Discrimination against hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University

Yes, discrimination (and even oppression! keep reading) occurs everywhere, even at Gallaudet University by some of their own deaf and hard of hearing people whether coming from students, faculty or the staff. Discrimination is probably more pronounced against hard of hearing students than not for reasons that will be made clear below. Discrimination can happen consciously or subconsciously as in the recent McCaskill case but for an entirely different reason.

What brought me to this discrimination problem was an old Buff and Blue article "This is Gallaudet" electronically printed two and half years ago. I noticed a comment left by a parent of a hard of hearing son that made me think.

My son is a HOH rural- always mainstreamed-student. No ASL ever offered. The last thing he needs is another place he won’t be accepted without “conditions”. At least he knows what he is up against at a “hearing school”. Was so hopeful that this college could be a welcome break from discrimination for being who he is. I am so disappointed that “adults” act in this manner- especially ones who have been horribly discriminated against as he has been. He has worked so incredibly hard- zero possibility of being torn apart in DC.

What prompted this response was due in part of the article's coverage on "Deaf Zone" or "Deaf Space" which are essentially designated signing only zones on campus, no voice allowed. A clear act of discrimination good intention aside.

Let's step back a moment here.

One reason why I attended Gallaudet University (1988 - 1991) was to learn sign language and be around deaf/hh students who are like myself, a hard of hearing person whose identity is through speaking and listening while growing up and continuing through adulthood. I met my goal and made many friends who are hoh just like me. Just as well, I made friends who are culturally deaf who grew up with a deaf family or grew up signing.  I was not about to lose my identity as a hard of hearing person who grew up loving to listen and speak once I stepped inside the "golden gates" of Gallaudet University. No. My goal was to learn about Gallaudet University, the students and faculty there, the signing environment, the deaf culture, improve my signing and to finish my degree as quickly as possible which I did in 3 years time. I gained a language and a new perspective but that doesn't mean I had to change my own identity that I've always been comfortable with. My preferred mode of communication is and will always be speaking and listening in my own native English language with the help of my hearing aid. If I'm around deaf people who know sign language, I'll sign. Not a problem. If I want to do a presentation and there are interpreters and/or real time captioners available, I'll use my voice to do the presentation. Not a problem since the message wouldn't be lost on the deaf, hard of hearing and hearing audience whose own mode of communication preferences and comfort zones vary from one person to another. They can either listen to my presentation and get supplementary help with the live captioning at the same time. Or combine those with the interpreter signing. Or rely on just the captioning part alone for those who are weak with sign language and cannot hear/understand well the spoken words. Or preferably rely on the interpreter as their preferred communication access. Everybody gets accommodated. Everybody wins!

This "Deaf Space" concept might sound great at the surface but poking deeper into it presents potentially deeper problems depending on who you ask.

(Chris) Heuer stated that “there is one specific attitude that needs to change. If a non-signer is willing to learn sign, hands off! Let them learn in freedom. Help them. Include them. Make them a part of the community pride. If we exclude them, where else will they learn sign? How can we expect them to sign if we never interact with them?”  

“ASL is an official language like English, and it cannot be mastered overnight. We can’t force everyone to sign outside of the academic buildings and in private, like the dorms and the cafeterias. Imagine telling deaf people at a hearing school (or even oral schools back in the days) that they could not use their native language, sign language, to communicate. Would they like that? No. Now imagine telling hearing people not to talk — which is their native mode of communication — outside of the classroom,” said a hard-of-hearing student who chose to stay anonymous.

Exactly, which is why trying to enforce these "Deaf Zones" would be fruitless and even counter-productive depending on where these zones would be and who they are targeted for. In the same article Amanda Koski, a hearing student at Gallaudet University, commented:

Amanda Koski on November 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM said:

I agree with Sara 100%!
Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle.
The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful!
To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now? 

Here is the thing.

Native language through talking/listening isn't just for hearing people only but for hard of hearing people who grew up with English as their native language and are comfortable with it. That's key. They must be comfortable with it. There are hard of hearing students who are comfortable talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students, faculty or even staff or even among other hard of hearing people who can or prefer to speak and listen. It is a part of their identity, too. It doesn't do anybody any good to try and suppress or constrain their identities.

While as a student at Gallaudet University I've even requested several times, in their own private offices and elsewhere, for a hearing instructor or a staff member to not sign but simply speak which made conversations so much easier and faster. I have that right to request that kind of accommodation if I feel that signing simply "gets in the way." All hard of hearing students want are better accommodations to go with their education at Gallaudet University like access to CART, note-takers, voice-interpreters, and so on like they would expect the same kind of accommodations at any other universities.  This is so students won't be constrained completely in ASL only with no other accommodations to help fill the missing communication gap for those new or struggling with sign language. Eventually they will catch up. They like to be able to understand, get the full communication access, and participate just like everybody else.  Understanding only a third or half of what was signed doesn't help anybody's education.

Next is Jonathan Beattyon, a hard of hearing student, who expressed himself well about the problems hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University facing prejudice and discrimination against them.

Jonathan Beattyon November 29, 2010 at 3:12 PM said: Terrific. Some of the points here are points I make on a daily basis; specifically, the point about the new students not being told about the so-called darker side of Deaf culture. I have found the culture here to be somewhat exclusionary at times.  

I’ll explain myself: I’m hard-of-hearing and have been since birth. However, I “fit in” in the hearing world well. Face-to-face communication is easy enough for me (even though using the phone is painfully difficult with some voices) that I did not *have* to come to Gallaudet. However, I’ve had good experiences with the Academic Bowl, having come to Nationals three times. I was always met with respect and patience, even though during the competition I used a voice interpreter. I came to Gallaudet as a new signer (in the summer program as well) expecting similar treatment.  

Ha! I was wrong.  

In only the third day of the New Signers’ Program, my table at lunch was approached by a proud Deaf girl who proceeded to tell us (with a good friend of mine translating for my benefit, of course) that Gallaudet was a Deaf university and that we should only sign while on campus. Those competent in ASL at the table were sim-comming, but two of us were just speaking. At that point, I knew letters, numbers, and days of the week, along with a smattereing of other useful signs (“right”, “wrong”, “day”, “morning”, etc) so I was not pleased at being told that my language skills were not good enough to be allowed to express myself.  

I am also offended that it’s somehow right for people to criticize my signing skills just because they are Deaf. It’s well-accepted on campus and seen as being just a sign of “Deaf bluntness”. I’m sick of it; I do make an effort to improve my signing skills, but what if I were to laugh at a Deaf person trying to order food at McDonald’s: “Your speaking is awful. You should practice more.” That would be completely unacceptable.  

The argument from tradition is a very, very poor one. Something is not good just because that’s how it’s traditionally been done. Some examples of “cultural traditions” here that I have come to abhor:  

1. The cultural policy on phones. I personally do not have voice on my phone (when I use the phone, I prefer to do so on Skype with my amplified headphones and equalizer). That being said, if someone wants to use the phone, let them. Is it right to sit at the table with Deaf people and speak on the phone? No, and for the same reason that it would be inappropriate for me to greet a phone call from my friend Hans with “Tag, Hans! Wie geht’s?” and proceed to rattle off in German while surrounded by English-speaking hearing people.  

2. The repression of simultaneous communication. Yes, I said it. The point is communication; when you get stuck in the game of being prideful in something just because it’s part of *your* culture, you’re playing the same stupid games oppressive people have always played. I’d like to be able to understand lectures and be able to participate. For the same reasons that Deaf students in mainstream schools do not typically participate in classes (linguistic processing is slow with or without the interpreter) I find it difficult to participate in a class when, by the time I understand what was signed, the conversation has already moved on. I do not think deaf people should be encouraged to sim-com if they’re not comfortable with it, not at all. However, I must say that I’m always appreciative when someone notices my poor signing skills and sim-coms for my benefit.  

3. The oppression of signs with “No, that’s English”; a lot of people on campus sign with an English structure anyway. That’s what happens in bilingual environments. It is very rare to see two languages side-by-side without “contamination”; Deaf English typically is missing things like articles, plurals, etc while Hearing ASL can contain signs which are, strictly speaking, completely unnecessary in a sign language. This occurs even when the people in question are fluent in both languages. There is a line between comfortable language and formal language; “Pidgin Signed English” is that line for a *lot* of students of all backgrounds.  

And with all due respect to President Hurwitz, I must say I disagree strongly with this comment:  

“And no, this is not about stifling speech or marginalizing those whose signing skills are undeveloped. Rather, it’s about respect, courtesy, tradition and harmony.”

I don’t care what it’s about. I am more concerned with what it DOES. These policies DO stifle speech and they DO marginalize those whose signing skills are underdeveloped. Your intentions are irrelevant.

Their intentions are indeed irrelevant (i.e. the making of "Deaf Space") when you still have those kinds of problems discrimination against hard of hearing (and hearing) students whose identities are quite diametrically different than those who grew up signing in a deaf family. Discrimination is alive and well on campus of Gallaudet University. It's certainly not harmony in the making if new hard of hearing students come on campus, new to signing or have rudimentary signing skills become shocked at the pervasiveness of how some deaf people treat them according to their speaking/listening and/or signing abilities.

President Hurwitz was correct when he noted the variety of signing skills among students at Gallaudet University:

 “We all know and accept that Gallaudet is a bilingual university. Communication here happens through American Sign Language (ASL) and English. While the expectation that everyone on campus becomes fluent in both languages within a reasonable amount of time, the reality is that some people, however diligent, take longer to master one or the other language.”

President Hurwitz of Gallaudet University also re-iterated on Sept 7, 2010 the key point on what ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people.

You see that? "All forms of communication."

And if you don't like the idea of people using SimCom then consider former interim president Robert Davila who used his voice and signed at the same time for those who were never aware of it. You can see (and hear) in the video below at time stamp from 1:15 to 2:01 with president Davila using his voice while signing in sign supported English. Also note in the video deaf/hh people signing and mouthing the words at the same time, oftentimes in English order. Pure ASL? Not really. Signed English, sign-supported English or PSE? Sure. Question: How does president Hurwitz sign?





From the NTID page "Raising and Educating a Deaf Child" Mark Marschark of NTID (author of Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students) responded to a question "Can you tell me what the story is on sign-supported English?" (note the highlighted yellow bold words below) which I think is something that seriously need to be discussed, explored, researched and studied more:

I know, I know, everyone says that sign-supported English (SSE) and simultaneous communication (SimCom) – both involving speech and sign at the same time – are bad. On the theoretical/political side, people point out that neither is truly a language unto itself, and argue that they therefore are “inappropriate.” Empirically, people point to two studies, both done over 20 years ago, which found that several teachers and parents of young deaf children said more than appeared on their hands (by anywhere from 20 to 50%). The sign abilities of those parents and teachers were never examined, however, and some people are extremely good at SSE (or whatever language) and SimCom. Research over the past 30 years has shown that when teachers are highly skilled at SSE or SimCom, students learn just as much or more than with ASL from a teacher, interpreting, or spoken language alone. In our own work, we’ve recently have found the same thing, as deaf college students learned exactly the same amount when they had teachers using SimCom, voice-off ASL, or utilizing interpreters. Importantly, these were skilled teachers of the deaf, who had been using SimCom for many years with classes that included oral students, ASL students, and everything in between. Although it frequently is not discussed (at least in public) many deaf students request teachers to use SimCom and ask interpreters to include “English on the lips.” It seems likely that SimCom would be particularly beneficial for children with cochlear implants, who generally do not receive auditory input as clear as that received by hearing children.  

Unfortunately, the unearned stigma associated with SSE/SimCom seems to have prevented anyone from doing the appropriate study. Meanwhile, both are used effectively in many classrooms, even if students use a natural sign language or spoken language in other settings. What is essential is that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have early access to fluent language. That usually is difficult with spoken language alone and most parents are not fluent in sign. So, SimCom/SSE might be helpful in ensuring communication for new-signing parents, but this DOES NOT mean that SimCOM/SSE can replace full access to a natural language (actually, there isn’t research one way or another). The issue clearly is more complex than we can deal with here.  

For full discussion of what we know and what we don’t know, see Spencer, P.E. & Marschark, M. (in press). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York: Oxford University Press.

I thank the math and physics professors and other professors I had while a student at Gallaudet University for speaking and signing at the same time, it'd made my early years at Gallaudet University easier to transition and be able to participate better.

Hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University who feel that they are being discriminated or even oppressed because of their native language (spoken English) as their primary or preferred mode of communication need to stand up against these internal prejudices and discrimination on campus by voicing their concerns.  By doing so helps raise greater awareness of the problems that still persist on the campus of Gallaudet University.  They just want to be accommodated like everybody else and be able to participate while in the process of learning and using sign language.

Gallaudet University's holiday video....no signing II

Looking back on what I wrote today about the recent holiday video that apparently upset a few people. It is a video produced by Gallaudet University that includes Dr. Hurwitz shown at the end of the video where he signed and used his voice (starting at the 16:44 mark). And then I remembered something. It was the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf's (ICED) statement about a "A New Era: Deaf Participation and Collaboration" where they issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf people. ICED made sure that the message is to accept and respect all forms of communication be loud and clear. Nothing was said about which ones MUST be used but rather they all MUST be accepted and respected. All forms of communication need to be accepted and respected. That's what I saw in Gallaudet University's holiday video as well. That is what Dr. Hurwitz embraced.

Weaning....

What is wean?

- to detach from a source of dependence.

In other words, to let go and not be dependent on others. Get rid of that pacifier!

Barry said it in response to the Wisconsin protest, the closing of deaf schools, interpreter services closing, and so on.




Jerome Cain said it....(starting at 0:40 seconds)



Russell warned that unless schools for the deaf improve with better innovative academic programs and beat state academic requirements they'll soon become dinosaurs.



Gallaudet University may need to wean itself, too, eventually.

Of course, some may disagree with the whole weaning concept thinking it's cruel, never living the life of a rancher, when it's a fact of life separating calves from their mother cows as part of the whole ranching business. Whoever said that it's supposed to be a pleasant or uneventful process?

Life isn't a bed of roses.

Let's stop with the namby pamby excuses and learn to be creative, innovative and ground-breaking in order to thrive and compete successfully without the need to be overly dependent.

Catherine Murphy responds to nervous Nellies about AGBell

From the Spring 2011 Gallaudet Today newsletter Catherine Murphy, who is hearing (but learning ASL) and is the executive director of the Office of Public and Media Relations at Gallaudet University, respond to the controversy being circulated by angry or suspicious deaf people with dancing conspiratorial eyes.   

From Gallaudet Today newsletter (Spring 2011):

Gallaudet Today: The move from AG Bell to Gallaudet has been controversial in some circles. How do you address those concerns?  

Catherine Murphy: I haven't encountered any negative feedback myself, and everyone here at Gallaudet has been very welcoming. However, I can understand where some people might take notice of my selection for this position. I see my role as acting at the discretion of President Hurwitz and the Board of Trustees in implementing their vision as outlined in the Gallaudet Strategic Plan and in supporting the University's bilingual mission. I am especially interested in promoting public awareness and positive depictions of deaf individuals in the media.  There is a lot this community has to offer that I think is far too often overlooked.  I also see many ways that the alumni can take a greater role in helping to promote that awareness. 

Feel better now, folks?

Catherine Murphy does not do her own Press Releases but at the discretion of President Hurwitz and the BOT.  Gallaudet University is doing what it must do to survive, compete and thrive according to their Mission and Vision of their plan.

I'm sure Josh Swiller, Catherine Murphy, Alan Hurwitz and a few others are all sitting around thei tables rubbing their hands and exclaiming loudly with their crooked pinkies in the corner of their mouths, "Heh heh...my plan is working flawlessly!" And laugh loudly. No. It's was a group effort to initiate this Strategic Plan that began 18 months ago. They have goals and strategies in place. Ambitious in their plan to see enrollment of full-time undergrads, full- and part-time graduate students, and continuing education students grow to 3,000 by 2015. And that's only 4 years away.

Gallaudet University simply need to prove they can compete academically with the rest of their university brethens. But to have a completely all Deaf university is not what diversity is all about at this institution of higher learning. Nor will it help them thrive and survive. It boils down to showing their academic mettle. And one of their goals is to "expand domestic recruiting to become 'top of mind' for all deaf and hard of hearing students, and hearing students seeking deaf/HH-related careers." This is a different time and economy Gallaudet University is facing now. And it'll be their biggest challenge yet to come. Long term survival. But if they can't prove their academic superiority with the rest of the universities and be equally competitive then I'm certain Congress will do something about reducing funding (or stop altogether) to Gallaudet University as Congress continues to struggle with their own deficit and debt problems.  We'll probably know what direction this will go in 3 to 5 years from now. Stay tuned.

Pitchforks and torches.....Swiller, Hurwitz, and more.

Gird your loins, here comes the mob! Upheaval! Get your ax! Get your club! Get your pitchforks! Light those torches! And join the angry mob! Their sacred home of yore is being threatened! How dare they let those war vets in!!

The changing of the guards at Gallaudet University along with a new master plan for the next 10 to 15 years in the effort to keep the university afloat and be competitive but doing so will bound to upset some culturally deaf people.  But Gallaudet University is trying to keep two steps ahead and stay competitive in the effort to make their university an attractive university for anyone with a hearing loss.   Gallaudet University faces a real possibility of dwindling Federal dollars since the university get most of the money from the Federal government to help keep it running.  Not cheap I tell ya.

Now, I understand that there are some concerns over Gallaudet University's direction and people should communicate their concerns in the most appropriate way but to point out how poor Swiller signs or put more focus on him as an oral/aural person is really nothing but done in poor taste. What's next? Demand that Swiller resign? Hurtwitz, too? Just because you noticed he's Jewish?

*sigh*

Whatever.

Josh Swiller may have contributed to the idea to help bring war vets who suffered hearing loss from combat related injuries to Gallaudet University with a new program in mind but I don't think Josh as a visiting faculty member for the past two years has that much pull or influence to change Gallaudet University completely. Gallaudet University has been changing ever since the first student with a cochlear implant came on board some 20 years ago. It wasn't Josh Swiller's idea of change nor was he the one started the change. Change has always been there.

Secondly, we must respect the new International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) resolution on the global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication."

All forms of communication. Did you get that?

That's real diversity right there.

And there were a lot of people excited about the new ICED resolution last year in July. But I get the feeling that some people are starting to feel a lot less enthusiastic because people were calling for the acceptance and respect of all forms of communication.

And then we have that Section 504 that Gallaudet University and all other universities who receive Federal monies MUST abide by.

Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Section 504 provides: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . "

Those qualified individuals include war vets who have every right to attend Gallaudet University. They have as much right as the next deaf or hard of hearing student attending the university.  Those vets cannot be denied enrollment because of their disability or the fact they were once hearing. They are late deafened adults who need our help. But as you can see Gallaudet University has certainly stepped up to the plate and that's commendable worthy of our praise and not our scorn and contempt.

Gallaudet University is committed to America's veterans and has a long history of serving them at our institution. Gallaudet is authorized to accept all GI Bill payments including the additional contributions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through their Yellow Ribbon Program. The Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program (Yellow Ribbon Program) is a provision of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. According to the VA, it is available to veterans who have sustained "a service connected disability." In addition to accepting veterans being supported through the general GI Bill, under the Yellow Ribbon Agreement, Gallaudet will support up to 25 eligible veterans during an academic year for any major for an amount up to $3,050.00 (full time status) in tuition expenses. Gallaudet is listed on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Approved Education Programs website as an institution participating in the Yellow Ribbon Program.

Note the bold words. Up to 25 eligible veterans at Gallaudet University during an academic year. So, if it takes 4 years to graduate then that means after a few years or so you could expect to see up to 100 veterans (for example, 25 vets who are freshman, 25 vets who are sophomores, 25 vets who are juniors, and 25 vets who are seniors) on campus. With a campus enrollment of 1373 degree seeking students (as of 2010) with 1,106 deaf/hh students and 265 hearing students which make the number of hearing students making up less than 20% of the total degree seeking student population at Gallaudet University.  Adding in the vets would only add up a few extra percentages of the total. Nothing to worry about. Move along folks. Move along.

One request from me to the students, staff and faculty members at Gallaudet University.

If you do see a vet who is a student at Gallaudet University, please give him or her your thanks for helping to protect our country.

Here is one way of saying "Thank you" from your heart.

It'd be great if you can do that and say a simple "Thank you" when you see a vet on the campus of Gallaudet University. And be sure to try and take the time to make friends with him or her as well. It'd be mighty stupid of you to make that vet your enemy just because you feel he or she's invading "your" campus. Now is not the time to get selfish.

Embrace diversity!

Racial and Ethnic Spew Against Gallaudet University President Hurwitz, why?

When a person makes an ethnic or racial slur/claim against Gallaudet University by calling the current Hurwitz administration as being run by an "all Jewish, white men" is not only irresponsible but certainly downright conspiratorial in nature as well as obnoxious. It's even worse if it came from a person who graduated from Gallaudet University. This is a slam against Dr. Hurwitz who  became the first Jewish president of Gallaudet University and was also a past president of the World Organization of Jewish Deaf. Is it a slam against the rest of the Gallaudet University administration by making it as if the university is controlled by a bunch of "Jewish men"? It certainly does bring up questions of whether there were any racist and/or anti-semitic undertones. Although it may have been written as not to mean that but to say "all Jewish, white men" simply begs the question.

First off, the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees is consisted of 10 men of which not all of them are white or Jewish, along with 7 women. This is not counting the two from Congress. The Board of Trustees were the ones who picked Dr. Hurwitz to become Gallaudet University's next president.  As for the "Hurwitz administration" it is consisted of the President's Cabinet and Staff.  The make up of people there are just as varied with men and women of different ethnic and racial backgrounds rather than an "all Jewish, white men" run administration.

The President's Cabinet is consisted of Dr. Alan T. Hurwitz (President), Dr. Stephen Weiner (Provost of Academic Affairs), Paul Kelly (Vice President of Administration & Finance), Eward Bosso (Vice President of Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center - KDES), Lynee Murray (Vice President of Development and Alumni Relations), Donald Beil (Chief of Staff), Cynthia King (Chief Information Officer), Catherine Andersen (Associate Provost of Enrollment Management and General Studies), Ann Powell (Associate Provost for Diversity) and Fred Weiner (Executive Director of Program Development).  The President's Staff, it is just as varied as well when you look at the names and faces of both men and women.

There is nothing in this current administration to show that it is run by an "all Jewish, white men" if you look at Gallaudet University's organizational chart. You can see that the Board of Trustees is at the top of the organizational chart, and not president Hurwitz.  He would be second in line. Those who work directly under president Hurwitz are Paul Kelly, Lynne Murray, Stephen Weiner, Cindy King, Ed Bosso and Don Beil. Certainly not a cadre of people that fits the "all Jewish, white men" ethnic/racial slam.

Such an accusation is simply irresponsible coming from one deaf person who have said such a thing as seen in a YouTube's comment area yesterday. And, no, I won't point out where or who this person is. Use your imagination. It wouldn't take much to figure out who this person is. You-know-who. Yet it is perfectly alright to question a person's line of work but to raise a person's ethnic upbringing (i.e. Jewish, Catholic, etc) or racial profile shouldn't be a part of the discussion in the first place. As for Hurwitz's case, his Jewish background and "whiteness" have nothing to do with running Gallaudet University as a whole. As far as I can tell, Dr. Hurwitz is still committed to diversity. 

There is no place for anti-semitic or racist undertones aimed at Gallaudet University or the president. Not at this day and age. Not ever.

Oh, btw, Merry Christmas!

ADDENDUM: If you are going to respond in the comment section do not use names. 

The curious case of the Wirick case

Yesterday Charles (Chas) Wirick seems to have written his own blog to protest the one year suspension against him. A charge as it appears was related on starting the shooting rumor but he contends it wasn't him who began the rumor but others as he explained. He announced in his blog that he is appealing the ruling of the Student Conduct Board hearing.

There are questions as to how these hearings start. According to the Office of Student Conduct Disciplinary Proceedings (OSCDP) it appears that anyone can make any kind of charges:

Any member of the University community (administration, faculty, staff, and students) may request charges against any student(s) for alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct.

Seems pretty easy to go after students if their is an agenda to retaliate.The OSCDP continues:

All allegations of violations should be prepared in writing and directed to the Coordinator of Student Conduct. In addition, any allegation of violations should be submitted as soon as possible after the event takes place.

If Charles Wirick says that others were the ones that started the rumors then where are the charges against them?

The Coordinator of Student Conduct may conduct an investigation to determine if the reported allegation(s) has merit and/or if they can be disposed of administratively by mediation or mutual consent of the parties involved on a basis acceptable to the Student Conduct Office staff. If the charges cannot be disposed of by mediation or mutual consent, the Student Conduct Office staff may later serve in the same manner as a non-voting member of the Student Conduct Board in a hearing.

Apparently mediation never occurred and that charges against Wirick were pending until after the hearing when they doled out the suspension as punishment.

According to disciplinary proceedings Charles Wirick does have the right to appeal his charges and suspension against him but there's a caveat...is it too late? Unless he has some new information or other relevant facts that were not available at the time of his hearing and within 5 days of his decision.

I. The student shall be informed of the right to appeal a decision to the Director of Student Conduct (or the Executive Director of Student Affairs, if the Director served as hearing officer in the case). A decision or judgment of the Coordinator of Student Conduct or hearing official may be appealed by either or both of the parties involved on the following grounds:

* The disciplinary conference was not conducted fairly and in conformity with prescribed procedures, which made it unfair. Deviations from designated procedures will not be a basis for sustaining an appeal unless significant unfairness results.

* New or newly discovered information that could not have been produced at the conference. In order for the Director of Student Conduct (or the Executive Director of Student Affairs, if the Director served as hearing officer in the case) to consider new information sufficient to alter a decision, or other relevant facts not brought out in the original conference, such information and/or facts must not have been known at the time of the original conference by the appellant.

* The decision is not supported by substantial information considering the record as a whole. That is, the facts in the case were not sufficient to establish that a violation of the Student Code of Conduct occurred.

* The sanction imposed was excessive or insufficient and not appropriate for the violation.

An appeal must be in writing, must indicate the basis of the appeal with an explanation, and must be made within five working days of the date the parties were notified of the decision. In an appeal case, sanctions assessed by the initial Coordinator of Student Conduct or hearing officer may be held in suspense until acted upon in appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by the Director of Student Conduct (or Executive Director of Student Affairs if the Director served as hearing officer), and he or she may affirm, reverse, or modify the sanction originally determined. The Coordinator of Student Conduct shall convey pertinent information related to the case. The decision of the Director of Student Conduct (or the Executive Director of Student Affairs if the Director served as hearing officer) is final.

Regardless, it appears to be a messy situation where the victim in all this appears to be Charles Wirick. What it appears is that miscommunication or misunderstanding was the possibility from those who could not understand Wirick's signing since he was still learning how to sign appropriately. He may have misapplied certain signed words or gestures that might have changed the context of what he was talking about and not about him making threats to do the shooting. Even Michael Sprouse made clear of Charles Wirick's background painting him through the implication that he's not a good signer because he was raised oral and with little exposure to Deaf culture and community.

Sprouse described Wirick in frank terms. “He was raised oral without much exposure to Deaf culture and community—and here at Gallaudet he, for the most part, was an outcast. Wirick vented to me before about deaf-to-deaf avdism, which enraged him. He didn’t like how Gallaudet treated him and didn’t know how to fit in the university.”

Big question of the day.  Did the Coordinator of Student Conduct, Student Conduct Office staff and Student Conduct Office itself ever consider the possibility of poor signing as a possibility for misunderstanding and miscommunication to occur causing other students to use that information and begin their own version of a rumor which ended up painting Wirick as a possible shooter?

After all in the Buff and Blue blog they wrote what Michael Sprouse said of Wirick on his signing:

“He looked so determined—full of menace—when he made that statement,” said Sprouse. He stated that Wirick described in graphic American Sign Language how the Kappa Gamma (KG) fraternity brothers, circled in their clique, would be gunned down in the cafeteria, and then the Phi Kappa Zeta (PKZ) sisters would be next."

Graphic ASL? I have two questions. If Charles Wirick not fluent in signing then how can it be "ASL"? It'd be more like PSE or lot of manual signing. Did Wirick sign in SEE? Second question, if it's not done in "ASL" then how was the "graphic signing" done? What did it look like? And so on. And if he's not that fluent or fluid in signing then shouldn't the possibility of poor signing be cause of this miscommunication and misunderstanding as a reason for rumors about him get out of control?

Yes, it appears that something is not right here. If Gallaudet University (i.e. Dr. Hurwitz) have any sense they should look into Wirick's case, the people in the Student Conduct Office and investigate further on these things.  Charles Wirick could be a case where he was unwittingly discriminated against and misunderstood because of his signing ability. And if so, then this does not bode well for all current and future students new to signing at Gallaudet University that their signing could be misconstrued/misunderstood as a threat to campus should they be in a casual discussion at a cafeteria, at Rathskeller or anywhere else on campus.  Did that happen to Charles Wirick? Was he a victim of poor circumstances here? Does Gallaudet University discriminate against poor signers?

We would like to know, Dr. Hurwitz. Do the right thing and look into this.


Addendum note: Curiously the Buff and Blue blog on Wirick is no longer available but I do have a copy of it should it not re-appear which I think it will to include news of Charles Wirick popping up with his own blog protesting the suspension. If not, then I will make the copy available for all. 

Gallaudet University - An Indoctrination Camp?

Let's look at the term "indoctrination." From the Merriam dictionary it means, "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle." In other words, indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, or cognitive strategies. Accordingly so, an indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine such doctrine (or a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true) they have learned. The word "inculcating" is to teach those by frequent repetitions or by admonitions (shaming).

No doubt that Gallaudet University continues to try and indoctrinate new students to new ideas, concepts and principles as would any colleges or universities. What sets this university from others is the constant inculcating of ideas and attitudes on campus through repetitions and sometimes through shaming (or admonition) by both students and staff. Instead of welcoming new ideas that may appear anathema there's a process where admonition may take place. One was the recent admonition of allowing "hearing space" on campus. Another kind of admonition could be against those who speak instead of signing while in a public space during a private conversation. And perhaps compare that to some students who may listen to their iPod music through their earpieces with the cords dangling while walking around on campus? Which ire would be greater or possible in receiving that admonition? Another could be the question of whether one student was supposedly not "Deaf enough" as one of the possible reason for his expulsion and perhaps an example when conformity failed and admonition succeeded? Or what about the admonition of the new Board of Trustees makeup that include Donna Sorkin and Vinton Cerf? 

What about the attempt to inculcate new ideas and concepts by successfully inculcated graduates to others like injecting "deafhood," "avdism," "deaf center," "subaltern elite," "colonialism," and so on and at the same time use those concepts against other deaf or hard of hearing people instead of welcoming them as part of the larger hearing loss family and seek out greater diversity? Is it better to adhere to a constant mindset that's more Borg-like in its philosophy when it comes to distinctiveness, ironically so? Or is respecting diversity and various philosophies be the better path as Dr. T. Alan Hurwitz is attempting to do in his "From Isolation to Innovation" as described during his presidential briefing focusing on partnerships and pulling down barriers?

Are we seeing an increase in diversity, for example, the Gallaudet University's Board of Trustees  appointing (not hired but appointed!) of Vinton Cerf and Donna Sorkin, and the hiring Catherine Murphy as the new Executive Director of Public and Media Relations? How so? Well, Vinton Cerf is hard of hearing and is a part of the majority of deaf and hard of hearing population that does not use sign language. He is known as the "father of the internet" and works for Google since 2005. Vinton Cerf was also the recipient of an award from Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.  Donna Sorkin is currently vice president of consumer affairs at Cochlear Americas and at one time served as the executive director of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. And as for Catherine Murphy, she was once recently the director of communications and public affairs for the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing before coming to work at Gallaudet University. Lots of diversity being incorporated into Gallaudet University at the upper level. As a reminder, Gallaudet University is now accepting new nominations of new Trustees.

Perhaps the real "fencing problem" is the indoctrinated members who managed to isolate themselves even further by attacking those whose only crime is having a hearing loss and different set of philosophies?

Has Gallaudet University become less of an educational experience and more of an indoctrination process by spitting out indoctrinated students?  Or is Dr. Hurwitz helping to turn that around by helping Gallaudet University become more diversified?

Just playing the devil's advocate here. Or am I? Though I'm still thinking...