Deaf and Philosophy

MishaZena was kind enough to post Jane’s interview with ASHA.  (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) ASHA’s mission statement is:

 ”The mission of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association is to promote the interests of and provide the highest quality services for professionals in audiology, speech-language pathology, and speech and hearing science, and to advocate for people with communication disabilities.”

That should give you a clear idea of where Jane’s thinking is. If you do not use speech, language and hearing, you therefore have a communication disability. Science is another cheap social construction, so Jane is under that doctrine.

 What is extremely disturbing is that Jane is still after “culturally deaf people” who value ASL and don’t value voice. She also claims there is less sense of a place for these culturally deaf people, compared to 20 years ago.

This should raise alarms all over the place. Jane is still worried about these culturally deaf people, and when she says culturally deaf people, she means ALL culturally deaf people because I haven’t seen a criteria that excludes these culturally deaf people from the so called absolutionist. I know many culturally deaf people that value ASL and voice. I’ve not met a culturally deaf person who is against voice, they just made a personal decision not to use it, even if they speak well.

When Jane repeats the same old song and dance of wanting Gallaudet to be “a place where everyone is included, valued and respected,” she is trying to destroy Deaf culture. Think about this, suppose you have your own culture of being a college football fan. The people in the group are die hard college football fans and they know everything there is to know about college football. They may reject people who are not fan enough of college football, but there is nothing wrong with that. When a university president is after this culture, there is something wrong here.  Correct me if I am wrong, but who is the highest ranking culturally deaf person at Gallaudet? Anyone on the BOT? IJK, JKF? That’s a lot of high ranking positions to have without “culturally deaf” person in charge. Who is then responsible for legally keeping Gallaudet “included, respected and valued?” Jane and Jordan had their time and they failed by their own criteria. Was Jordan after all of these people during his presidency?

There is tremendous cause for concern if a person is so single-mindedly bent on destroying this culturally Deaf culture. You do not attack a culture in general, you address specific problems, but don’t stereotype all of the culturally deaf people. Because Jane said these culturally deaf people don’t value voice, she is imposing her value of voice on a culture that emphasizes ease of communication instead of submitting to what works best for hearing people. (and we would still have a problem with lipreading or “hearing” what is being said)

Jane is in essence saying that these culturally deaf people are a threat to whatever doctrine she believes in. Jane does not decide what constitutes as a culture, nor does she decide how and when a culture should change. It is extremely arrogant to tell a culture to open up and include all people, because in the process it destroys the culture. How would you feel if a foreign nation came in the USA, and repeatedly told everyone to open up, to include everyone and respect all and in the process values are shifting so far away from what we valued before?  Why should the culture of college football fans have to open up and include ping pong fans of the olympics? Both cultures can operate on their own and go by their own values.

As for Gallaudet not being inclusive, am I supposed to complain everytime I cannot bond with any group of people on campus? If it happens that I don’t feel belonged with the fraternity and sororities, should I complain and say I am not included and respected? If I don’t fit in with the physics society, do I have a right to target that group and say they need to respect and include everyone. I have been on honor societies where a 3.5 gpa or higher is required, is that a good thing for colleges, because apparently that does not repect and include all students.  There are many universities where a high percentage of the student’s parents earn well over $100,000 and that might only represent 10% of the population, yet these rich students represent over 50% of the college population. How can one battle against this culture of rich people? You cannot generalize these rich people and have to address incidents individually. Does it mean that all these rich students are bad for the university?

I still don’t understand why Jane cannot view these culturally deaf people with pride, because you want people to be proud human beings, proud of their identities and whatever background they came from. Gallaudet has instilled pride in many people, most of whom came from mainstreamed schools and grew into fine adults during their college days. What sense does it make to focus on the people who left Gallaudet because they felt like they didn’t fit in. Would Harvard spend all of their time worrying about all of the drop outs and wonder why the students felt like they didn’t fit in and blast the majority of the students, who presumedly are from old money?

Jane must remember that a lot of problem Gallaudet faces are not because of culture, but how people grew up prior to going to Gallaudet. Gallaudet is a microcosm of american society, yes we have all these problems we will find anywhere in America, but it is the culturally deaf white people that are to be blamed, and by going after these culturally white deaf people, all of Gallaudet’s problems will be solved. Jane simply wants to impose her values on ALL deaf and hard of hearing people and destroy all culturally deaf people who use ASL but don’t value voice. What’s wrong with including these culturally deaf people who use ASL and all other deaf and HoH folks in one place? There will always be a clash of cultures and opionon on any college campus, you have the democrats and republican groups at all colleges, so how is this any different? If the culturally deaf people are more proud of their heritage, then let the mainstreamed “un-culturally” deaf be equally proud of their heritage too. A college campus is not about making everyone sit down and be friends, there will always be clash of ideology, which makes it an even better culture for intellectuals.

Jane has every right to disagree with certain groups, but to systematically  target one group is going too far as an administrator, and thankfully she no longer is one. Without experiencing firsthand of her management style, it is easy to believe that she prefers management by intimidation. An administrator would have more tact in addressing issues that plaque the university, it takes an entire community to address the issue, not the vendetta of one person.