Many of us on campus have seen no signs of healing in more than a year. The divisions caused by the protestors have now become hardened due to lack of healing work with the community.

We are worried about Fernandes, Jordan and Kimmel's return. The impact on the campus could be toxic. They will spark strong feelings among their supporters who have been left marginalized and powerless. At the same time, they will generate feelings of protest in those who don't support them and who have been allowed to control the university.

We fear that Fernandes, Jordan and Kimmel have the courage of their convictions. They believe in what they are saying and doing and they will continue regardless of what people around them do or say. If Gallaudet was healed and a true university, this wouldn't be a problem. But it remains in a volatile state and we think their return could spark some kind of upheaval.

As for why they would return, they believe in their work. And they have earned tenure and so have a right to return and do their work. I hope they are allowed to do it and that they are not seen as threats -- but a lot of us are worried.

Are you writing with a deep sense of irony or are you serious? Your message is so flawed I don't know how to read it. A few facts may help set the record straight:

1. In 2001, under Jordan and Fernandes, Gallaudet went through a comprehensive accreditation review conducted by MSCHE. After more than a year of self-study, a team of experts came to campus for several days. Gallaudet's accreditation was reaffirmed in the strongest possible terms. There were recommendations (which are really like requirements) made but no warnings. In fact, Gallaudet's mission was singled out for strong praise. This is in writing, black and white, if you ask for it, I think you can get a copy.

2. A great deal of hard work was ongoing related to the recommendations. In 2006, Gallaudet submitted a Periodic Review Report which is required halfway into the 10 year accreditation cycle. Again, Gallaudet received a response from MSCHE expressing strong support. In fact, the selection of Fernandes as president was mentioned as a cause for celebration by the MSCHE evaluators. In addition, the strategic planning work, the University Budget Committee process, and work on diversity and inclusion were singled out for the highest praise.

There were ongoing issues discussed but no warnings of any kind. Reaffirmation of accreditation, which can never be taken for granted, was probable based on the response from MSCHE. I know that the issue of institutional data and the need for more of it in decision making was mentioned but it was not an overwhelming issue. It was something everyone agreed needed to be worked on.

3. As the protest continued in the fall, late in the semester (December, I think) MSCHE called President Jordan to advise him that the protest and all the media coverage had heightened concerns among the public about the university. Therefore, MSCHE was deferring a vote to reaffirm accreditation. While everything had been in order at the time of the PRR, the MSCHE was deeply troubled by the protest which had shut the university down and the all the media attention had the general public asking just what was going on.

4. For the record, Jordan and Fernandes left the university in good shape as far as accreditation goes.

5. The MSCHE sent a team of three university presidents to campus in January 2007. At that time, they determined that Gallaudet would be put on probation. The protest and the protestors are responsible for the probationary status currently in effect. And they are the ones who need to re-do work to assure that Gallaudet's accreditation is eventually reaffirmed. It remains to be seen what will happen.

6. The Performance Assessment Results Tool (PART) gave Gallaudet an erroneus rating of ineffective. The rating was caused more by the U.S. DOE's dereliction and neglect of it oversight responsibility than anything Gallaudet did. Jordan appealed the rating and the Office of Management and Budget agreed that the rating should be corrected to "adequate." If you think Jordan and Kunkle have the ability to twist the arms of the OMB, DOE, Senate, House and White House to change a rating, you must give them a lot of power. They must be full of power in your mind. Personally, I doubt they had anything to do with it. It was an error that was corrected.

I suggest you stop lying if you want people to support you. If you are a sample of what Gallaudet is teaching its students, no wonder we're in deep trouble.

First, NTID did not get an A in the evaluation of its performance by the federal government. NTID got an adequate, squarely in the lower end of the pack. At first, Gallaudet received a rating of inadequate. However, this was erroneous and upon review, Gallaudet's rating was officially upgraded to adequate -- the exact same rating NTID received.

Second, Gallaudet was never on probation during the Jordan/Fernandes tenure. In 2001, Gallaudet received a full reaffirmation of its accreditation. In 2006, Gallaudet submitted a Periodic Review Report and received recommendations but no indication of probation and no sign of warning. Read the reports before you spread falsehoods.

After the Board of Trustees rescinded Fernandes' contract as president, demonstrating for the entire world that it was not in control of the institution, the Middle States Association decided to pay a site visit to campus. They did so in January 2007. At that time, they declared that Gallaudet was being placed on probation because the protest had shut down the university for several days and because of related media attention which had heightened public concern about what the university's purpose is.

Until the protestors understand the damage they inflicted on Gallaudet, the university will be hard pressed to move ahead. Stop blaming Fernandes and start looking at the flaws in the university system that allowed this situation to get completely out of control.

Riolo,

You're being short-sighted and not taking into account all the wrongdoings of IKJ, JK and KK.

You're just spouting platitudes with no substance.