Talk:Gallaudet University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] "2005–2006 presidential search controversy" section does not present issues properly

While it is true one (or few? or several?) students has said JKF lacks ASL skills when the protest first began, it is NOT the core issue behind the movement. JFK has repeatedly used this "I lack ASL skills, causing them to protest" card to the media even though the FSSA coalition clearly states the core issues which is the following:

  • the Board of Trustees' presidential search process was flawed
  • this process and the result divided us and created a hostile environment
  • the Provost' actions continue to divide the community, and
  • uniting our community will be best achieved by a new search process

The above list can be found here: http://about.gufssa.com/

The answers to questions such as "In what way was the presidential search process flawed?" can be also found here: http://about.gufssa.com/faq.php#4 . I'll go ahead and copy and paste the details of why FSSA felt the search process was flawed:

"The search process for the ninth Gallaudet University president is indicative of systemic problems that the Board and the university have allowed to occur. The process was not conducted through a multicultural lens and perspective. Thus, the procedures lacked transparency, genuine inclusiveness, and equity. Many community members seriously questioned the process used to select members of the Presidential Search Committee (PSC), and whether the committee was genuinely representative of the Gallaudet community.

After the announcement of the three final candidates, a coalition of organizations representing students of color and a faculty diversity committee expressed concerns about the fairness of the search process, but these concerns were ignored by the PSC and the Board. The search was conducted in less than three months from the nominations and applications to the announcement of the president-select—an unacceptably short period of time considering the prominence of the position. Aspects of the search process itself, including the screening of applicants, the scheduling of interviews and presentations, as well as the presentation topic assigned for all candidates, gave a single candidate—Dr. Fernandes—an inequitable and unconscionable advantage over other candidates."

I find it odd why the REAL issues (not the one JKF is trying to play up to the media, which is the "ASL skills" card) was not even mentioned in the article at all. If we are to leave the issue that JKF is playing up to the media, we need to at least include the real issues - as outlined on the FSSA page - to keep this article balanced.

Is there currently any plans on doing this? Thanks. Cflannagan 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup: It appears that an user named O^O thought he was reverting to a "more properly sourced version" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallaudet_University&diff=next&oldid=82277372 . I do not think O^O realized that what he really did was erasing the core issues that FSSA had against JKF and I also think O^O genuinely believed the protest was about what JKF is telling the media which is the fact that JKF is not "deaf enough" and also that she "lacks ASL skills" to lead Gallaudet, which is not the message FSSA is pushing for. What FSSA says the protest is about and what JKF says the protest is about (or rather, what JKF wants the media to believe in various interviews conducted) are two very different things, and we need to properly show both sides here in order to make the article more balanced. Cflannagan 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of my edit. I do not believe I "erased" anything from the article, but instead restored content to the article. If by mistake I did erase something, please feel free to restore whatever was deleted. - O^O 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you disagree about my characterization of your edit? Did I not say you "might not realize it"? I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, please understand this. Let's look at the facts here - I provided an link showing your edit.. what you did was essentially replacing FSSA's view of the protest with JKF's view. FSSA states that the protest is about the flawed search process and JKF's fluency in sign language is not the main reason. Whereas JKF's view of the protest (or rather, what she's telling the media) is that the protest is happening because she lacks fluency in sign language. Yes, I am considering fixing the article to present BOTH sides.. but right now the article is kind of a mess (I see some information tidbits being repeated twice in the article) and when I have the time and energy, I'll surely commit to it. :) Cflannagan 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I disgree with two things you said about my edit. I disagree with you calling it a revert (which usaully means returning *exactly* to a previous version of the entire article. I also disagree with you saying I erased content. Instead, I attempted to merge both the content that had been added and the content that had been erased. I do agree with you that the article needs improvement. Like you, if I had the time and energy, I'd work on it now. Unfortunately, the article languishes because nobody has the time to write a balanced discussion of all viewpoints. - O^O 17:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if "reverted" is not the right term.. I mentioned "reverted" because of the comment you made during the revision "(Some properly sourced information appears to have been accidently deleted.)". I might have not realized you were adding new content rather than reverting to a previous edit or copying and pasting from an earlier edit. But this is not the point - it sounds as if you did not realize that you were replacing a view with another view (FSSA's with JKF's), rather than merging or adding to it. I only wanted to point that out.

[edit] Gallaudet as Quasi-Governmental?

There are several reasons why Gallaudet is a quasi-governmental organization (and not a "private" one):

1) The secretary of the US Dept of Ed must approve any real property sales

2) Members of Congress are voting members of the Board of Trustees

3) Gallaudet employees are listed for retirement purposes as being federal employees


Clearly, these reasons alone, plus many other reasons, make Gallaudet a "quasi-governmental agency."

The link provided to the US Dept of Ed that *claims* that Gallaudet is private is not accurate. That is only the *interpretation* of the US Dept of Ed and is not an official ruling from a Federal Court. The matter has never been decided so far in court.

The enabling act that determines Gallaudet's legal status is the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986, with amendments, and nowhere in that Act does it say that Gallaudet is "private."


I appreciate your comments. It seems to me that the arguments that you've listed here are reasons why it's correct to note that it's a federally chartered university.
In every reference I discovered, Gallaudet is referred to as a private institution. For example: [1],[2], and [3]. It seems that both the Department of Education and Gallaudet University interpret the statues as creating a federally chartered, private, non-profit institution.
As of right now, protesters are pushing for the university to be labeled as a "quasi-governmental" institution. While they may have arguments to make, no federal court has yet recognized it as such, neither of the insitutions involved perceive it that way, and, to my knowledge, no legal experts have gone on the record making arguments that this is the appropriate category.
I may be wrong here and if you have any documented evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, asserting that Gallaudet is a "quasi-governmental institution" requires some kind of documentation, not just argument.
(Having said all of this, I should make it clear that I'm not opposed to the protest movement--just that Wikipedia isn't quite the place for this specific battle.)
Finally, please end your posts with four tildas (~) as it leaves your IP address (or username) along with the time you posted your comments. It makes it easier to understand who's saying what. -Krwarnke 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to use your own common sense, instead of simply swallowing the interpretation of Gallaudet and the US Dept of Ed. Obviously there is a conflict of interest on their part, and they cannot be objective.


The fact that the issue has never been put before a court is no reason to accept Gallaudet's and the US Dept of Ed's interpretation. Common sense must prevail.

A truly private organization operates independently of the government. Gallaudet does not do this. There are Congressmen on the Board of Trustees who actually have voting power. That alone makes Gallaudet a quasi-governmental organization. But there is more.

The Secretary of the US Dept of Ed must give permission for Gallaudet to sell buildings or property.

Gallaudet receives $107 million per year in *direct* appropriations from the Federal Gov't (not indirect money, such as grants)

For 88 years, the Gallaudet land and buildings were owned by the Federal Govt (up until 1960). In that period of almost one century, Gallaudet became what it is. Then in 1960 merely changing the name on the title to the deed does not qualify to make Gallaudet a true private corporation. It represents window dressing.

Congress does what it wants to do with Gallaudet. In 1986 Congress re-wrote the enabling act and changed Gallaudet's charter. That doesn't happen to truly private corporations.

Every year the president of Gallaudet must testify in Congress about Gallaudet's finances. That doesn't happen with private corporations.

Gallaudet faculty members are considered to be federal employees for the purposes of retirement law.

The definition of the term "government" is shown in the US Code to include Gallaudet University for purposes of the part of the code dealing with retirement.

There are SO many reasons why Gallaudet is a quasi-governmental entity. In fact, if the issue goes to court, the court may determine that it is *more* than quasi, and that Gallaudet is an actual federal agency.

Go to www.gallyprotest.org [4] to read more

75.10.96.166 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear back from you. I'm no Gallaudet historian, but do you have any info on the details of the signing of the charter? Was the charter actually "changed"? Did the President not sign the charter as the article originally specified? (The point of the President signing the act is, actually, less notable.)
Next, the update on the protest section is useful, though I've removed the section about FSSA representatives at the upcoming convention. It goes against Wiki policies to post upcoming events that have an unclear impact. (See What Wikipedia is Not
As for the matter of whether Gallaudet is a public or private institution, what I can propose is this: We can add a section describing the dispute over its status.
It could read this way:
While the university and the DOE assert that Gallaudet is a "federally chartered, private, non-profit educational institution," the federal government does play various roles within the institution:
  • Congress chartered the university in 1864, altered its title deed in 1960, and again adjusted the charter in 1986
  • Three members of Congress are appointed to the university's Board of Trustees
  • Congress annually provides direct appropriations to Gallaudet
  • Gallaudet faculty are considered to be federal employees for retirement purposes.
How's that? The only thing about changing its distinction from "private" to quasi-governmental is that it goes against Wikipedia Policies:
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." (See Verifiability and No Original Research)
Also, there's a problem with the links section:
"Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." (See External_links)
As such, I've removed the blogs, though I've left the protest sites included. But please register and continue to contribute: Let's make this article as good as possible. (By the way, if you're involved in the protest, I bet we know a couple people in common. Email me: krwarnke @ yahoo.com) -Krwarnke 06:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the determination of the US Dept of Ed and of Gallaudet should also be regarded as being just as tentative as my commonsense analysis above. Why should they be given priority in their *untested* theory?

They key is what the court would rule and the matter has never been put before the court.

It looks like a good compromise, and possibily the most authoritative source we can find is from the document called "Pofiles of Existing Government Corporations--A Study--Prepared by the U.S. General Accounting Office for the Committee on Government Operations", December 1988 (Document code H204-4).

It gives two styles of classification:

LEGAL STATUS: Private nonprofit educational instituation, a body corporate

AGENCY STATUS: None specified in enabling legistlation.

I think by "Legal Status" it is clear that they are not referring to a court ruling, but maybe just the opinion of Gallaudet's lawyers and the US Dept of Ed's lawyers (who filled out the forms that contributed to the report.)

The real key question seems to be answered by the response to "Agency Status," which is "None specified." In other words, it is undetermined and unspecified whether Gallaudet is a federal agency or not. In that case, we should put something like "undetermined," in place of the postulated "private."

In other words, we need a different word than "private," which conveys the idea that the true status has never been determined by a court of law, either something like "undetermined," or "unadjudicated," or something like that.

When are you not allowed to call a spade a spade? If some fancy government office officially designates a toilet for the space shuttle (I'm just making up an example) as something they call a "temporary mechanical appendage for digestive assistance," then why the h-e-double-toothpicks won't Wikipedia just let us ignore such nonsense and put "toilet"?

I think it's completely kosher to put "hybrid" or "quasi-governmental" on that basis. A spade is a spade. We don't have to put "Some people say that tulips are orange"--No, we can just say, "Tulips are orange," without having to worry whether our description is an "untested theory."

Here's some more info from that same document:

>>Under the Act of February 16, 1857 the University was incorporated under the name, "Columbia Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb, and the Blind." A February 23, 1865 amendment changed the corporate name to "The Columbia Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb." 36 Stat. 1422 changed the name to the "Columbia Institution for the Deaf." In 1954 Public Law 83-420 changed the College's name to "Gallaudet College", and in 1986 Public Law 99-371 changed it to "Gallaudet University".<<

Remember, the institution was not somehow change into a college in 1865. It was still the same school, but now just with the ability to grant degrees. It had a new "college department," but as a whole was not a college. This "college department" thing continued for quite a while, I think up to 1954, when it (I think) was reorganized and named "Gallaudet College" in the whole. Before that, "Gallaudet College" was a department.

Please see this document:

http://gallyprotest.org/profiles_of_existing_government_corporations_partial_document_check_back_later_to_gallyprotest_org_for_full_document.pdf


75.10.96.166 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1) "Why should they (Gallaudet, DOE) be given priority in their *untested* theory?"

Their here-to-fore uncontested theory has been published on numerous official web sites and, presumably, publications as well. Their theory has also, as you noted, been slipped into the GAO report. The point is that regardless of whether or not their assertions are accurate, they are considered authoratative sources (who better than gallaudet and the federal government to know the exact nature of the relationship between them?) and they have published their assertions. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal expert who has published or gone on the record to contest this assertion. Your opinions, though they might be correct, are a new argument and would need to be published before they could be incorporated into the article.
The reason why Wikipedia has such strict standards is that it doesn't want its articles to be slanted toward a particular purpose. They should attempt to describe what is commonly agreed to be true. To assert that the DOE, Gallaudet, and Howard University are all wrong in their use of the word "private" is fine, but Wikipedia is not the place to make the argument (and attempt to sway debate). Here, the universities' and government's word is considered the gold standard until a legal expert goes on the record to cast doubt on it. (At which point, it would probably be asterisked and footnoted as being "disputed.")
As for your tulips example: If the Arboretum and some field researcher publish something saying the tulips are red, and, after seeing them, you think the tulips are orange, can we just say, "Tulips are orange"? No, we can't. We'd have to find a flower expert who would be willing to write to the local paper to say, "Actually these tulips are orange." In which case, for encyclopedic purposes, we would conclude, "While the arboretum and a field researcher believe that the tulip is red, one flower expert argues that it is actually orange."

2) Thanks for doing the research on the historical stuff. What worries me here is all of this talk about its "charter." What exactly does that entail? Was that the mechanism that allowed Gallaudet to issue degrees? Did the institution actually have a "charter" prior to the one granted by Congress? No doubt the institution existed before the feds got involved, but is changing the corporate name tantamount to changing the "charter?" I don't know. Did Lincoln sign the actual charter? Or just signed the bill into law?

3) I'll incorporate the section on federal involvement into the main article.-Krwarnke 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Please go to www.gallyprotest.org and read the analysis about the appeals court case called "Becker v. Gallaudet". Here is a quote from that case:

"Defendants (Gallaudet, et al.) do not dispute that Gallaudet is a congressionally created corporation that serves governmental objectives."

So we have Gallaudet University *admitting* to a federal court that Gallaudet is "a congressionally created corporation that serves governmental objectives." (!)

See also the TEXT FILE on www.gallyprotest.org which contains all references to Gallaudet in the US Code. We see in the US Code that Gallaudet is deemed to be actually part of the government for the purposes of providing retirement benefits to its employees.

So even Wikipedia, no doubt, would say that we should not simply label Gallaudet as being "private," because the authoritative sources actually do not portray such a simplified circumstance.

If we look at the famous Amtrak case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1525.ZO.html

In it we see that the federal court ruled that Amtrak is a government agency, even though "the statute creating Amtrak designated the railroad to be a private corporation."

So what we have here is the Federal Government itself (the federal court), saying to us this:

IF WE CREATE A CORPORATION BY FEDERAL LAW AND TELL YOU THAT THE CORPORATION IS "PRIVATE", THEN DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THAT CLAIM. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN THAT THE CORPORATION WE CREATED IS PRIVATE.

Therefore, it should not be proper Wikipedia policy for us to indicate that Gallaudet is a "private" university. I think that is abundantly clear, in light of the above. AT THE VERY LEAST, we should say (in the Wikipedia article) that the agency status of Gallaudet is in dispute or is unclear (i.e. not been decided by a federal court.)

If you read the Becker case carefully, you will see that the court is not really addressing the same question that we are addressing. It is addressing a narrow and technical point of the law.

By the way, how did you find that gao report online?

Also, if you read that report and look carefully on page 282 of the report (Appendix F). It makes reference to the following previous studies that were done:


MAPA study 1981

GAO study 1983

CRS study 1983 (Congressional Research Service)

GAO study 1985

Can you find links to the full text of those previous studies???? Thanks.

What about any FURTHER studies that were done after 1988?

75.10.96.166 18:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


you can find gao reports here: [[5]]

I understand your point, but I can't emphasize this enough: connecting the dots doesn't really matter. There are two problems:

1)Every published reference to Gallaudet's legal status says "Private."

2)There are no published arguments disputing that.

If a legal expert will go on the record and argue that s/he believes Gallaudet is not a private organization, then that label should change to reflect that it's being disputed (either through parentheses or footnotes). In which case, I simply urge patience. If you have valid points and can publish your arguments elsewhere, Wikipedia will be changed to reflect that.

The other option is for another body to dispute the university's legal standing, such as SBG or GSA. - Krwarnke 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed my important point, which is, if you read the Amtrak case, it is clear that the court is saying that when the Federal Government says something is private, that doesn't mean it's actually private.

In light of that fact, what you are saying is not true. A published source such as Gallaudet or the US Department of Ed might say "private," buy according to another branch of the Federal Government (the Federal Court) that means nothing. Therefore, those are not authoritative sources at all and we should ignore them. I believe my analysis represents the real spirit of Wikipedia.

75.10.96.166 03:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I have tried to remain fair, honest, friendly, and cooperative with you throughout this debate. Having said that, I feel like this debate has reached an end-point. I respectfully ask that you consider Wikipedia policies in your edits:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that have not been previously published by a reputable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
...
Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.
...
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
...
However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.
...
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
...
By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Retrieved from No Original Research.

The notion that Gallaudet is private was published by the GAO, DOE, Gallaudet, and (regardless of its truth) by the Becker case. You may dispute the truth of the claims by all these institutions, but they are public institutions and their views are published. The Amtrak case may suggest that such a label is meaningless, but applying the Amtrak case to the specific question of Gallaudet's status as a private institution is a matter of "A and B, therefore C." No one has, to my knowledge, ever published anything asserting that the Amtrak case brings Gallaudet's claim to private legal status in doubt. That is your argument and your analysis. When it is published, it can be included.

Wikipedia makes clear that every assertion must be verifiable. Not a web of citations that build an argument, but rather a published point of view. In this case, a published point of view asserting that "Gallaudet is not a private institution" would suffice. Wikipedia is not the place to report the truth, but the place to report and summarize ideas and arguments that are directly sourced.

We have already substantially increased and improved the article with your contributions. I thank you for that. It reflects what is clearly verifiable. The question as to whether Gallaudet's status as a private institution is "undetermined" or "contested" must first be published. Again, I am not opposed to your protest movement and am friends with a number of the people involved in it. Wikipedia, however, isn't the place to make your arguments. Go to the newspapers. Find a legal expert willing to be published. Then come back and change the label to reflect that its status is disputed or contested or whatever. - Krwarnke 05:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I frankly find it incredible to read that truth is not a standard for Wikipedia. That means that Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia at all. What is it then?

It seems like your last comments bore a trace of hostility. Did they? If so, why?

I think the Amtrak case is the open admission by the Federal Government that when they use words, they don't necessarily mean to say what the words say. Therefore, the Federal Government is not a reliable source at all. But if Wikipedia is not interested in truth, I guess it doesn't matter.

75.10.96.166 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital D, Lowercase D; Audism

Capital D deaf refers to Deaf culture and community, and is applicable when discussing the student body of Gallaudet. lowercase d deaf refers only to the condition of deafness, generally not the Deaf as a people.

I think this statement "Gallaudet University is currently the center of the Audism movement." says the opposite of what is intended. How about "Gallaudet University is currently the center of a movement to combat Audism."? This simple statement raises many questions though. The sentence following suggests that this is not an official position of the U. and its admin., but rather a (perhaps underground) student-only agitation. On another topic, I think a list of curricula or majors offered would be appropriate.BillFlis 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Black people already figured out seperate but equal doesn't work. So when will deaf people get with the program? Who cares if you talk funny or use finger languages.


[edit] Student body

I disagree with the characterization of the student body as being entirely Deaf. The majority is likely to be Deaf, especially upperclassmen, but not all students are big-D Deaf. In fact, there are a number of little-d deaf students, especially underclassmen. The reason there are more Deaf upperclassmen is because attending (and especially living at) Gallaudet reinforces one's feeling of membership in the Deaf community; the longer a student is at Gally the more likely they are to become comfortable with Deaf culture. Specific evidence for this can be seen in the New Signers Program, which is designed for deaf and hard-of-hearing freshmen and transfer students who do not have skills in ASL. Also, a more precise way to establish the difference between deaf and Deaf is by stating that little-d deaf refers to the audiological condition of being unable to hear, while big-D Deaf refers to members of a group united by common background experiences, language, and cultural references. It is possible for someone with a profound hearing loss to be deaf but not Deaf, and it is equally possible for someone with significant residual hearing to be Deaf although audiologists would refer to them as hard of hearing.

-Etoile 22:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's also important to note that Gallaudet admits undergraduates who are hearing. Numbers are limited and subject to staff approval, but that's true of hearing-impaired applicants also (though far fewer hearing students are admitted). The word "Deaf" may or may not be applied to a hearing person, but that determination is obviously up to others in the Deaf community. --Ds13 00:12, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

I'm not sure that vox populi is the official motto of Gallaudet University. As I recall, it was the slogan of a Student Body Government administration two or three years ago. Therefore, I've deleted it until a source can confirm this. Incidentally, the Gallaudet seal has an open Bible with the word ephphatha (Be opened) written in Syriac; not to mention the fingerspelling of the same word on the outer edge of the seal. That, to me, says that ephphatha is the true official motto of Gallaudet University. --Micahbrwn 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The seal is now in the article, with the word you were referring to. --Bobak 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Bobak. Except, would it be possible to shave off the bottom of the GIF file? After all, the words "Use of the seal must be approved by the President of the University" shouldn't be there. __Micahbrwn 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

There is no excuse for deleting information which is from verified sources. It's quite obvious that previous edit was done to delete information which show that some students did object Fernandes because of her fluency in AFL. This kind of POV deletion clearly violate NPOV and Verification criteria of this site. Contribute this article by adding information rather than deleting it. There are wealth of information in "Chronicles of Deaf Higher Education: Search for the Next Gallaudet President". Vapour

The previous edit was done in order to put the article the way it was before someone re-wrote it with an incredible bias that favored Jane Fernandes. If there are some facts you want in there, then insert them into the article the way it was originally written. Don't re-write the entire article to be biased in favor of Fernandes and then complain when some little tiny fact is erased when we (with justice) put the original article back the way it was, before the bias was introduced.

Information/content from verified sources cannot be deleted unless it is irrelevant to the aritlce (which isn't the case here). For example, I can't delete content cited from Fox news simply because I believe Fox is biased. What is required in Wikipedia is to "attribute" one's content to verified sources. It is up to the people who read the article to decide whether content from Fox, Washington Post or Deaf Professiona Network is trustworthy or not. The threshhold of inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Therefore, you cannot use you POV about fairness of content from Washington Post and/or Deaf Professional Network as an excuse for censorship. A verifiable source state that "some" students objected Fernandes due to her lack of proficiency in AFL. Whether you like such information or not, this information is in. You are also free to add information which may not be favourable to Fernandes provided that information come from verified sources (which won't include FSSA or "Facts and Myths of Jane Fernandes, Gallaudet's 9th President"). Vapour

I did bit more google reseach and inserted few more reference which focus on the debate about "manualism and oralism" rather than identity politics over who is "deaf enough". I believe this is more balanced description of the controversy. Vapour 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Vapour.... YOU are being biased because you keep reverting the edit back to the one that deletes the legitimate links to information about the Gallaudet protest at the bottom in the links section. DO NOT TRY TO LIE to Wikipedia people and pretend that you are an unbiased person who is interested in keeping a few facts in. I TOLD YOU TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THOSE FACTS BACK IN----but do NOT do it to the biased version that you keep reverting to. We need to take this article back to the way it was before the Fernandes people got ahold of it and made it biased. Go back to that, AND THEN put in your few facts that you want to keep you. You are deliberately distoring my intentions and smearing the reputation of the of the person who tried to make it a more honorable article by reverting it to the way it was before the Fernandes people made it biased.

Well, you really need to learn few basic wikipedia policies and guidelines. Firstly, please do not SHOUT. Secondly, please do not delete any materials which are sourced from verifiable sources. If you persist in doing so, you will be reported and may be banned from editing. Thirdly, if you feel that the current state of article is biased, then you can imporve the article by "adding" more verifiable information. For examplke, I believe I improved the section by presenting "primacy of AFL" issue from newsmedia which appear to be separte from the issue of "identity politics", or "leadership" or "diversity". Moreover, you appear to have some complaint about me deleting some links. Your edit was reverted in wholesale because it was too disruptive. You removed large amount of information sourced from verifiable source in one go. In such case, I'm not obliged to check each separate edit you have made. And if you keep doing that, as I said previously, you will be reported. It would help if you make your individual edit more specific so each edit can be debated on it's merit without disrupting the entire section. You are free to restore whatever link you think I unjustly deleted. Of course, I might delete such link if I don't think it pass the wikipedia threshold of inclusion. ;) Vapour

P.S. It's also adviseable that you sign your comment. Vapour

I have again restored info sourced from verified sources such as Washington Post, Deaf Professional Network, etc. If these information keep getting deleted by POV vandals, I would apply for a lockdown of this article. Vapour

I'd like to know Vapour, what language exactly is AFL? You've used it 3 times


[edit] NPOV

Maybe it's just me, but this section seems very biased towards one side of the controversy. Recommend a complete re-write. Failing that, I recommend deletion. Micahbrwn 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The article represents an on-going event, and portrays the points of both sides. Whether or not you personally approve of the protester's actions has no relevance. Wikipedia does not censor. EDIT: Your tone of writing (slightly below the common standards of written English grammar) seems very similar to Vapour's, above. --70.108.140.252 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I speak and write Engrish perfectly. :-) Vapour.
I would point out that Micahbrwn's statement was made before several deleted blocks of text that had been restored to the article. At the time he/she commented, the article was indeed less balanced. - O^O 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted neutrality tag. It's not enough that someone who has no clue about wikipedia policies dispute the neutrality of article. Dispute have to be relevant to policies and guideline. As I understand it, neutrality (NPOV) in wikipedia means that views and facts have proper "attribution" to the sources. Verifiability mean that such sources come from "reliable sources" as defined by this site. Unless someone can point to large chunk of unattributed writing, the neutrality tag is out. Vapour

[edit] Verifiablity and No-Soapbox

I Deleted info sourced from FSSA. Please read wikipedia policies and guideline before making edit. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please do not add information from non verifiable sources (i.e. FSSA and 8thPrez). Vapour

Vapour, I think there is a legitimate place for the FSSA information here. Referring you to WP:V, we see that self-published and dubious sources can be used in articles about themselves. Since FSSA appears to be one of the parties directly involved in the protest, I believe we can cite them without having to wait for the Washington Post to quote them. Just to be clear though, I’m not saying we turn the entire article into an echo of their complaints, just that their complaints can be mentioned and the FSSA given as the source. - O^O 15:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Not once, I sourced information from FSSA or 8thPrez. The verification policy is specifically designed so that people won't use advocacy site as source for propaganda purpose Any self referencial information must not violate no-soaxboxing policy which is an another major policy. Please do not try to subvert the intent and the principle of policy. These policies exist for good reason. It's fine to say the coalition of protestors exist and the name is FSSA. Media has already covered what protestors want and what they are unhappy about. Please report that. But no POV of FSSA under the excuse of self referencial information about "what FSAA is really about". If such soapboxing is allowed, why not put 8thPrez's view about what "FSAA is really about"? Afterall, "propagating what protest is really about" is what 8thPrez is really about. Vapour
Vapour, there is a LOT I want to say on the subject of neutrality as far as this section goes. Rest assured I will get back to this subject in due time, but for now can you at least compromise/agree to leave the "neutrality of this section is disputed" in until we reach a resolution? I understand that you are trying to point to the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy, but I don't think Wikipedia works quite in black and white like that.. Right now the article is showing only JKF's view of the protest, and since Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedic and not a "megaphone" for one side or another, people who read this section is NOT getting the full picture. I know for the fact that JKF's portrait of the protest - what she tells media - is NOT entirely accurate..
So, in the best interest of neutrality, I for one believe BOTH views of the protest should be shown - JKF, I. King Jordan, and Gallaudet Administration's for one, and GUFSSA for another (GUFSSA basically encompasses every organization on the opposing side of this protest). I am sure there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere that supports this, since it actually PROMOTES NEUTRALITY. Cflannagan 19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read the policies. NPOV (neutral point of view) in wikipedia doesn't mean "fairness" in ordinarly sense of English. It mean "attribution". If the statement "Jew is evil" is sourced to Nazi Party, it's neutral writing as far as wikipedia is concnerned. Most objection raised so far has no bearing to the policy of this site. This particular section is the best sourced part of the article, i.e. most neutral. If you don't like the information in this section, add information from verified sources. I did fair amount of searching and reading so to improve this previously utterly unsourced non-neutral section. Sites like 8thPrez or FSAA is the worst place to look for information. Please do some work. Just because Flat earh society has opposing view to conventional geology doesn't mean it's o.k. to include their POV in the article about earth. Use google, read article. Do some work. This place isn't interested in "truth" including whether Fernandes is a liar. But if any media outlet report that she lie or earth is in fact flat, feel free to write about it here. Vapour


First of all, before I begin by pointing out certain Wikipedia policies which supports my actions for adding the opposting view to the biased section, I have to ask you - if you find yourself fighting against multiple editors who try to make the article right (less biased), does that not tell you that something might be wrong with what you're doing?

If I were editing an article and I were met with this much resistance, I would have stopped doing things such as removing "neutrality disputed" tag, reverting, and things like that, and sit down and think carefully: maybe I could be wrong and they're right? Have you had a chance to do this yet? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying, make sure you're considering all sides here.. what if you're wrong? what if you're right? What if everybody else's wrong? What if everybody else's right?

In additional, you also have this entry in your talk page - this person basically nails the problem with your POV-ish editing:

I'll do my best to explain the problem with the sources you cited in Gallaudet University and another article (either Dr. Fernandes or Dr. Jordan)... first, I'm a student at Gallaudet. I'm pretty much neutral about the whole thing- I only call things the way I see them. During the first few days of the protest, the Washington Post failed to grasp the complexity behind the faculty's and students' motives. When Dr. Jordan and Dr. Fernandes painted the protest in a certain light, the Post took their lead. However, the Post reporter covering the protest gradually appreciated (although not quite fully) the complexity I mentioned and her later articles came to reflect that. The articles you cited were published during the baffling first few days. When I have time, I'll cite the Post's later articles. Thank you.

With that said, I'll move on to the Wikipedia policies:

This section is in violation of WP:NPOV - Undue Weight policy. Note the bolded part:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Also note the bolded part:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

This section does not show signs a vital component: good research (this section can be found here WP:NPOV). I did my research - the one you removed from the article - by visiting the GUFSSA's website, posting their causes of protests, and citing my source. Their views MUST be presented somehow, and this is the most direct way I can think of - straight from the horse's mouth, from their official website. (removed incorrect info about GUFSSA existing before the protest and the sole purpose for its creation Cflannagan 00:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

This section is also in violation of "Fairness of Tone" policy (again, this section can be found here WP:NPOV).

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Furthermore, my edit-ins, which you removed, did NOT violate WP:Verifiability. You claim that Washington Post is a reliable source for publishing quotes and such. Ok, fine, that's good, but I can think of a MORE reliable source if you wanted the article to be biased toward pro-JKF side. I would have gotten facts/quotes directly from the Gallaudet website, which the administration have control of. It's straight from the horse's mouth. I am doing the same from GUFSSA's website.

We both also need to Assume Good Faith. If I had my way, I would completely remove all quotes from JKF by the Washington Post (which are distortions) and replace it with the REAL reasons/causes behind the protests straight from the horse's mouth which is the GUFSSA's website. But that would be biased, becuase that's presenting only one side (the GUFSSA). Therefore, in the best interest of neutrality and also good faith, we need to make sure BOTH SIDES ARE PRESENTED HERE.

Lastly, I also found this section: Resolving disputes. If we cannot find a compromise - one that both you and I would be happy with - maybe we should consider exploring other solutions mentioned in this section? Cflannagan 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you should not treat this page as if it is an internet forum. Next time, please keep it short. Only issue here is whether GUFSSA is a verifiable source. The answer is no. Please do not confuse the technical meaning of neutrality, verifiability and reliability. In wikipedia, neutrality doesn't mean "fairness". It only means that facts and opinions are attributed to the sources. Wikipedia also doesn't attempt to report "truth". Rather it want to report information which can be verified (checked). That means that information must come from reliable source, i.e. third party source with editorial supervision. That means that "horse's mouth" isn't necessarily a reliable/verifiable source. Fernande's personal website isn't a reliable source of information unless the content is reported in elsewhere. Gaullet University, being a public university, can be used as a source of info regarding the things like number of staf and students. But POV of the University is not kosher.
If it is not mentioned in likes of newsmedia, academic journal, publication from major publishing house, it's out. Otherwise, every advocacy groups can use relevant wikipedia articles as soapbox by copying the content from their pet website to propagate their POV. This is what you are trying to do. People who wrote policies are bit smarter than what you think. And Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy. Unless opinion is based on the correct reading of policies, it doesn't count. As of "undue weight", my reference to Not-Deaf-Enough issue does not even amount to a paragraph. Try arguing this as "undue weight" in dispute process if you so desire. Moreover, you are confusing what is "significance" of viewpoint means in wikipedia. Read carefully. I do not directly report the viewpoint of pro/anti Fernandes group which is, by definition, unverified. I report only what major news media describe as pro or anti Fernandes arguments. In this instance, the viewpoint come from newmedia. GUFSSA's content, unless reported by newsmedia, is not verifiable/reliable. Vapour
I refuse to believe that the only source of information we can use is newsmedia, academic journal, or publication from major publishing house. Why am I not able to say something like "According to FSSA's website, their causes of protest are as following:"? It's FROM THEIR WEBSITE, therefore it's a verifiable fact. Why can't we report what is on their website? It's right there in plain view. So if what you are saying is correct, we basically have to wait until a newsmedia, academic journal, or publication from a major publishing house mentions those in order for us to be able to the article? No, that does not make any sense at all. It's not about me not thinking that's "fair", it's about what we both think is in the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole.
Ok, let's take this scenario: There is a corporation that is pretty abusive toward a certain tribe. Of course, we cannot say things like this in the article - we have to present facts only. A lot of what corporation said can be found in various articles/newsmedia entries - they're conveniently using the media to distort what they're really doing to the tribe. The tribe does NOT have a strong connection to the newsmedia in general, and therefore cannot get their views out there as efficiently as the corporation does. But the tribe acutally managed to put together a body to represent them, and that body created a website to officially represent the tribe as a whole.
Now, with the scenario above, I do genuinely think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia, to keep things encyclopedic, to show quotes from the abusive corporation, among with references (which you approve of). However, I also think it is encyclopedic to say something to effect of "However, the tribe's website, "CoalitionOfNamotasTribe.com", reports that the corporation's comments to the media about the corp being peaceful and respectful toward them is not entirely accurate. The website also reports that the corp has been abusive and has been cutting down trees in their land".
If you're suggesting that it's in the best interest of Wikipedia to completely ignore what the official representative website mentions, then I have to disagree with you strongly. Is the article doomed to wait until a media finally reports the other side of the coin? No, I do not think so. Surely there must be something in the Wikipedia's fine print about allowing what the tribe's official representation says. Cflannagan 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
So that we can tell to someone from Flat Sun Society that they can't write into an wikipedia article about Sun that "according to Flat Sun Society website, they believe that Sun isn't a sphere but a disk". Sure it's from their website, and the fact that they believe Sun is a disc (or Fernandes is a £$%&) may be a verifiable fact. But it's not wikipedia noteworthy fact if not reported elsewhere. Noteworthiness in wikipedia is not decided by you, me, or Flat Sun Society, but by outside reliable sources (i.e. the third party with editorial oversight, in this particular instance, newsmedia). We can't let Flat Sun Scoiety (or FSAA or 8thPrez) to use wikipedia as a soapbox to draw attention to their POV. You or I should not make an exception to the rule for the sake of "the best interest of wikipedia" or "fairness" in this context. As of "a certain tribe abused by a corporation", the argument is moot. You are taking a position that the statement is "truth", which Wikipedia refuse to presume from the outset. How am I or anyone to know that, "in truth", the tribes is lying to extort money from defenseless mega multimantional? If I go to any newly funded religious organisation, it is more than likely that the number of followers listed in the website is grossly inflated and the purpose/description of the organisation is not what it is but what the organisation want to project/propagate. And it's unlikely that their description of the opponent(s) is fair or whole truth. Less information from the partisan and more information from the third party sources, the better. Due to the open nature of wikipedia, fact-checking editorial oversight have to be done elsewhere. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Vapour
I still disagree with your ruling. However, as long as you acknowledge that FSSA's website contains "truth" in it, can we at least explore avenues for working those views into the article - perhaps via certain Wikipedia policies you are not aware of, or perhaps from other (yet unfounded) newsmedia articles? I'm sure it's out there somewhere. The article, as it stands now, is obviously biased because we're basically describing the controversy through JKF's words alone.Cflannagan 15:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Bible or Koran or Pali sutras might contain partial or whole literal truth, but it doesn't matter here. Whether FSAA or 8thPrez sites have any truth in their content is irrelevant. The fact is that, wikipedia, an open encycropedia, can't tell what part of the content is true or false until some professional organisation check/verify it. Using wikipedia as a soapbox of FSAA, an advocasy group, is specifically banned. On the other hand, if you want to insert, for example, an allegation of "lack of diversity", doing bit of google research would give you few reference from verified sources. I think Deaf Professional Network had a detailed account of reaction from some quater of deaf community when a well respected black candidate was not included in the final three. So you are on the right track when you said "via...other (yet unfounded) newsmedia articles". Welcome to Wikipedia.
Oh, btw, in wikipedia, there are no rule or law but just policies and guideline. Once you understand the principle, most policies and guideline pages are redundant. I onece rewrote large chunk of controvercial topic without single citation, and my writing is still intact for almost a year now. ;D Vapour

[edit] Request for additional info

I checked this entry hoping to find out what the blue and orange ribbons are about, and didn't find anything on it. Can someone perhaps add it? (Please pardon my editing, I'm still learning some of the formating basics, as I normally just lurk.) Thx. Cmdr White Wolf 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

IMO, forking the current controversy to the separate article (current event) is better move. There should be more information about Research, Education and Students/Staff activities. Vapour

[edit] Academics

Is this university a place where deaf people go to argue and flap their hands around or actually learn something? This article is sadly lacking on the academic history and details.

I frankly don't care about the controversy over the university's president. 128.164.224.16 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed here. I am not the official mediator, but I will try to help.

It seems we have had a few days of calm. From my reading of the comments here it seems to be a dispute over the Wikipedia policies of NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources. Specifically, some editors want to insert quotes from the protesting students' organization's website, while others wish to only include quotes from third party news media.

I do not have a strong opinion on this matter, although I do have some sympathy for the point of view that a student organization website is not a reliable source. There is a comment above about truth and Wikipedia that reveals a misconception I have encountered before. It is indeed Wikipedia policy that we are not here to decide what statements are true; we only report what statements people have made in verifiable media.

Even given that, however, it is possible to argue that the student organization's website is a reliable source for statements on their own opinions. I cannot decide that question for you. It is hard to imagine a compromise on this issue, so I would suggest you appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 11:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~); that will leave your username and a timestamp. --Ideogram 11:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this case still require mediation? --Ideogram 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing. If it needs to be reopened, leave a note on my talkpage. --Ideogram 09:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating merge discussion

The merge discussion has become fragmented and stalled. The following is copied from the forked article's talk page. Pairadox 03:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to merge

I move to merge the Gallaudet United Now Movement page to the main Gallaudet University page. Since the protest has ended and Dr. Davila has been appointed interim President, this page has shrunk down to something approaching stub length. Alternatively, I suggest that we severely pare down the 2006 protests section in the Gallaudet University page and refer to this page. --Micahbrwn 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I agree with above. No need for a separate article, as the information increasingly becomes historical. Ward3001 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Unity for Gallaudet Movement

Found article section sufficiently neutral after removal of a piece of information that was attacking a living person without the use of a proper citation. Posting this type of infomation is against the regulations of Wikipedia. Removed tag.

--Acewolf359 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overdoing the article

Im sorry but this references to all annual reports are getting out of hand. Please summarize the WHOLE part or I will cut the whole section off. These are historical, yes, but it does not belong in a university page where we are to expect the summarized history, student numbers, athletics, and others (see: duke university )

Im going to go ahead and remove the annual reports and putting them in a place other than this location. Frozenbrains (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I am getting into a edit war. Please understand my point-- even though the list is revelant, it does not belong on the general university page itself, which is why i removed it. I have linked it to a wiki of its own. Frozenbrains (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not over-doing it. The notable events for each year are being listed.


Then summarize them, instead of making them a list of link. You do not see them listed on every wikipedia-- they are summarized, and not on year-by-year basis. You just dont see those kind of summaries on any wiki pages. Frozenbrains (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huddle

Is there any citation for the football huddle fact? I'm not saying I know that it's untrue, but I admit it sounds a bit like a college-based urban legend, of which there are many.HowardW2008/2/18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardW (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)