Violence...who is really accountable?

It's sad. It's ugly. It's unfortunate. And when you're involved in an emotionally charged event things can easily get out of hand. And before you know it sensationalism plays its cue card when people use hyperbole as a weapon of choice because it helps raise the spectre of excessiveness. And thus help increase paranoia to another level by delving more into the realm of conspiracy theory status. Call it an illusion of sort. Half-truths. Half-false (is that even a word?) or it could be utterly false. Though it could be more true than not. Maybe even the truth is actually the case! Still, the use of hyperbole doesn't quite give readers the full picture because every story has two sides. But in this case we may be seeing more of subjectivity outweighing any form of objectivity. Not everybody is immune to this kind of emotional appeal. Even me. But recognizing this can help form a better objective response of the things that are going on.

Now, don't get me wrong here folks. And my apologies for those who may feel hurt or insulted in what I have to say questioning whether protesters actually committed any acts of violence. They haven't but in a way they have and it all pretty much started with what you call "passive violence." Let me explain.

I do have these questions. They're legitimate ones and I try to view these observations of mine without the ugly emotional attachments which can cloud rationality and objectivity. What I'm talking about is the latest string of events concerning the Gallaudet protest. Namely the HMB incident where DPS officers responded to a bomb threat phoned in had no choice but to enter the HMB building in order to search for suspicious packages according to an independent investigation.

Now, you are probably asking yourself what is "Passive Violence?" Sounds like a contradiction in terms. However, it is not when you look into it more deeply and the people who actually commit them. But what does it mean then? From the Victory over Violence website:

According to Gandhi and his grandson Arun, passive violence are the things that we do to disrespect other people's (and our own) lives, such as name-calling, teasing, judging and criticizing. These small and often inconspicuous acts that we commit are actually a form of violence.

On a deeper level, many people, including great leaders of our time, have said that a lack of self-identity can lead to passive violence. In other words, without a strong sense of confidence in knowing who we are, we can end up feeling insecure and even develop an insecurity complex. As philosopher Daisaku Ikeda put it, "When you succumb to a complex, you are likely to see everything about yourself in a negative light. When something doesn't work out for you, you tend to blame it on those things which make you feel inferior: 'It's because I'm short' and so forth." Lacking a solid sense of who we are makes us feel insecure, and this can cause us to compare ourselves to others and even criticize or judge others because they are different from us. Gandhi was referring to judgment and criticism when he stated that passive violence leads to physical violence.

Mahatma Gandhi also said,

"passive violence fuels the fire of physical violence; and if we want to put out the fire of physical violence, logically we have to cut off the fuel supply."

And that brings me into this observation of mine. You are probably reading my mind but who are these people who have done this "passive violence" and continue to do so? These things are much more prevalent in the written form seen in blog sites and websites by people engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks, petulent name-callings, and obtuse thinking day in and day out. And to boot, these attacks are often times compounded with the use of hyperbole just for good measure in making a story sound that much ominous than not. And then getting obnoxiously dirty with outright lies, innuendos, slander and such. This has gone on, especially so, since Jane K. Fernandes was selected for the 9th president. All one has to do is read some of the Deaf/deaf/hh/hearing blogs, websites and even forums covering the protest.

And so it comes down to his where we need to appeal ourselves to common sense to help ground us from slipping into absurdity.

Let's look at the FSSA's recent "Press Release" yesterday:

The crisis on the Gallaudet campus is worsening by the minute and the students will not back down.

Never mind the fact that this is a "peaceful" protest but when you see protesters who aggressively took over Hall Memorial Building (HMB) and formed a human chain and put tents in front of every entrance are all an act of defiance. But you can't help question whether such an action constitute as encouraging institigation. Basically daring anybody to try and stop them. An intentional act on creating more crisis upon a crisis with the full knowledge that this type of action by its own design gives it, the crisis upon a crisis, the ability to instigate a negative and sometimes dangerous response. In short, protesters knew it was a likelihood that force may be used against them. If protesters were to say that they never expected such a negative response are either naive or incredibly stupid when they decided to hijack HMB. And then when they are actually confronted with "violent" responses who do they blame? Yes, the tried and true tactic of blaming everyone else except themselves. Accountable to nothing. Accountable to nobody. But believe it or not, accountability goes both ways here for both parties involved because we have two parties who disagree with each other on various levels. It doesn't help to assign blame as did in Leah Katz-Hernandez's latest letter from the FSSA.

This attack from DPS was totally unprovoked. Students were PEACEFUL. This protest was always about peaceful, nonviolent messages.

Indeed it may have been an unprovoked attack but I couldn't help notice that DPS officers peacefully made several requests that the protesters vacate the HMB building that they forcibly hijacked. There is a term called "passive-aggressive" response. You know the kind. A good example is having a car in front of you on a road who is purposely driving slow just to make you mad because you want to go faster and that the slow driver was provoked somehow into doing this as a response to your angry response. And then I noticed another thing in a BisonTV video clip near the end the clip of images of protesters following and, no less, attacking a single Gallaudet University Security Officer in a non-physical confrontational way who was trying to leave the building. It's the "in-your-face" type of attack by following him. This is not to say that the DPS officers didn't commit any physical form of aggressive actions on protesters who wouldn't leave peacefully when requested in the first place.

And then I note more ironies of pleas from protesters to the public to contact Congress in light of the protest.

GALLAUDET IS A FEDERALLY FUNDED INSITUTION, AND CURRENTLY, IT IS VIOLATING SEVERAL UNIVERSITY POLICIES.

While failing to note themselves that they've broken laws already by hijacking the HMB building.

As for non-violent messages, I am wondering to myself how many of those protesters actually have a blog or made comments in other deaf/hh blogs or forums (e.g Gallynet-L, DeafDC, etc) who have violently attacked, in name, against the Jordans, the Administration, Jane Fernandes and the BoTs by calling them practically every name in the book along with hyperbole after hyperbole.

And then we get into the realm of actual encouragement and instigation of further violence, even in the form of physical violence against IKJ which many have said happened yesterday during a building ceremony in honor of I. King Jordan.

My friend just went to see Tent city in DC and informed me that some deaf protestors threw water bottles at IKJ family including children and grandchildren. A bottle hit IKJ right in his head!

Even Washington Post reported it but said that juice or water was thrown in the crowd. No doubt it was directed at I. King Jordan.

All in all, everybody is at fault to one degree or another for this fine mess. But to say that Gallaudet University has made them violent is beyond incredulity. How can you look for the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the stick in your own eye?

Indeed.

Accountability is everybody's responsibility. Strive for positive results so that everybody wins.