

I don’t know…by talking about it?

I’m curious to see how things go when he takes office in January with students gone – the ones who made this happen for him.

It’s a tough job for Davila – I wouldn’t wish to be in his shoes.

We were fighting for our right to be equals. And now the students & staff are being punished for it?

That’s BULLSHIT! That’s audism!

Time to stop talking and start protesting!