In an aggressive demonstration of their establishmentarian orientation, the Washington Post's comprehensive coverage of the current controversy at Gallaudet University (the nation's only liberal arts college for the deaf), on both the news and opinion pages, has clearly skewed towards the school administration. The issue, for those who haven't been following, is that a clear majority of the Gallaudet student body, and many faculty staff and alumni, oppose the selection of Gallaudet's new president, Jane K. Fernandes, and the manner in which she was chosen.

The Post's news coverage has mentioned a supposed counter-movement in support of Fernandes that no one else (including me, when I've gone to Gallaudet to cover the student blockade of campus) has confirmed. They have also repeated Fernandes' complaint that those who oppose her feel she "is not deaf enough"--something none of the protestors interviewed by me, or any other reporter, have actually heard from Fernandes' opponents (though two protestors, one a professor and another an alum, did tell me that claim was "bullshit.")

The Post has also subtly belittled some of the protestors concerns. For instance, they reported that "some black students and staff members were upset by the presidential search process, which eliminated a strong African American candidate in favor of three white people." Well, yes, but not only black members of the Gallaudet community were troubled by this. Several white students I interviewed lodged the same complaint. But the Post reports the lack of diversity among finalists for the president's job as if it were just another interest group concern, which fits with their general depiction of the incredibly broad and unified opposition to Fernandes as a collection of narrow, parochial complaints.

Meanwhile, the Post editorial from last week, titled "Giving Gallaudet a Bad Name: Student and faculty protesters have harmed their institution and the many students who want to learn" is totally slanted. Who are these "many students" complaining about the school shutdown? The Post reporters have not actually found any. And the editorial asserts that "to every overture, students changed their demands, reneged on deals." This charge, much less any evidence for it, has never appeared in the Post's news pages. And, considering that the protestor's only have two simple demands--that Fernandes resign so the search process can begin anew, and the protestors not face retribution--it strikes me as unlikely. In addition to their entirely pro-administration editorial the Post has given Fernandes a space on their op-ed page to tell her side of the story, with no op-eds from the other side. The whole tenor of the coverage shows that that the most powerful bias in the mainstream media is in favor of those who hold power.

cross-posted on TAPPED