The protest climaxed... now for the denouement

WOW!!! This has been an incredible day. I didn't expect Pandora, my pager, to survive the barrage of e-mails trading information, reactions, and the like from all over the nation, but she managed. She's now taking a breather.

I had decided to declare a moratorium on protest-related news and messages for most of the weekend. I spent yesterday curled up in bed with my laptop, watching Netflix'd DVDs and managed to write one blog post on this blog. I did the same for most of this morning, but knowing that the Board of Trustees was meeting, I grudgingly reached for Pandora and logged on to the 'Net. I spent the next few hours in tense anticipation, reading messages relayed from DC and from other friends who were passing on messages from DC. Then finally the news that the Board of Trustees meeting was over, but no announcement yet... White-knuckled, I scanned and refreshed a few websites so often, I'm surprised my trackpad didn't declare itself finished with me.

Then...

Pandora vibrated. I hastily scooped 'er up, opened Mail, and read a brief message saying good news, BoT terminated Jane. *doink* Wha'? What the...?? True biz? Pandora then went off every 5 seconds for the next ten minutes with various people confirming the news. Yup, the Board of Trustees had decided to think independently of the Kendall Monarchy and seen that the only hope for resolution was to give Fernandes her walking papers. Frantic pages of celebrations sped through the airwaves. I hastily dressed and dashed to a friend's place, where we took pictures, laughed together, and processed the enormity of this event. It was wonderful!

But...

Y'know, this isn't over. This is Gettysburg in the Civil War. This is a turning point, indeed. But we haven't won the war. We cannot stop being involved now. Fernandes' selection and the stand-off that lasted for the better part of a year were simply symptomatic of a larger problem at Gallaudet and in the larger community. I, personally, am saddened that things had to get to this point. I believe this could have been prevented at so many points along the past year, the major problem being perception, as Mark Drolsbaugh so eloquently describes. Hindsight, as the saying goes, is 20/20. We're here now, and there's nowhere to go but forward. Resolving these problems is going to demand our continued involvement. The good news is that we can relax and get our lives back, but we still need to support our compatriots on Kendall Green. How, you ask? Good question. Allow me to refer you to two excellent posts written by Surdus and by Mr. Sandman. In a nutshell, we need to focus on the problems on campus and on healing the rifts in our community. Let's all do that together, both in DeafBlogLand and in person.

*lifting champagne glass*

To us, the community. May we win the war... all of us, so there are no losers (except for those who would perpetuate colonialism and divide us even further). May we all become united, no matter where we are from and what our backgrounds contain. May we all blend together to become a stronger, diverse, accepting community. May Gallaudet become an institution that we revere, because of its historic place in our community, because it pushes us to excel academically, and because it is a place where everyone is accepted yet ASL and Deafhood flourish.

*lifting glass even higher, with a nod*
*sip*

Elitism, Deafhood & the Current Protest

This is the first time I’ve signed into my Blogger account since early this month. There is so much I want to talk about, because so much has happened in the last two months. But those posts will have to remain simply nuggets and partially-written snippets in a word processing file for the time being. On to the topic.

As we all know, the Deaf community is in the midst of an uproar because of what is happening on a 99-acre college campus in the northeast quadrant of Washington, D.C. My heart, mind, and soul have been consumed by this situation. I’m so heartbroken by what is occurring at my beloved alma mater that no words can describe what I’m feeling.

There is so much I could say about the Gallaudet protest, so much of what I am thinking and feeling, that I could probably write a rather weighty tome. But right now my thoughts are focused on one question: Why are we in this situation? There are many auxiliary questions, such as: Are they hiding something? Why aren’t faculty members and staff members handing over evidence I KNOW for a fact that is there to the media? Why cannot some people see that this is not a bunch of kids whining that they didn’t get their way? Why do some people insist on believing the lies that the Gallaudet PR machine is spewing left and right? What is keeping Fernandes going like the Energizer Bunny? Why is Jordan willing to destroy his legacy to support a woman that has alienated most of her constitutency? Why are people on the Board of Trustees not openly breaking away from the party line? Etc, etc. However, one auxiliary question to “Why are we in this situation” that seems very important and that requires closer examination is the “not deaf enough” issue.

Confession: I would very much like to swat the student who first said this protest is about JK’s not being deaf enough. Now that I’ve confessed that, I must note that I’m furious with Jordan, Fernandes, and the PR machine for perpetuating this fallacy.

But is it truly a fallacy? Yes and no. The truth is that there is a small number of people who would have been dissatisfied with this selection because of a pre conceived notion about what a deaf person is. Some of these people may have initiated a protest. But this protest is about so much more than that. This protest is about a questionable search process and about the inappropriate selection of a person who has proved time after time that she is incapable of leading a group of people. It is about the marginalization of the most important people on a college campus; namely, the students and faculty, and to a smaller extent, the staff members and the alumni. It is about administrative mismanagement and manipulation to the point that there are questions about Gallaudet’s accounting and where people are working and living in a climate of palapable fear. However, there is a kernel of truth to the “not deaf enough” card.

This is where elitism and Deafhood come in. One key idea posited in the book is that deaf people have been colonized. I talked about this in one of my posts on the NAD conference, and I've copied and pasted the relevant passage, shown here in italics.

The Deafhood workshops were amazing. The first one encapsulated the concept and previewed what the next three would cover. The second one, presented by Ella Mae Lentz, focused on the language aspect of Deafhood. A brief history lesson occurred first, focusing on European colonization and how they subjugated native peoples. The colonists (called missioners in the book) systematically destroyed governing systems, traditions, ways of life, and banned native languages. They installed white governments and forced the children to go to white schools and be educated in the colonists’ language, to learn the values and traditions of the colonists, and so forth. Eventually the colonists installed native people that were best able to speak their language and function much like the colonists in positions of power. These native people became the force which kept the natives subjugated. Paddy Ladd’s book posits that this is what has happened to deaf people. Oralists colonized us too by destroying our education systems, outlawing our language, and forcing us to use their language. Our values and traditions were discarded in favor of hearing mores. As a result, we have been divided and we act against each other. We even argue about our identity amongst ourselves. We disagree about the best way to educate our youth. Many of us genuinely believe that those who can speak are lucky, those who have some hearing are lucky, and that English is superior to ASL. Many of us gladly participate in our own oppression. This is known as colonialism of the mind, because our hearts, minds, and souls have been colonized to the point where many of us believe English is superior, we need to worry about fitting in with hearing people, and to speak and hear is better than not to speak and hear. This is a powerful and mind blowing concept, and I was glad of the reminder. The workshop made me think of how sick and tired I am of the phrase “can’t hear.” I’ve been railing against that phrase for years because “can’t hear” implies that hearing is an ability or a skill. Granted, in some contexts, it is. But we deaf people cannot practice and practice to develop a greater ability to hear. Our being deaf is simply a state of being. I’ve been advocating changing from “can’t hear” to “don’t hear” and changing “can hear” to simply “hear,” because language and perception are inextricably entwined. Genie Gertz focused on identity related to deafhood and David Eberwein focused on the politics of deafhood. Somewhere in there, the phrase “deficit thinking” was discussed. It is basically the idea that deaf people lack something; that we are flawed. This is an example of how thoroughly we have been colonized. For example, (the following is simply my own musings) we often say “hearing loss,” which is predicated upon the assumption that hearing is special and valuable. Is it? Well, depends on your paradigm, really. There are so many unpleasant sounds that hearing people are subjected to on a daily basis. I know I hear a lot that I really would rather not have to put up with. (back to the workshops) A few links that discuss the Deafhood workshops are NAD's, Ridor's, and Sandman's. It remains to be seen how much impact these workshops have on the general discourse, if they clear up the misunderstandings and misinterpretations that have circulated in the past few months, and if they help heal the damage that the Gallaudet situation has wrought on the community, but I believe they will go a long way.

The most important result of being colonized is that we have been set against each other. We tear each other down. We pull each other apart. This is exactly what is happening, as we debate the protest. There is a kernel of truth to the “not deaf enough card,” but by and large it is a fallacy, seized upon by the administration and parroted in every single public relations move the administration makes.

This is exactly why I, and many others, have called for elitism and acting superior to end. As we all know, some people who speak exclude those who don’t speak, some who went to deaf schools exclude those who didn’t, and so on. All of us need to stop it, as I discussed in length in this post. We all play a role in this and our individual actions are more powerful than we know. Some of us, myself included, already practice collectivism and acceptance of all types of backgrounds, and I strongly urge those who don’t to begin doing so. It’s amazing the types of people one meets, once one is open to others. This is why I love Deafhood. It promises to unify us all, if we can stop our infighting and examine the history of our own colonization then unify to defeat colonialism. We have begun the necessary dialogue about how to bring us all together. Let’s continue this dialogue, all of us, without resorting to personal attacks, no matter what happens at the Board of Trustees meeting tomorrow.

To voice or not to voice? That is the question.

For months now, Dr. Brenda Brueggemann's choice to voice instead of signing her speech at Gallaudet's commencement last May has been a source of controversy, and the renewal of the protest has also brought renewed debate regarding her choice. There are those who yowl in outrage, saying her choice was audistic and oppressive, while there are those who defend her choice saying she had every right to choose the method of delivery she felt most comfortable performing.

I’ve had strong opinions about this since the moment it occurred (amazing how plugged in we are these days, n’est-ce pas?), but the controversy has helped me articulate just why I feel so strongly about Dr. Brueggemann choice.

Allow me to preface this by saying that I recognize the diversity in our community and that we have no business dictating one set of norms for whom is acceptable and whom is not in this pluralistic country of ours. People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day, even though I don’t care what language choices she makes in her everyday life.

And exactly how did I draw this conclusion, you may ask. Good question. Read on for the answer. *grin*

Fact: Gallaudet University is a place where the vast majority of students are deaf.

Fact: People who go to Gallaudet for their undergraduate degree and stay long enough to graduate have learned how to sign, at least to an extent, if they did not sign before they enrolled at Gallaudet.

Fact: People who go to Gallaudet for a post-baccalaureate degree are working toward degrees in a deaf-related field and should be able to sign to an extent by the time they participate in commencement.

Conclusion: The people receiving formal recognition of the completion of their studies during a Gallaudet University commencement are deaf for the most part and should be able to sign with a reasonable level of proficiency.

Fact: In America (and perhaps elsewhere), people who present addresses at university commencements are expected to tailor their addresses to the graduating students. This involves considering the population that a particular university serves.

Conclusion: To tailor an address to this particular population of mostly deaf signers, it is not unreasonable to expect that someone who knows how to sign would sign their address. Therefore, since Dr. Brueggemann knows how to sign and since this is a group of signers, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Dr. Brueggemann would have signed her speech.

Fact: Dr. Brueggemann, for whatever reason, chose not to take note of the previous facts and conclusions and chose to address a signing population using her voice.

Fact: Dr. Brueggemann is deaf herself.

Fact: Dr. Brueggemann is the current chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees.

Fact: Dr.Brueggemann is chair of the ASL Department at Ohio State University.

Fact: A university department chair is generally expected to be an expert in her chosen field.

Possible Conclusion 1: Dr. Brueggemann is not comfortable enough signing to use ASL when addressing a large audience.

Problems with Possible Conclusion 1:
*What business does Dr. Brueggemann have chairing an ASL department if she doesn’t sign well enough to use the formal ASL register to deliver an address?
*If a Spanish language department chair were not proficient in Spanish, everyone would howl in outrage. The same is true for any foreign language, including Chinese, Arabic, French, et cetera. It would never be acceptable for a chair of any language department to be uncomfortable functioning in that language in any situation. This conclusion, if accurate, implies that ASL has second-class status and is not worthy of equal respect with other foreign languages.

Possible Conclusion 2: Dr. Brueggemann honestly believes that it is better to use voice than to sign when addressing a signing population

Problems with Possible Conclusion 2:
*She ignored the fact that she was addressing an audience of signers.
*Using an interpreter causes a disconnect between the speaker and the recipent because it requires communication to go through an intermediary, which means that by making the choice to disregard her audience, she failed to connect with her audience.

Possible Conclusion 3: Dr. Brueggemann was playing to the general public and to the media when giving her presentation, ensuring that her words were fully accessible to her true intended audience

Problems with Possible Conclusion 3:
*This makes Dr. Brueggemann seem manipulative and like she is pandering to the public.
*If this is true, then Dr. Brueggemann callously disregarded the students, which is perturbing, since she is chair of the university Board of Trustees.

Possible Conclusion 4: Dr. Brueggemann interprets her role as acting chair of the Board of Trustees differently from most of us who are stakeholders in the University. Most of us regard the position as special and should be held by one who reflects the Gallaudet community, and that includes direct communication without going through an intermediary, while apparently Dr. Brueggemann does not hold this same view.

Problems with Possible Conclusion 4:
*This conclusion is riddled with assumptions. Who is to say what the role of the chair of the University Board of Trustees is? Who defines what the Gallaudet community is?

My personal conclusion: None of these make Dr. Brueggemann look good. They all show her to be the wrong person to lead the University Board of Trustees, especially at this time of crisis. And yes, Dr. Jordan, there IS a crisis of confidence and of leadership at Gallaudet, in spite of your words at the NAD conference. It doesn’t matter whether she’s genuinely not comfortable signing, or she’s manipulative and playing to the media, or or if she’s a believer in speaking and not signing. Any of these situations strongly indicate that she has no business leading the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees and she made a grave mistake in choosing to voice during commencement last May. She needs to change or she needs to go. People who defend this choice are naturally entitled to their opinions, but in my humble opinion, they fail to recognize that it is the combination of factors that make this choice particularly egregious - her status as chair, her job as friggin' head of an ASL department, the audience being signers, and the disconnect that occurs when going through a third party for communication. The woman screwed up big time and I personally believe she needs to quit her job and resign from the Board of Trustees immediately.