January 23rd, 2007
Chutzpah, redefined.
Yesterday, the deaf blog-o-sphere went completely apeshit over Dr. I. King Jordan’s editorial as published in the WashPost.
First, let me take a philosophical view here: Dr. Jordan does us a favor by printing this. He gives us insight into his mind, for better or worse, during the last days and aftermath of the protests. This is not an effort to rewrite history. It’s an effort to tell his side of the story. I think people should study it and understand that what has happened in the past can happen again in the future.
That said, let me throw a few choice lines at you:
“I am convinced that the board made a serious error in acceding to the demands of the protesters by terminating Fernandes’s presidency before it began.”
“If we give in to the absolutists, Gallaudet’s future will be severely, and adversely, affected.”
“It is essential to Gallaudet’s survival that the board, and everyone at the university, refocus on an inclusive vision for the university that aspires to academic excellence and respects Deaf culture.”
Those statements, taken independently, are fairly benign. In fact, I agree with the underlying sentiments and am usually suspicious of people who clamor for some more pure “deaf” or “ASL” state/culture/whatnot.
But I am seeing these words with a different “voice”, if you will. In June, I had the privilege of attending the NAD conference and watching Dr. Jordan give his final keynote there.
The tone? Incredibly patronizing. The response? Cold. Instead of a final hurrah, he received (and deserved) eyebrows raised, people saying “wow” for all the wrong reasons, and in this supporter’s eyes (mine): disappointment.
I am reading his op-ed with the same feeling here: Instead of striking a blow for reconciliation, Dr. Jordan is trying to dig the trenches deeper.
Look, many of his points are valid and I agree with a good number of them. But the tone and language he chose will do more harm to his reputation, how history perceives him, and most importantly, Dr. Davila’s efforts to move the campus forward.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
Chutzpah? No way! IKJ has no balls!
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
As always, good post- we weren’t able to get there in time for his speech, but I heard from others how it went over with the audience, and your reaction is definitely in the majority. A shame he’s choosing to play the role of divider, not uniter.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi, Carl;
Wikipedia defines “chutzpah” as having audacity, for good or bad. That’s the definition I used in this post. It would have taken courage for Dr. Jordan to completely reverse himself and realize he erred, if not in action, then in terms of how he communicated during the protests.
It takes balls to stand your ground. We all know people who have “balls” (for some reason, the guys on the Jackass TV show come to mind) to do things that are dumb, pigheaded or obstinate. The way I read Dr. Jordan’s missive, it seems he is simply parroting his thought processes during the protests and holding himself up as some demi-god at Gallaudet.
It takes courage to truly reflect on one’s actions and report honestly back to others on the results of those reflections, regardless of what the end result is. I do not believe his op-ed is the result of such reflections.
Thanks.
January 24th, 2007 at 5:44 am
[...] The big brouhaha today in the deaf blogosphere is about I. King Jordan’s Op-Ed in the Washington Post, and quite a few others have discussed this topic and analyzed it. I’m talking about it here, because I really don’t see the need to add my voice to the chorus. One of the reasons for this is that Neil over at Deaf Firefighter’s Blog, has typed up a fairly succinct review which pretty much echoes my own thoughts. Hopefully, this is merely Jordan’s parting shot, and not the beginning of a public spat over Gallaudet. We’ll see… [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Thanks for the thoughtful post that goes against what many are saying in DeafBlogLand. *grin*
What he said wasn’t that bad, except for the “absolutists” part. There are some, but more and more are realizing that to insist that there is only “one” way to be deaf is in itself divisive and that’s not going to fly anymore. That comment showed how out of touch he is with the community, because it is in such a state of flux that no one should go by paradigms that were true 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
His NAD convention speech… Oh, gad, that was horrible. He fumbled around looking for the mike, when it hadn’t been visible all night. He found it and, I felt, made a point of displaying it prominently. His signing was so horribly choppy, I decided to start listening to see how his voice sounded (I tend to tune that kinda thing out if there’s signing present). Unbelievable. Choppy and unnatural. (Like I said in my entry on his speech, at least he mangled both languages.) But what struck me was the steel in it. I thought I detected a few drips of anger, and the tone sounded patronizing to me. Maybe others with more training will wanna chime in on this, but I left furious, because it was so clear he was playing the role of the cuckold. That was more important to him than building bridges.
This recent article in the WaPo sounds so much like a spoiled child, sitting on the floor, scowling, arms crossed, flailing legs spread out in a V, “I WILL get my way OR everyone’s gonna be miserable!” It’s sad, really. He had a chance to help begin the healing or to just exit gracefully. But, no, he writes this childish editorial that is not going to help his successor nor the community. Talk about a legacy in tatters.