"Administrative Decisions Hasty and Unfounded"
by
Alison Aubrecht
Last week's issue of Buff n' Blue published an article entitled "TFP: No More (part two), which was a reflection on the administration's opinions and statements. After reading this, I found myself feeling unsettled. Whoever made the decision to make changes in the Department of TPDM (TFP is the name of the courses-- TPDM is the department name) clearly has not done his or her research. This kind of decision making process scares me. It is hasty, unfounded, and the results can be detrimental to the student's success. To begin with, the original campus-wide email sent out by Associate Dean Dr. Karen Kimmel clearly states that the Television and Cinema major would not continue after May 2002. This reflects one truth-- that it was never the original intention of the administration to "add some more courses and make it more modern." How do you make the major more modern, if I might ask? If one did their research, they would know that the courses in TV and Cinema became very up to date with the arrival of Facundo Monenegro and his new courses. (How modern can you get, for instance, with a course called "Queer Cinema?") In terms of technology, the students use the most modern form of technology-- Digital. Moreover, the department has better equipment, yes BETTER equipment than NBC, and the best equipment in comparison with the Universities in the DC area. More modern? How, might I inquire, do you plan to add more courses if you are asking quality teachers to leave because you cannot afford them? Who will teach those "Upgraded" courses when the only teacher left behind is not qualified to teach Digital Media courses? If you plan to have your "students graduate and then get quality jobs after graduation," you're not going to have much luck in Bill Moses's department with adjunct teachers teaching the courses. Why do I attack Bill Moses's department? The answer is statistically simple. According to statistics from the GRI Alumni Statistics, of those that graduated from TV/Cinema, 36% got a job related to their field. Any guesses about the Art department? Of those that graduated, only 16% got a job related to their field. So you'll forgive me for having doubts. The article also said, "The merger was decided upon by the faculty and the deans." Yeah. Why weren't the students included in the decision? Are students not more knowledgeable about their departments and their needs, than the deans? I wonder if a day will ever come when the administration extends a little more respect to the students. They do care, and they are capable of making decisions. As for being able to have more access to computer and software, why can't departments share? I would think with the new smart building, it would be possible to develop a lab for all students in TV, Cinema, Graphic Design, Digital Media, and so forth could use-- with their departments chipping in-- sharing costs. "The merge (according to Karen Kimmel), would enable both departments to share their resources, and that would cost less money in the long run." The TV/Cinema resources, using digital programs, are not outrageously expensive. Especially not when there is a sufficient amount of interested majors. The only thing that really needs to be upgraded from time to time is the programs used for editing. The cameras, if taken care of, can last for quite some time. Students pay for their own tapes (not film-- digital cameras use tapes.) I do have to wonder, though, about certain "resources" in the art department: in ceramics class, for instance: clay, paint, the new kiln, and so on. A lot of money from the merged departments would go to that. And, besides, how many majors does Ceramics have? What's the success rate? Does sharing funds with ceramics benefit all the majors--in other words, are the funds divided equally? I'd do this research on my own, but I know I'll not be allowed access to this kind of information. I'm all for quality teachers, quality education, and quality departments. But why, pray tell, must you change the name of a major if it will remain the same, with the exception of a few "upgrades?" Why do I care? For two reasons. First, visual media is perhaps the most precious thing to the Deaf community, what with our visual language. Secondly, it irks me when the Administration makes decisions without really taking into consideration the impact those decisions would have. "Saving money" seems to be a big issue here. But there are better ways to raise money than to merge departments. For instance, American University allows one channel to produce their late night shows in their studio. A surefire way to raise money-- why doesn't Gallaudet do this to increase funding for the TV/Cinema Major? Is quality education really an issue? Everything in the decision that has been made by the administration sums down to one thing: turning the major into a vocational major. Videography is a very specified form of media, it really means learning how to operate a camera. Do you not want your students to become producers? Directors? Scriptwriters? Perhaps what needs to be upgraded here is the attitude. The attitude that this or that is "good enough" for the Deaf students. The attitude that Deaf people do not have the ability to truly succeed. To prove my point, I will conclude with a statement from the Alumni survey- GRI (1999) changes alumni would like to see: "Improve quality of courses, get rid of those teachers who give students easy life with easy courses." I second that. Teachers and Administrators.