MSA Blames Jordan Administration and BoT
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680
Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msache.org
January 13, 2007
Dr. Robert Davila, President
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002-3695
Dear Dr. Davila: I am writing on behalf of the Middle States team that visited Gallaudet University on January 10-12, 2007, first to thank you and your colleagues again for your warm hospitality in hosting our visit. We are most grateful not only for your hospitality but also for the graciousness and professionalism with which you all received our comments, observations, and suggestions.
Â
A copy of the team’s report to the Gallaudet community on its visit is attached. Please advise me no later than January 31, 2007, of any errors of fact in the report. A formal institutional response is not necessary at this time, as it may be incorporated into the Supplemental Information Report due on March 1.I am also writing in response to your request that we provide you with a written summary of the many comments we made during our visit, so that you can convey them accurately to those who were unable to attend our meetings:Rationale for the Commission’sNovember 2006 action. Three events prompted the Commission’s action in November 2006 to postpone a decision on accreditation, direct a visit, and request a supplemental information report and monitoring report:
1. Gallaudet’s Periodic Review Report, submitted by June 1, 2006, did not meet Middle States expectations because it did not include the required comprehensive plan to assess student learning and institutional effectiveness, because the reviewers felt there had been inadequate attention to some of the 2001 evaluation team recommendations, and because the Committee on Periodic Review Reports found the institutional response dismissive.
2. President Jordan’s response to my October 16, 2006, request for information on plans to assess and strengthen the effectiveness of institutional governance and plans to further a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives did not present concrete plans that reflected current realities.
3. Media coverage of Gallaudet,  including protests, in Fall 2006 raised additional concerns about Gallaudet’s compliance with a number of Middle States accreditation standards.
.
 The Commission is obligated to investigate serious public concerns such as those expressed through media reports.
Accreditation standards in question. The Commission has concerns about Gallaudet’s compliance with eight of the Commission’s 14 accreditation standards :
• Standard 1 (Mission and Goals): There is great fragmentation within the Gallaudet community regarding its mission, leading to concerns about the mission’s viability. In particular, Gallaudet tries to be “all things to all people†within the deaf and hard of hearing community, an aim that may not be viable
.• Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal): Gallaudet’s strategic plan may not be viable; there may be insufficient buy-in by the university community to enable it to be achieved. Press reports, for example, raise questions about whether there is sufficient support within the university community for the first goal (making Gallaudet more inclusive) to implement it successfully.
• Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance): The extent of the fall protests raises concerns about the functionality of Gallaudet’s governance system, especially the Board’s fulfillment of its responsibilities to keep fully informed of institutional matters and its capacity to offer informed, independent counsel to the president. The failure of two presidential appointments because of protests is a disturbing precedent.
• Standard 6 (Integrity): The extent of the fall protests and repeated allegations of violence and intimidation raise grave concerns about whether Gallaudet has “a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives.†Also, changes and issues affecting the institution, particularly the Federal OMB report and the protests, were not communicated in a timely manner to the Commission. Furthermore, press allegations of lack of academic integrity raise additional questions.
• Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment): The Periodic Review Report did not provide evidence of documented, organized, and sustained processes to assess institutional effectiveness, including achievement of the institution’s mission and strategic goals .• Standard 8 (Student Admissions and Retention): The Federal OMB report, declining enrollments, and allegations of low admission and academic standards all raise concern about Gallaudet’s effectiveness in providing “programs and services to ensure that admitted students who marginally meet or do not meet the institution’s qualifications achieve expected learning goals and higher education outcomes at appropriate points†and “ongoing assessment of student success…that evaluates the match between the attributes of admitted students and the institution’s mission and programs, and reflects its findings in its admissions, remediation, and other related policies.• Standard 11 (Educational Offerings): Low retention, graduation, and placement rates, accompanied by press allegations about a lack of academic integrity, raise questions about compliance with this standard.
• Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning): The Periodic Review Report provided assessment information only on programs with specialized accreditation and indirect evidence such as surveys; it did not provide the comprehensive student learning assessment plan that the Commission asks to accompany the report
.In addition, the university’s three-day closure, accompanied by allegations of canceled classes and students being intimidated from attending classes before and after the closure, raise concerns about Gallaudet’s compliance with Eligibility Requirement 8 (The institution is operational with students actively pursuing its degree programs.).As the team noted during its visit , because the Commission is concerned about Gallaudet’s compliance with so many of its standards, Gallaudet’s accreditation is currently fragile.
When the Commission has serious concerns about an institution, its normal practice is to ask the staff liaison to visit the institution to explain the Commission’s expectations. Having three Commissioners accompany the staff liaison to communicate the Commission’s concerns is unprecedented. The concerns expressed here are, however, questions rather than conclusions; it is now incumbent upon Gallaudet to provide evidence of its compliance with these standards.
Â
Actions considered by the Commission. Â The action to postpone a decision on accreditation and request a supplemental information report was the mildest action considered by the Commission.Other actions considered were to:
• Reject the Periodic Review Report and staff-requested information report and direct the institution to resubmit the Periodic Review Report
.• Direct the institution to commence self-study in preparation for an evaluation visit within two years.
• Place the institution on warning that its accreditation is in jeopardy. • Place the institution on probation.The Commission bases its actions upon what it believes will most help the institution. In Gallaudet’s case, the Commission decided to postpone a decision on accreditation and ask for a Supplemental Information Report to give the university an additional opportunity to tell its side of the story.Supplemental information report.The Commission is asking for the following information in the Supplemental Information Report due March 1, 2007:• Effectiveness of shared governance including presidential search process: The Commission is looking for evidence that governance problems are acknowledged and the university is moving to address them. Explain, in concrete terms, plans to systematically analyze, assess, and improve the functionality of Gallaudet’s governance system so that all segments of the university community feel that they have a meaningful, appropriate voice. Also explain, in concrete terms, analysis of lessons learned from the failed presidential search process and plans to modify the next presidential search process so that the outcome is more successful. Finally, include an assessment of board effectiveness (or concrete plans to conduct one), including, to quote AGB publications, whether:o All board members regularly receive the data and information they need to monitor the institution’s health and welfare.o That information is provided in the right amounts, on the right matters, and in forms that are quickly comprehensible and usable.o The board serves as an independent, informed source of counsel to the president.
The following resources may be helpful in examining governance and learning about policies and practices at other institutions:o The Association of Governing Boards (AGB) regarding board governanceo The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) regarding student governance and judicial systemso The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) regarding faculty governance and academic freedomo Magna Publications (www.magnapubs.com) regarding student leadership o Anker Publications (www.ankerpub.com) regarding facultyI am attaching an article by Derek Bok on the role that the board can assume in assessing academic programs and student learning. Also, a search for books on “faculty governance†at Amazon.com will yield a number of good publications on the subject.• Nurturance of a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives:Explain, in concrete terms, your plans to analyze, assess, and improve campus climate (not just in terms of racial/ethnic diversity but also for diverse viewpoints) in light of what has been learned from the protests. Include in this section your plans to systematically analyze and assess the effectiveness of policies and processes regarding complaints, grievances, discipline, and academic and intellectual freedom for students, faculty, staff, and administration, and the integrity evidenced in the manner in which such policies and processes are applied.
  As part of this assessment, the team also encourages you to develop systematic evidence of the true extent of intimidation in the expression of ideas. NASPA and AGB, both mentioned above, may provide helpful resources for this section. • Mission review and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan:
Explain, in concrete terms, plans to review Gallaudet’s mission to ensure that it reflects the current environment and is viable, keeping in mind that institutions can be faithful to their mission while expressing it in new ways and that, to quote AGB, “major changes in mission and purpose require great sensitivity and broad consultation.â€
Questions the university community might consider include:
o What are the fundamental activities that Gallaudet should always do, no matter what?
o What are the key values that the Gallaudet community embraces?
o What is the community’s vision for Gallaudet, say, ten years from now? In what ways would the community like it to be the same? In what ways would the community like it to be different?Â
o How does the Gallaudet community define a high-quality education? How does the Gallaudet community know it is providing it?
o Given that deaf students have many opportunities for higher education elsewhere, what do you see as the distinctive needs and opportunities that Gallaudet should aim to fill? How can Gallaudet maintain its “competitive edge�
o What are the characteristics of students who might find Gallaudet an especially “good fitâ€?Â
The mission review may include consideration of the role of ASL and other means of communication in the life of the university. Data-based evidence of the extent of ASL fluency among faculty and staff would greatly inform this discussion.
Also explain, in concrete terms, plans to analyze systematically the viability of Gallaudet’s strategic plan and, if it is determined to be viable, plans to implement the strategic plan (timelines, accountabilities, plans to assess institutional effectiveness in achieving mission and strategic goals, etc.). The Society for College & University Planning may provide helpful resources in these areas.
• Implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan that addresses student recruitment, retention, graduation, and enrollment: Include your current enrollment management plan, addressing all these items, along with information on underlying assumptions, to assure the Commission that the plan is realistic and achievable. Include strategies and processes to ensure that institutional decision-makers have timely, transparent access to enrollment management information. If a comprehensive enrollment plan is still under development by March 1, provide goals and targets for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, with assumptions and rationales, along with concrete plans to develop a more comprehensive enrollment management plan. Include in this section an explanation of your overall enrollment goals and your plans to obtain systematic, concrete information on why students leave before graduating and what students do after graduation.
• Evidence of the academic rigor of the degrees offered: Explain, in specific terms, the steps the institution is taking to ensure academic integrity in all it does.
Â
Also explain, in very concrete, specific terms, steps you are taking to ensure that all students graduate with college-level knowledge, competencies, and skills, especially in general education competencies such as written communication and quantitative reasoning.
Include an overview of your plans to develop a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess the achievement of institutional and program-level student learning goals that includes direct evidence of student learning, in preparation for the monitoring report due April 1, 2008.
• Procedures for ensuring that changes and issues affecting the institution are disclosed accurately and in a timely manner to the Commission. This should be self-explanatory.
Throughout the Supplemental Information Report, the Commission will be looking for evidence that the Gallaudet community is moving from conclusions, decisions, and plans based on rumor and anecdote to ones based on careful analysis of systematic evidence, data, and facts that are communicated widely and transparently. The report must be honest and balanced in acknowledging successes, shortcomings, and work to be done. It should include evidence of analysis of past actions and tangible rather than conceptual plans.
Platitudes, unsubstantiated assurances, and defenses of past actions do not have a place in the report.
Â
 We encourage you to look upon the Supplemental Information Report as a means of engaging the entire Gallaudet community, including students, rather than as an administrative task. We further encourage you to look upon the report as an opportunity to develop an action plan for the next 18-24 months.Upcoming sequence of events. The Commission will next meet on March 8, 2007.
Â
While I cannot predict the Commission’s action, if we assume that there will be no further disruptions on campus, a likely scenario is that the Commission will act to thank Gallaudet for receiving the Commission’s visitors and to note that the Supplemental Information Report due March 1 will be acted upon at the Commission’s June meeting.The Supplemental Information Report due March 1 will be followed by a visit by me, perhaps accompanied by others. I have asked Audrey to get in touch with me to identify a mutually convenient date for the visit, probably in April, and discuss the schedule for the visit.
Â
The Supplemental Information Report and my report on my subsequent visit will be submitted to two members of the Commission on Follow-Up for review, then considered by the entire Committee on Follow-Up on May 31, 2007, and finally considered by the entire Commission at its meeting on June 28, 2007. Again, while I cannot predict the Commission’s action, the best possible scenario is that the Commission would accept the report, reaffirm Gallaudet’s accreditation, and request a monitoring report on key plans described in the report that are not yet implemented. If the Supplemental Information Report does not adequately address the Commission’s concerns, or if there are further disruptions or thwarting of the free and open exchange of ideas, the Commission will be obliged to take further action regarding Gallaudet’s accreditation at that meeting.
Please convey to your colleagues our great interest in and regard for Gallaudet University and our sincere hope that the university community will succeed in its quest to heal the university and propel it to greater excellence. Please feel free to contact me (LSuskie at msche.org or 267-284-5019) if I may be of assistance at any time. I look forward to seeing you and your colleagues again later this spring
.Best wishes,Linda A. Suskie
Vice Presidentcc: Dr. Stephen Sweeny, College of New Rochelle, Team Chair
Msgr. David Rubino, Seton Hill College
Ms. Lisa Marsh Ryerson, Wells CollegeEnclosures:
Team report to the Gallaudet community Article by Derek Bok in Trusteeship GALLYNET-L@gallynet.orgReprinted with permission by the listserv moderatorCommentary: Well, there you go. This is a pretty damning document validating the protesters’ allegations of Jordan Administration of systematically violating multiple MSA requirements. The flawed presidential search process, which MSA acknowledged, was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.  The protest only unearthed the reality that Jordan Administration had been trying to hide from both the MSA and the public.Sorry about the appareance of this post. As much as I tried, I couldn’t fix it due to technicial problems. MZPS. Thanks to Brian for helping fix the letter. There is still some technicial problems, but at least this letter is easier to read than the first draft. Sorry about that.
P.S.S. I want to make clear to all that the underlining and the boldfacing in the letter were done by me, not by the MSA official. I shouldn’t have assumed that you all knew this. That is an excellent point which I hadn’t thought before, so I appreciate you pointing this out, Comment. I certainly will keep that in mind for the future. MZ
e mail contact: Mishkazena@aol.com
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680
Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msache.org
January 13, 2007
Dr. Robert Davila, President
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002-3695
Dear Dr. Davila: I am writing on behalf of the Middle States team that visited Gallaudet University on January 10-12, 2007, first to thank you and your colleagues again for your warm hospitality in hosting our visit. We are most grateful not only for your hospitality but also for the graciousness and professionalism with which you all received our comments, observations, and suggestions.
Â
A copy of the team’s report to the Gallaudet community on its visit is attached. Please advise me no later than January 31, 2007, of any errors of fact in the report. A formal institutional response is not necessary at this time, as it may be incorporated into the Supplemental Information Report due on March 1.I am also writing in response to your request that we provide you with a written summary of the many comments we made during our visit, so that you can convey them accurately to those who were unable to attend our meetings:Rationale for the Commission’sNovember 2006 action. Three events prompted the Commission’s action in November 2006 to postpone a decision on accreditation, direct a visit, and request a supplemental information report and monitoring report:
1. Gallaudet’s Periodic Review Report, submitted by June 1, 2006, did not meet Middle States expectations because it did not include the required comprehensive plan to assess student learning and institutional effectiveness, because the reviewers felt there had been inadequate attention to some of the 2001 evaluation team recommendations, and because the Committee on Periodic Review Reports found the institutional response dismissive.
2. President Jordan’s response to my October 16, 2006, request for information on plans to assess and strengthen the effectiveness of institutional governance and plans to further a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives did not present concrete plans that reflected current realities.
3. Media coverage of Gallaudet,  including protests, in Fall 2006 raised additional concerns about Gallaudet’s compliance with a number of Middle States accreditation standards.
.
 The Commission is obligated to investigate serious public concerns such as those expressed through media reports.
Accreditation standards in question. The Commission has concerns about Gallaudet’s compliance with eight of the Commission’s 14 accreditation standards :
• Standard 1 (Mission and Goals): There is great fragmentation within the Gallaudet community regarding its mission, leading to concerns about the mission’s viability. In particular, Gallaudet tries to be “all things to all people†within the deaf and hard of hearing community, an aim that may not be viable
.• Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal): Gallaudet’s strategic plan may not be viable; there may be insufficient buy-in by the university community to enable it to be achieved. Press reports, for example, raise questions about whether there is sufficient support within the university community for the first goal (making Gallaudet more inclusive) to implement it successfully.
• Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance): The extent of the fall protests raises concerns about the functionality of Gallaudet’s governance system, especially the Board’s fulfillment of its responsibilities to keep fully informed of institutional matters and its capacity to offer informed, independent counsel to the president. The failure of two presidential appointments because of protests is a disturbing precedent.
• Standard 6 (Integrity): The extent of the fall protests and repeated allegations of violence and intimidation raise grave concerns about whether Gallaudet has “a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives.†Also, changes and issues affecting the institution, particularly the Federal OMB report and the protests, were not communicated in a timely manner to the Commission. Furthermore, press allegations of lack of academic integrity raise additional questions.
• Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment): The Periodic Review Report did not provide evidence of documented, organized, and sustained processes to assess institutional effectiveness, including achievement of the institution’s mission and strategic goals .• Standard 8 (Student Admissions and Retention): The Federal OMB report, declining enrollments, and allegations of low admission and academic standards all raise concern about Gallaudet’s effectiveness in providing “programs and services to ensure that admitted students who marginally meet or do not meet the institution’s qualifications achieve expected learning goals and higher education outcomes at appropriate points†and “ongoing assessment of student success…that evaluates the match between the attributes of admitted students and the institution’s mission and programs, and reflects its findings in its admissions, remediation, and other related policies.• Standard 11 (Educational Offerings): Low retention, graduation, and placement rates, accompanied by press allegations about a lack of academic integrity, raise questions about compliance with this standard.
• Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning): The Periodic Review Report provided assessment information only on programs with specialized accreditation and indirect evidence such as surveys; it did not provide the comprehensive student learning assessment plan that the Commission asks to accompany the report
.In addition, the university’s three-day closure, accompanied by allegations of canceled classes and students being intimidated from attending classes before and after the closure, raise concerns about Gallaudet’s compliance with Eligibility Requirement 8 (The institution is operational with students actively pursuing its degree programs.).As the team noted during its visit , because the Commission is concerned about Gallaudet’s compliance with so many of its standards, Gallaudet’s accreditation is currently fragile.
When the Commission has serious concerns about an institution, its normal practice is to ask the staff liaison to visit the institution to explain the Commission’s expectations. Having three Commissioners accompany the staff liaison to communicate the Commission’s concerns is unprecedented. The concerns expressed here are, however, questions rather than conclusions; it is now incumbent upon Gallaudet to provide evidence of its compliance with these standards.
Â
Actions considered by the Commission. Â The action to postpone a decision on accreditation and request a supplemental information report was the mildest action considered by the Commission.Other actions considered were to:
• Reject the Periodic Review Report and staff-requested information report and direct the institution to resubmit the Periodic Review Report
.• Direct the institution to commence self-study in preparation for an evaluation visit within two years.
• Place the institution on warning that its accreditation is in jeopardy. • Place the institution on probation.The Commission bases its actions upon what it believes will most help the institution. In Gallaudet’s case, the Commission decided to postpone a decision on accreditation and ask for a Supplemental Information Report to give the university an additional opportunity to tell its side of the story.Supplemental information report.The Commission is asking for the following information in the Supplemental Information Report due March 1, 2007:• Effectiveness of shared governance including presidential search process: The Commission is looking for evidence that governance problems are acknowledged and the university is moving to address them. Explain, in concrete terms, plans to systematically analyze, assess, and improve the functionality of Gallaudet’s governance system so that all segments of the university community feel that they have a meaningful, appropriate voice. Also explain, in concrete terms, analysis of lessons learned from the failed presidential search process and plans to modify the next presidential search process so that the outcome is more successful. Finally, include an assessment of board effectiveness (or concrete plans to conduct one), including, to quote AGB publications, whether:o All board members regularly receive the data and information they need to monitor the institution’s health and welfare.o That information is provided in the right amounts, on the right matters, and in forms that are quickly comprehensible and usable.o The board serves as an independent, informed source of counsel to the president.
The following resources may be helpful in examining governance and learning about policies and practices at other institutions:o The Association of Governing Boards (AGB) regarding board governanceo The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) regarding student governance and judicial systemso The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) regarding faculty governance and academic freedomo Magna Publications (www.magnapubs.com) regarding student leadership o Anker Publications (www.ankerpub.com) regarding facultyI am attaching an article by Derek Bok on the role that the board can assume in assessing academic programs and student learning. Also, a search for books on “faculty governance†at Amazon.com will yield a number of good publications on the subject.• Nurturance of a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration for a range of backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives:Explain, in concrete terms, your plans to analyze, assess, and improve campus climate (not just in terms of racial/ethnic diversity but also for diverse viewpoints) in light of what has been learned from the protests. Include in this section your plans to systematically analyze and assess the effectiveness of policies and processes regarding complaints, grievances, discipline, and academic and intellectual freedom for students, faculty, staff, and administration, and the integrity evidenced in the manner in which such policies and processes are applied.
  As part of this assessment, the team also encourages you to develop systematic evidence of the true extent of intimidation in the expression of ideas. NASPA and AGB, both mentioned above, may provide helpful resources for this section. • Mission review and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan:
Explain, in concrete terms, plans to review Gallaudet’s mission to ensure that it reflects the current environment and is viable, keeping in mind that institutions can be faithful to their mission while expressing it in new ways and that, to quote AGB, “major changes in mission and purpose require great sensitivity and broad consultation.â€
Questions the university community might consider include:
o What are the fundamental activities that Gallaudet should always do, no matter what?
o What are the key values that the Gallaudet community embraces?
o What is the community’s vision for Gallaudet, say, ten years from now? In what ways would the community like it to be the same? In what ways would the community like it to be different?Â
o How does the Gallaudet community define a high-quality education? How does the Gallaudet community know it is providing it?
o Given that deaf students have many opportunities for higher education elsewhere, what do you see as the distinctive needs and opportunities that Gallaudet should aim to fill? How can Gallaudet maintain its “competitive edge�
o What are the characteristics of students who might find Gallaudet an especially “good fitâ€?Â
The mission review may include consideration of the role of ASL and other means of communication in the life of the university. Data-based evidence of the extent of ASL fluency among faculty and staff would greatly inform this discussion.
Also explain, in concrete terms, plans to analyze systematically the viability of Gallaudet’s strategic plan and, if it is determined to be viable, plans to implement the strategic plan (timelines, accountabilities, plans to assess institutional effectiveness in achieving mission and strategic goals, etc.). The Society for College & University Planning may provide helpful resources in these areas.
• Implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan that addresses student recruitment, retention, graduation, and enrollment: Include your current enrollment management plan, addressing all these items, along with information on underlying assumptions, to assure the Commission that the plan is realistic and achievable. Include strategies and processes to ensure that institutional decision-makers have timely, transparent access to enrollment management information. If a comprehensive enrollment plan is still under development by March 1, provide goals and targets for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, with assumptions and rationales, along with concrete plans to develop a more comprehensive enrollment management plan. Include in this section an explanation of your overall enrollment goals and your plans to obtain systematic, concrete information on why students leave before graduating and what students do after graduation.
• Evidence of the academic rigor of the degrees offered: Explain, in specific terms, the steps the institution is taking to ensure academic integrity in all it does.
Â
Also explain, in very concrete, specific terms, steps you are taking to ensure that all students graduate with college-level knowledge, competencies, and skills, especially in general education competencies such as written communication and quantitative reasoning.
Include an overview of your plans to develop a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess the achievement of institutional and program-level student learning goals that includes direct evidence of student learning, in preparation for the monitoring report due April 1, 2008.
• Procedures for ensuring that changes and issues affecting the institution are disclosed accurately and in a timely manner to the Commission. This should be self-explanatory.
Throughout the Supplemental Information Report, the Commission will be looking for evidence that the Gallaudet community is moving from conclusions, decisions, and plans based on rumor and anecdote to ones based on careful analysis of systematic evidence, data, and facts that are communicated widely and transparently. The report must be honest and balanced in acknowledging successes, shortcomings, and work to be done. It should include evidence of analysis of past actions and tangible rather than conceptual plans.
Platitudes, unsubstantiated assurances, and defenses of past actions do not have a place in the report.
Â
 We encourage you to look upon the Supplemental Information Report as a means of engaging the entire Gallaudet community, including students, rather than as an administrative task. We further encourage you to look upon the report as an opportunity to develop an action plan for the next 18-24 months.Upcoming sequence of events. The Commission will next meet on March 8, 2007.
Â
While I cannot predict the Commission’s action, if we assume that there will be no further disruptions on campus, a likely scenario is that the Commission will act to thank Gallaudet for receiving the Commission’s visitors and to note that the Supplemental Information Report due March 1 will be acted upon at the Commission’s June meeting.The Supplemental Information Report due March 1 will be followed by a visit by me, perhaps accompanied by others. I have asked Audrey to get in touch with me to identify a mutually convenient date for the visit, probably in April, and discuss the schedule for the visit.
Â
The Supplemental Information Report and my report on my subsequent visit will be submitted to two members of the Commission on Follow-Up for review, then considered by the entire Committee on Follow-Up on May 31, 2007, and finally considered by the entire Commission at its meeting on June 28, 2007. Again, while I cannot predict the Commission’s action, the best possible scenario is that the Commission would accept the report, reaffirm Gallaudet’s accreditation, and request a monitoring report on key plans described in the report that are not yet implemented. If the Supplemental Information Report does not adequately address the Commission’s concerns, or if there are further disruptions or thwarting of the free and open exchange of ideas, the Commission will be obliged to take further action regarding Gallaudet’s accreditation at that meeting.
Please convey to your colleagues our great interest in and regard for Gallaudet University and our sincere hope that the university community will succeed in its quest to heal the university and propel it to greater excellence. Please feel free to contact me (LSuskie at msche.org or 267-284-5019) if I may be of assistance at any time. I look forward to seeing you and your colleagues again later this spring
.Best wishes,Linda A. Suskie
Vice Presidentcc: Dr. Stephen Sweeny, College of New Rochelle, Team Chair
Msgr. David Rubino, Seton Hill College
Ms. Lisa Marsh Ryerson, Wells CollegeEnclosures:
Team report to the Gallaudet community Article by Derek Bok in Trusteeship GALLYNET-L@gallynet.orgReprinted with permission by the listserv moderatorCommentary: Well, there you go. This is a pretty damning document validating the protesters’ allegations of Jordan Administration of systematically violating multiple MSA requirements. The flawed presidential search process, which MSA acknowledged, was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.  The protest only unearthed the reality that Jordan Administration had been trying to hide from both the MSA and the public.Sorry about the appareance of this post. As much as I tried, I couldn’t fix it due to technicial problems. MZPS. Thanks to Brian for helping fix the letter. There is still some technicial problems, but at least this letter is easier to read than the first draft. Sorry about that.
P.S.S. I want to make clear to all that the underlining and the boldfacing in the letter were done by me, not by the MSA official. I shouldn’t have assumed that you all knew this. That is an excellent point which I hadn’t thought before, so I appreciate you pointing this out, Comment. I certainly will keep that in mind for the future. MZ
e mail contact: Mishkazena@aol.com
February 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Glad to read a report validating the protest and exposing the Jordan Adm!!! You Jordan and Fernandes supporters, you owe the protesters apology! They brought forth the light upon the university and brought forth the healing process. With MSA’s guidance, Gallaudet has a chance to resurrect to its former self!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Would it be nice if Washington Post print this and have an apology to the protesters, staff, and Deaf Community for swallowing the “facts” from the PR of Gallaudet and write a rebuttal editorial article.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Indeed, I knew it was IKJ who did hurt Gallaudet so bad. We can see the lower enrollments and graduations. That is so obviously! IKJ did not really do a good job. He failed!
Thank you to MSA for helping us!
Yes, agree with John Eqbert I don’t see why not print that in Washington Post to tell the world to clear this mess up for what IKJ did wrong to our deaf community. That is so shameful for IKJ who betrayed deaf community around the world.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yes, it would be nice if the Washington Post would do that, but they won’t.
This is a much different picture than Jordan’s “It’s all the protesters fault!” Though, the report does mention that the three day closure of the college was not right. Though, I would say that would not have happened if it weren’t for Jordan’s ineffective leadership and BOT having their heads up their butts.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Mishkazena,
Would you please kindly insert the e-ready for forwarding your email article to someone else I want hir to read yours. Thanks in advance.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
February 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I wonder when Gallaudet first applied for MSA, does anyone know? I’m glad that MSA is taking this very seriously but if we continue to protest or whatever, we can easily put gallaudet in jeopardy so I hope everyone can work this out together in a positive way but I feel that Davilia will do his mighty best and that we all want Gallaudet to be the best it can be!
February 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Wow!!
There it is… Jordan did NOT do his job – at least with evidence pointing to LAST year!
Yet, it showed that he did not take actions, other than “expressing ideas” (and I assume – yes, making an ass out of myself – at the last minute after receving that initial report) and passing it on to his dear jane.
I’m glad to see they demand that the next presidential search process be modified and warned that if they don’t keep the communication open between students/fac/staff and administration – there would be serious action (did I read that right?).
And I’m equally pleased that they acknowledged that ASL needed to be included, instead of “yeah, I know it’s out there…but not in policies”.
Good!
But MOST importantly – at least how I feel – is the ATTITUDE of all involved, of the diversity, in order to work together to make this work.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I’ve forwarde a copy to Washington Post reporter, Susan Kinzie. You may want to forward this to other reporters, so they can see that the protest was completely justified.
Robert, do you mean this link http://blog.deafread.com/mishkazena/2007/02/19/msa-blames-jordan-administration-and-bot/ ?
Michelle, in defense of the faculty, staff, and students, they have tried repeatedly for many years to work with Jordan, his senior admininstrators and BoT, but to no avail. It was due to the failure of these Gallaudet officials to work with its stakeholders that the protest finally erupted. So far, Davila has shown every intention to work with its stakeholders, from what I’ve observed. However, it is also the BoT that must change. Remember it was the BoT who failed to listen to Gallaudet Community in 1988 and again in 2006. I’ve already demonstrated BoT’s many weaknesses last fall. The big question is: Will they? If not, Gallaudet will not survive in the long run.
Iam, according to the MSA letter, Jordan didn’t take some actions since 2001. Here is the quote”the reviewers felt there had been inadequate attention to some of the 2001 evaluation team recommendations” Imagine that! This is the concrete proof that many problems existed long prior to the protest. Shame on Jordan!
February 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
You are right – since 2001!!
Daayyyuumm!
February 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Could you please give me an email addy to Susan Kinzie?
we need to bombard her with the copy of this MSA letter.
Oh any other emails to certain reporters or editorial writers that were brainwashed in the first place would be most appreicated.
Thanks,
John
February 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
MZ,
I thank you not only for publishing it on your blogsite but also for your honesty to post a copy of MSA’s letter on your blog, so the public would see the truth and realise that the protesters were right all the time. Haters of the truth, or supporters of I. King Jordan and Jane Kelleher Fernandes for that matter, would reject comments.
Jean Boutcher
February 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
So… the protest actually saved Gallaudet, not the other way around. Had the status quo been maintained, we probably would have never known what was under the rug. Thank you, the Unity For Gallaudet protestors, for saving our home, Gallaudet University.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Well well well. Finally, somebody from the outside has common sense. Jane’s “New Deaf Order” is not viable. All should look up to ASL as core language, not mixed languages. King’s hold on info sharing with BOT is not acceptable. Bottom up, not top down. I believe apologies are in order. It’s time to set Gallaudet onto the right path.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
John, here is the e mail address of Washington Post writer, Susan Kinzie: kinzies@washpost.com
Indeed, DE. MSA finally proved to the whole world the claims of FSSA and the protesters were true the whole time. Now the media and the public need to hear this.
MikeS, I thought that was very significant that MSA recognized the role of ASL. MSA also points out that the current usage of multiple sign languages and modes is no longer acceptable, which I found very interesting.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
This MSA letter made me very angry. Link this:
http://carl-schroeder.blogspot.com/2007/02/angry-asl-vlog-by-carl.html#links
February 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Finally! We can breath again. Thank you so much for posting it, MZ
Aidan
February 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I need to read this thing in depth, but I admit that the first thing that caught my eye was the whole “can’t be all things to all people” comment. *sigh* I’m always going to pay closer attention to natural language-related stuff since that’s my true love, but … I can’t help but see how closely related a morefocused mission is to my own desire to see a unified linguistic approach using ASL as the primary language on the campus with intensive residential programs in place to bring non-signing students and faculty up to speed. Sorry to keep hammering on that …
Off to read the entire thing now.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
How should this statement from the MSA letter be interpreted? “In particular, Gallaudet tries to be “all things to all people†within the deaf and hard of hearing community, an aim that may not be viable” Should it be intepreted as a hint that Gallaudet should focus on ASL?
Also, reading the letter carefully, it sounds like they are moving cautiously, and would not just yank Gallaudet’s accreditation abruptly. The most serious possible actions are “Place the institution on warning that its accreditation is in jeopardy. Place the institution on probation.” Even probation does not sound like Gallaudet would lose its accreditation?
February 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Although this was a much-needed post, I think there should have been disclosure at top that the boldfacing and any other text accentuation were all your doing. Something to keep in mind as you make future posts of this sort.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Janis, please don’t apologize for keeping hammering on ASL. That’s your true passion which I respect
This MSA letter will make many Deaf people who want Gallaudet to communicate only in ASL and written English happy.
Jamie, I am truly surprised about MSA’s comment about Gallaudet trying to meet the needs of all signing deaf people not a viable goal. What does that mean for the future? It could mean Gallaudet focuses on a smaller, but more exclusive, group, eliminating PSE, SimCom, and other coded sign languages on campus. Is that possible, with all qualified teachers becoming competent in ASL? What if they cannot find qualified professors versed in ASL? Mastering a new language can be difficult as an adult. With the invasion of mainstreamed and C.I. students expected in the next generation, what does this mean for Gallaudet? With less % of students enrolled, it gets more prohibitively expensive, so is Congress willing to support that? This MSA letter raises many good questions.
As Gallaudet is currently on probation, some violations observed by MSA in 2001 still not corrected, and more blatant violations revealed last fall, my interpretation is that MSA’s next corrective action would be more severe, like losing its accreditation, if the changes aren’t satisfactory.  MSA made it clear that the next report must be honest, so it appears that perhaps MSA felt deceived by previous report(s)
Comment, thanks for the feedback. I’ve added a note.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
MZ, I just fear that it’s easy for me to harp on that since that’s what I’m learning, since I adore languages of all kinds … and since I’m hearing. I don’t have to worry about feeling like I’m personally being kicked if someone talks down about cueing or SEE or what have you. I don’t want to be (or appear to be) too blithe about the crap that other people have to put up with.
I think sometimes that the main problem is that there is only one Gallaudet, where more than one are needed. That’s the only reason Gallaudet has to be the Swiss Army Knife, because there’s only one of it.
(Well okay, the main main problem is the way that deaf education has been handled in this country, but that’s a way bigger topic.)
February 19th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Mishka,
I have a question –
Did the MSA put “BOLD” on some statements or did you put BOLD?
This is indeed a very powerful letter and how and where did you get that?
Its February 19th, and that letter was mailed in January 13th — why over one month?
That was written before January 22nd’s horrible letter done by I. King Jordan to Washington Post…
Irving cannot run! He must be held accountable!
Thanks for sharing…
Amy Cohen Efron
February 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Janis, that is the problem, only one university for the Deaf while the students came from diverse communication background. I hope you don’t feel that I was kicking down ASL at all, as I do recognize its importance. Only a minority, including me, of those who learned ASL after high school ever achieve native or near-native competency.  The others struggle, achieving PSE or others at the most. That’s the dilemma I see.
Amy, I did the boldfacing and underlining to help the readers see most critical comments. I’ve added a comment to the fact at the end of the post after a reader suggested I do. And why one month delay is a good question that leaves many of us wondering, too.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Wow. Very interesting. This certainly strikes a harsh blow at JKF and King Jordan. It’s too bad this didn’t really come to light earlier.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
The biggest blow to I. King Jordan and Jane Kelleher Fernandes and the supporters of JKF.
I understand that Fernandes is a keynote speaker at Greensboro in the not-too-distant future. I most certainly that some people in the audience will have the courage enough to get up and fingerpoint at Feranndes that the protest has absolutely nothing to do with “not deaf enough” but to do with her ineffective leader for the last 11 years as evinced from an F grade for the Gallaudet performance.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I’m upset about this whole thing. I. King Jordan, Jane K. Fernandes, its administration and supporters of JKF owe us an explanation.
The nerve of IKJ and JKF for all the damages they have imposed on the cultural and linguistic aspect of the Deaf Community. They exploited the media through their own public relations to present one sided view.
I wonder if IKJ and JKF will be held accountable or are they going to walk away along with their old administration? I don’t think they are entitled to big retirement $$ after what they did.
I applaud MSA for what they did and they are what I call a true ally of the Deaf community.
Katherine
February 19th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I know this doesn’t relate to MSA at all and perhaps I should have emailed you, MZ – but I figured I’d share this idea with others.
Just an idea, okay?
Since we all know that Gallaudet is in for a long haul… and there’s a lot of work involved!
Now, if ASL was to put into policy and for all – especially, especially DPS – to use ASL…
How do we prepare the students who want to come to Gallaudet?
I was thinking….
Get a VP or webcam!
Have an alumni and the student in frequent contact to teach ASL.
Someone of similar background would make the student feel more comfortable.
For example, if I am about to graduate from an oral school and want to go to Gallaudet… so I signed up for some kind of transitition program and required someone of similar background.
So, they asked you and we agree to get in touch via VP or webcam to learn ASL?
Is that possible?
That would not cost anything but an alumni’s time and effort.
Then could improve the program in time when having more money to develop programs.
Just an idea…
February 19th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
That is a good thing that JKF is gone before it look horrible in the future. Remember she was the #2 under IKJ, therefore, MSA thought that Gallaudet look awful in the education system…..
White Ghost
February 19th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I’m upset about this whole thing. I. King Jordan, Jane K. Fernandes, its administration and supporters of JKF owe us an explanation.
The nerve of IKJ and JKF for all the damages they have imposed on the cultural and linguistic aspect of the Deaf Community. They exploited the media through their own public relations to present one sided view.
I wonder if IKJ and JKF will be held accountable or are they going to walk away along with their old administration? I don’t think they are entitled to big retirement $$ after what they did.
I applaud MSA for what they did and they are what I call a true ally of the Deaf community.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Thanks for sharing it with us.
DON’T let IKJ and JKF get away with murders!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I like how they mentioned that the previous two presidential searches have failed. The fact that DPN was a GOOD thing for Deaf people is irrelevant here. Quite simply, when the BoT selected Zinser, they failed in their duties. DPN happened, and the Deaf world is better for it. With the Fall 2006 protests, we have not changed the world quite so dramatically as with DPN, but again: the BoT failed in their duties. So that is TWICE in a row that they have failed. Even though DPN was a great thing for the Deaf world, it still meant the BoT failed. Hopefully we will not see the same mistakes again when another president is chosen.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I hope you don’t feel that I was kicking down ASL at all, as I do recognize its importance. Only a minority, including me, of those who learned ASL after high school ever achieve native or near-native competency. The others struggle, achieving PSE or others at the most. That’s the dilemma I see.
I can definitely see the same dilemma, and I don’t feel that you were throwing down on ASL. I guess I’m concluding that non-native signers struggle more from the unfocused communication strategy used at Gallaudet than they would if Gallaudet concentrated on using ASL in the classroom, even if they weren’t native signers.
I’ve seen so many students who are non-native (and even nowhere near fluent) in English manage in universities all over the place. I think a native Farsi speaker at a UC school, for example, would have a tougher time in a setting that supported Farsi sometimes and sometimes not, occasionally better or not compared to five other languages, as opposed to a setting where they had a fixed target to aim for, even if they never achieved native fluency in English.
And when choosing which fixed target to aim for, the one that’s best to choose in all situations of minority language support, is a natural language and not a constructed one.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Well! I was waiting for this letter to be published.
I was informed by one of my former professors that this letter would come out the way it did two weeks ago.
I DO hope that those Pro-Fernandes supporters would live up to their moral responsibilities and apologized to us for all terrible damages done to us- the Gallaudet AND the Deaf community. I have been arguing on other blogs that the only effective way for this community to heal is for the pro-Jordan and pro-Fernandes side to offer an apology. The other side has been very nasty- while I have only stuck to the facts.
And as far as the BOT is concerned- I really, honestly think it is time for Congress to step in and re-do the structure of the BOT -like they did at American University a while back. This is really the only permanent solution to this problem of the BOT not doing its job.
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G-00
February 20th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Yeah…
Usually they’d jump in every time MZ posts something about IKJ or JKF and defend them.
It’s been awfully quiet.
I really would like to see what they have to say.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Janis, SimCom wasn’t a problem for me or my oral friends who graduated from hearing schools.  I wouldn’t have understood the teachers using ASL, though, as I wasn’t competent in ASL back then. To this day, I wouldn’t have any problem with SimCom because of my lipreading skills. The problems we encountered were the low academic expectations of teachers.
Raphael, I doubt the pro fernandes fans will apologize. They have bashed me and other commenters horribly and threatened me many times. One even left two veiled death threats against one student leader in my blog. I’ve never witnessed so much ugliness personally like I did the last few months and it left me utterly shocked.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
MZ,
Some people might be skimming your blog, including reporters who are not able to quickly know who you are referring to.
You are referring to the ugliness of the pro-Fernandes people who attacked us using anonymous comments on blogs (including an ugly threat against me once which was so bad that I called the police to report it.)
The world needs to know that the Unity for Gallaudet protesters were amazingly tolerant of dissenting views, contrary to the allegations and unsubstantiated claims of Jordan and Fernandes. The MSA was very clear that unsubstantiated claims would no longer be accetable in communications with MSA. That was an implicit swipe (criticism) against Jordan.
BR
February 20th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I agree with you, Mishka Zena- they prob. will not do the right thing-since they have done nothing but the wrong things since the protest started.
Also, there are some bloggers who never supported the protest-and continues to this day NOT to get it! In fact, two bloggers even blocked me out-even though I never said anything that was hurtful or harmful or personal about the pro-fernandes side. I only stated facts-one blogger is really wild with his accusations about the protesters. Some of the things that he has stated (and continues to this day) would really makes you wonder if he on drugs. He has stated today, for example, that MSA report did NOT fault IKJ adm. for Gallaudet‘s problems. That he would say something like that is both crazy and consistent with his anti-protesters attitude.
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G-00
February 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Brian:
You are correct. Let’s hope the media begins to get the picture now. And before I forget…I never met you..but I want to say “thank you” for everything you have done.
Raphael J. St. Johns, C-87, G-00
February 20th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Wow, thanks.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Iam, they are awfully quiet because they can no longer defend Fernandes and Jordan.
Brian, thanks for the clarification. Yes, it was the pro Fernandes fans and I’ve reported at least two threats to the police. I haven’t seen threats made by Unity for Gallaudet people. I did ask to see the evidence but none would show me the evidence, which I think speaks volumes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 am
Song to Irving and Jane
Were you there when they crucified the school?
Were you there when they sabotaged their job?
Sometimes it causes me to
tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they crucified the school?
Were you there when they
oppressed the innocent?
Were you there when they
crushed down on the weak?
Sometimes it causes me to
tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they crucified the school?
Were you there when they
cheated us out of our rights?
Were you there when they
stole education from the Deaf?
Sometimes it causes me to
tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they crucified the school?