Is Wikipedia accurate about Gallaudet 2006 protest?

I went to a Wikipedia page that covered the 2006 Gallaudet University protest and was curious whether the historical depictions were accurate? Of course, as people would already know Wikipedia is a source to be wary with since it it editable by anyone who have access to it. Whatever leaning a person has and whatever bias he or she may hold it'll get reflected in the writeup. So, perception of history can easily be changed with a few words or omissions of certain facts. But is it accurate? What is missing? 

Questions abound such as who really started the push for "Unity for Gallaudet" protest which is an altogether an oxymoron combining "protest" with that of demand for "unity." Reason I'm bringing this up is because of the recent revelation brought up by Dr. Angela McCaskill in a Tuesday press conference where she stated that:

"I quickly looked back to the protest of 2006 (see video on Unity for Gallaudet with MJ Bienvenu in it). Several radical people pushed the students to the front to debate student's agenda. It was not the student's agenda. It was not student's agenda back then and it is not student's agenda now."

There must be more to this charge. What does McCaskill know that we don't know since she had access to faculty members in 2006 and saw what went on on the inside. I think she saw enough of what went on that simply disgusted her. Enough so to make such a charge in a live news conference.

Yet the irony in all this bullying was discovered when I found out that President Hurwitz requested that Gallaudet University establish an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students back in 2011 stating (see page 2):

We are currently developing an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students. A brief video, “It Gets Better,” was made by Gallaudet students and is available at http://youtu.be/WoaYsF_OzXU."

It gets better?

Looks like it got a whole lot worse straight up at the faculty level and from a person who high on the authority list as one of the faculty Senate member of Gallaudet University. More on that later below.

Who knew that their very own Dr. Angela McCaskill, Chief Diversity Officer, would become a bullying victim from faculty members who squarely have set agenda against her from the beginning which brings me to Celia May Baldwin who was a victim of bullying during the 2006 protest. I saved Baldwin's 2006 memo outlining her reason why she resigned from the Board of Trustees stating that she received threats during the 2006 protest.

May 9, 2006

MEMORANDUM

TO: Bill Graham, Board Secretary

FROM: Celia May Baldwin

SUBJECT: Tenure on the Board of Trustees

After many sleepless nights and much reflection these past several days, I regret to tell you that on Sunday night I came to the decision to resign from the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. The presidential search and the controversy that has ensued have put enormous strain and stress on me. I simply could not ignore the numerous aggressive threats I have received over the past weeks.

I cannot express how disappointed I am that it has to come to this point. However, I trust that you will give me your full support and understanding in my decision.

It is my sincerest hope that you feel I have served Gallaudet University to the fullest in the years that I have been on the Board. I admire and respect each of my colleagues on the Board and am glad that I had the opportunity of working closely with several of them in the recent months as the Interim Chair. I also appreciate all the assistance I received from the President's Office. I am truly saddened by recent events.

I am confident that we all share the same goal of working towards the best possible future for Gallaudet University. Thank you for allowing me to serve this fine institution.

Question for ya'll.

Where were the faculty members who were in support of the 2006 "unity" protest  when these threats occurred? Who stood up and said that issuing such threats to members of the BoTs and said that it "ain't cool." Who publicly voiced that they do not condone such actions against BoT members?

Where was M.J. Bienvenu when that happened? 

Did she not care about threats made to certain members of the BoTs?

Where were the 145 full-time regular faculty in 2006 who were in attendance for the no-confidence vote, out of a possible 220 but made the vote count appear bigger when it wasn't since 145 faculty members in total for the special meeting were in attendance. A total of 140 voted on  the "no confidence" vote where there was a 93 to 47 vote where of "No confidence" in Fernandes with a difference of 46 votes.  140 out 220 voted attended the "no confidence" vote which means only 63% of the faculty voted on the subject which leaves 80 faculty members who refused to attend the special meeting or could not attend the special meeting.  It wasn't a faculty Senate vote but a non-binding vote in a special meeting during the height of the "Unity for Gallaudet" protest.  And this calls into question the validity of the whole vote when you have barely 60% of the faculty members attending for a special vote by which they admitted it was not a faculty Senate vote.  

Jumping back to Celia May Brown.

Did faculty members who were in support of the 2006 protest ignored threats that were made to Celia May Baldwin? Was this a classic sign of allowing bullying to happen by keeping quiet about it? How come the 21-member faculty Senate never voted on the "No confidence" vote? Wouldn't that yield a more powerful, official vote and voice against J.K. Fernandes? How many of those 21 members of the faculty Senate actually participated in the non-binding vote in a special meeting that day? Who were those 21 members of the faculty Senate back in 2006?

Me wonder.

And now, today, we have faculty members who used Angela McCaskill's petition signature as a blunt weapon to bully against her by essentially forcing president Hurwitz into a corner to try and get her fired.  Some faculty members who may have been key in helping start the 2006 protest may have been the ones who pushed students out in front and center to get them to protest in their favor. Who, as far as we're concerned, never condoned the threats that were made against Celia May Brown back in 2006.

Now here is what gets interesting.

Kendra Smith  and M.J. Bienvenu are members of the 22-member faculty Senate for the 2010 - 2013 term. Those two are involved in the whole McCaskill/Gallaudet University mess as charged by Dr. Angela McCaskill. Kendra Smith represents Graduate Studies group while M.J. Bienvenu represents University Faculty Officers and as University Faculty Vice Chair. A powerful position with a lot of pull.

The roles, responsibilities and authority given to these members are described in the faculty Senate page:

Charge
The principal decision-making body of the faculty:
 1.Review and advise the administration on the relative merits of creating new administrative structures, revising existing structures, and re-defining the purposes and functions of existing programs.
2.Make recommendations to the administration regarding the academic calendar.
3.Establishes courses of study, requirements for admission or transfer, and requirements for graduation for degrees; determines academic discipline.
 4.Reviews faculty grievances and makes recommendations to the President.
5.Verifies faculty eligibility for promotion and tenure.
6.Recommends to the president and Board of Trustees candidates for degrees; and regulates faculty status and conduct.

This Committee has the following authority:
 •Principal decision-making body of the University Faculty. Oversees quality of academic programs. Recommends candidates for degrees.
•Advises Provost, President, and BOT

Powerful responsibilities and the delegation of authority to those Senate members. This has an air of conflict of interest at work in the effort to oust McCaskill. Also, does this reek of "deafhoodism" all over again but in an all different format at the political level with a twist that it's become a good ole-girls network (14 out 22 are women in the faculty Senate) with Bienvenu near the top of the authority delegated to her? 

Also, is Bienvenu a tenured professor? 

And so all in all we can only surmise what has been going on now since 2006 with McCaskill bringing it up. Perhaps this goes back much earlier than 2006. And exactly what kind of a professional relationship there was between McCaskill and Bienvenu all those years they've known each other?

It's obvious that Bienvenu has an axe to grind toward McCaskill for some reason or another that she was willing to push such an agenda in a very public way. Perhaps time will tell eventually this sordid tale yet to be told. The 2006 chapter thought closed is now open again. What really went on and why?

Maybe it's time to add and revise some of the Wikipedia entry on "Unity for Gallaudet" protest?

Candy on the McCaskill/Gally Mess

I'm putting down in here what Candy commented recently in one of my blog post a few days ago about the whole McCaskill and Gally fiasco that's quickly becoming a sinkhole. I put her comment in here since hers was a long one.  Her comment came in three installments which deserves a better coverage in the main part of my blog. Though she's not ready to blog but this one here is close enough right now and when (and if) she does blog again the audience out there will still be waiting for her.

FYI, the links below are my own and not Candy's as a matter of clarification. Apologies for the insertion and links. I hope she doesn't mind.

===========================

By Candy.


I applaud anyone who writes about what really happen, they are the ones that do not sugarcoat what really happened. Just because the article does not shine a nice light on the individual who works at Gallaudet, or any of Mike's old article on Gallaudet, does not mean Mike is a "Gallaudet hater." The article does not reflect Gallaudet as a whole, however it does reflect the problems that beset Gallaudet. Rapes on campus is a major concern, yet, deaf people who think that by shhh-ing the real problem will make it go away. Not true at all. Deaf people who think that just because someone talks about what is bad about Gallaudet means the person hates Gallaudet. Not true at all. When we bring real problems out front, it enables us to see what we can do to resolve it. I see Mike's negative report on certain aspects of real life happenings on Gallaudet to reflect his concern for his alma mater. If you don't see it that way, tough poop. At least you should be honest and tell yourself that it is a problem. To NOT talk about it is a reflection of your DENIAL. Plain and simple. Dr. Angela McCaskill is not going to withhold information so that the ongoing problems continue. It takes COURAGE for someone to come out and tell the truth. If you love something or someone, tell the truth, no matter how bad it is.

Now..let's focus on what Angela said. She said,

"She (MJB) assumed my signature meant that I was anti-gay. No one has a right to decide what my signature petition means. Only I can do that."

When one holds a position of a diversity officer or any position that is equivalent to EEO and diversity, let me tell you that no one is immune from any bias. Her position has no bearing. If Angela has had past actions that reflected her personal views affecting her job, then it would have been very telling. Many people hold positions covering certain area that conflicts with their personal beliefs, yet many are able to keep the two separate. Some were not able to and thus were not fit for certain jobs. Angela has never stated what her views are on Marriage Equality and she will never tell us and she has a right to keep that information private. I signed a petition once on an issue which I disagred with, but I wanted voters to decide. Does it mean that I supported that issue? No.

Let's suppose (what if) CDO position is up for grabs. Several prospect applicants applied for it. Interview is conducted. I can tell you that the law DOES NOT ALLOW questions that asks about a person's personal beliefs. Which means it would be against the law to ask a person if he/she supports Marriage Equality. Ergo, you all will NEVER know what the new CDO's position on ME will be unless he/she decides to divulge that information. IT IS AGAINST the law to ASK such questions. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. I used to be an EEO Counselor and received training. We were required to keep our personal beliefs out of our job. If we couldn't or if evidence showed we did not, we would have lost our job. If we were to sign a petition out of our work place and hours, we would not have been punished. These are facts regardless of your personal view on whether or not a CDO can sign such petition or not.

Let's move on to a much more revealing information that Dr. Angela McCaskill shared. She said,

"I quickly looked back to the protest of 2006 (see video on Unity for Gallaudet with MJ Bienvenu in it). Several radical people pushed the students to the front to debate student's agenda. It was not the student's agenda. It was not student's agenda back then and it is not student's agenda now."

(see video of that remark starting at the 4:39 time stamp).

Who are the people that pushed the students to the front during the 2006 protest - the Unity For Gallaudet protest? It's easy to see who she is referring to. She is referring to faculty members. Several faculty members = who? If we remember which faculty was very involved, we would remember that it was MJB. I personally was told MJB was the one who spearheaded the protest by an individual who worked on campus and by another individual who had contact with faculties and staffs on campus. I did not have rock hard solid evidence, but hearsay, back then..that is, until Dr. Angela McCaskill revealed that information during the press conference.

MJB and other radical and/or extremist faculty members are the ones that are very into deafhood and, they are the ones that took advantage of the students by pushing them out front to make it look like it was the students agenda to protest during 2006.

It would be suffice to say that MJB and her fellow faculty members whom are radical/extremist were the ones that put Gallaudet at risk and Gallaudet was at risk of losing their accreditation after the protest in 2006.

They could very well be the ones that were causing a lot of chaos on campus, pushing students to bully and harass those who use their voices on campus, and so on.

It would make sense that these radical professionals were against someone who wanted to embrace all deaf people and supported changes that is inevitable, such as the rise of cochlear implants and allowing war vets to be part of Gallaudet. It now makes more sense why they were against JKF.

What is interesting is that MJB and her partner immediately wrote a letter to Dr. Hurwitz and demanded that Dr. McCaskill be fired. Dr. McCaskill proposed (she was thinking of Gallaudet and the students) to offer a campus wide dialogue on that situation instead. But, Dr. Hurwitz was pressured by MJB and her partner. One can only surmise what the pressure was, considering that MJB played a big role during the protest of 2006.

Several employees of Gallaudet have confirmed that MJB did not like Dr. McCaskill and was jealous of her. These same employees say that there is more to the story and that McCaskill was being bullied by certain faculty members.

Reading the comments at Rate My Professor, at least four comments over there is revealing and backs up with what I have said.

If MJB really cared for Gallaudet, she would have worked with Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. McCaskill and participated in a campus-wide dialogue to resolve this situation. Instead, a deaf-gay publication broke the news. You want to guess who tipped that media off?

We knew that deafhood ideology and deafhood radicals were behind the protest of 2006. Now we have stronger evidence of such. 
============================


This is Kokonut Pundit responding here. I am now scratching my head with this old-new info.