Open vs Closed Societies

President Hurwitz made it clear on the danger of practicing exclusion in his his February 19, 2013 State of the University address "Open the Gates Wide: Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet" speech.

Hurwitz warned against the destruction that exclusion can bring. "The wider the gates of acceptance open, the more room there is for all. Sadly, the community that excludes shrinks and dies," he said. He encouraged members of the audience to expand their circle of friends and colleagues to include those whose background is different from their own, and to embrace them "in the common cause of advancing our community and humanity."

It's the same warning that Deafhood? No Thanks Facebook group have told people for years, even before when the group became established, that it's better to accept people for who they are rather than to exclude them just because they do not pass your ideological purity test or don't believe in open thought or diversity. 

Symbolically, in American Sign Language, the sign for diversity is to reach out, while the sign for inclusion is to draw in. "All of us at Gallaudet ... must reach out and must draw in," he said. As members of a university community-traditionally a haven for open thought and respect for differing opinions-people who live, study, and work at Gallaudet don't need to be convinced of the benefits of diversity and inclusion, said Hurwitz. However, he acknowledged unresolved conflicts between groups on campus.

Those "unresolved conflicts" would be the whole McCaskill/Gallaudet/Hurwtiz/Bienvenu snafu and the seemingly racist hate letter aimed at McCaskill by a "former friendly colleague" at Gallaudet University.

Will Gallaudet University ever become a recognized university known for its inclusion, diversity, and open thought? An institution with the goal of being diverse in its language and communication approaches without resorting to gutter politics and political correctness? Only time will tell.

Hurwitz Caves...McCaskill reinstated

Yesterday Washington Post reported that Dr. Angela McCaskill was given her job back as Chief Diversity Officer.

Her reinstatement was announced Monday in an e-mail to students, staff and faculty from university President T. Alan Hurwitz. “I personally look forward to working with Dr. McCaskill,” he said.

Hurwitz’s announcement said that many members of the school community had reached out to him in a “clearly heartfelt manner.” Recent weeks were “a period of reflection for all of us,” he said.

He also praised the “overall maturity” shown in the community’s willingness to consider the “differing views others may hold.”

It's no surprise that president Hurwitz backed down on proceeding on the removal of Dr. McCaskill after realizing Gallaudet University had no legal case against Dr. Angela McCaskill for removing her as Chief Diversity Officer. The moment she hired a lawyer in October last year and 5 days later president Hurwitz backpedaled furiously the comment he made earlier about the suspension truly showed which direction the case would go. It's no surprise that Dr. McCaskill retained her original position and title. Gallaudet University/Hurwitz had no case at all to begin with to act upon the faux pas suspension. Dr. Bienvenu had no case to go through this witch hunt in the effort to get her fired. In the end, Dr. McCaskill was most likely well compensated with Gallaudet University settling this out of court on what could've been a potentially expensive lawsuit. That's my guess. And something that Gallaudet University wouldn't have been able to financially afford the lawsuit and all of the continuing negativity - a potential PR nightmare for Gallaudet University. Firing her would've been the worse course of action. President Hurwitz and Gallaudet University's lawyers realized this. Glad this has been resolved before the start of school.

There may have been some "overall maturity" shown in the community but there were enough of them who were quite vicious and very immature rather than to agree to disagree on differing views with respect and aplomb.  We know who they are. Full of hate rather than full of introspection and respect of the situation. Witch hunts do not belong in the age of learning and enlightenment.

Classes will resume on January 22, 2013 with Dr. McCaskill back at work doing what she does best at her job. May the students and staff show their warm welcome for Dr. McCaskill's return.  Time to move past this awful saga and snafu.

See previous blogs on the McCaskill/Gallaudet University snafu.

Threat to close down Gallaudet University over McCaskill/Gally mess?

Well, that didn't take long. Now there are calls on contacting Congressional members to begin a serious investigation into this mess.

Hurwitz released his own statement acknowledging an apparent continued confusion about why someone in McCaskill’s position would sign a petition to put something up for voter consideration.  He also doubled down on his “prudent” decision to suspend McCaskill.

Hurwitz even said he thought the crisis would help the Gallaudet community “emerge stronger because of this situation.”  Stronger, as in making political intolerance an unmistakable and unshakable value on the campus?

In 2011, Gallaudet University received the overwhelming bulk of its revenue — over $124 million, or almost 75 percent — from government grants.  The President of the United States signs the diplomas of its graduates — a very unique perk compared to peer schools.  But officials also must report annually to the Secretary of Education.

If Angela McCaskill is not reinstated, there are at least two branches of the federal government that need to begin some serious investigations into this threat to democracy.  The school’s existence is reliant on the money that comes from American taxpayers, and the spigot ought to be shut off until it can be confirmed that the school is no longer openly hostile to the democratic process in favor of extremist demands about diversity.

Remember what I said just recently yesterday regarding financial concerns over this mess of a sinkhole looking to get bigger? And this could turn out to be bigger than DPN1 and DPN2 if things do not get a hold of quickly. Gallaudet University has now the national spotlight. What moves will be made now? 

Candy on the McCaskill/Gally Mess

I'm putting down in here what Candy commented recently in one of my blog post a few days ago about the whole McCaskill and Gally fiasco that's quickly becoming a sinkhole. I put her comment in here since hers was a long one.  Her comment came in three installments which deserves a better coverage in the main part of my blog. Though she's not ready to blog but this one here is close enough right now and when (and if) she does blog again the audience out there will still be waiting for her.

FYI, the links below are my own and not Candy's as a matter of clarification. Apologies for the insertion and links. I hope she doesn't mind.

===========================

By Candy.


I applaud anyone who writes about what really happen, they are the ones that do not sugarcoat what really happened. Just because the article does not shine a nice light on the individual who works at Gallaudet, or any of Mike's old article on Gallaudet, does not mean Mike is a "Gallaudet hater." The article does not reflect Gallaudet as a whole, however it does reflect the problems that beset Gallaudet. Rapes on campus is a major concern, yet, deaf people who think that by shhh-ing the real problem will make it go away. Not true at all. Deaf people who think that just because someone talks about what is bad about Gallaudet means the person hates Gallaudet. Not true at all. When we bring real problems out front, it enables us to see what we can do to resolve it. I see Mike's negative report on certain aspects of real life happenings on Gallaudet to reflect his concern for his alma mater. If you don't see it that way, tough poop. At least you should be honest and tell yourself that it is a problem. To NOT talk about it is a reflection of your DENIAL. Plain and simple. Dr. Angela McCaskill is not going to withhold information so that the ongoing problems continue. It takes COURAGE for someone to come out and tell the truth. If you love something or someone, tell the truth, no matter how bad it is.

Now..let's focus on what Angela said. She said,

"She (MJB) assumed my signature meant that I was anti-gay. No one has a right to decide what my signature petition means. Only I can do that."

When one holds a position of a diversity officer or any position that is equivalent to EEO and diversity, let me tell you that no one is immune from any bias. Her position has no bearing. If Angela has had past actions that reflected her personal views affecting her job, then it would have been very telling. Many people hold positions covering certain area that conflicts with their personal beliefs, yet many are able to keep the two separate. Some were not able to and thus were not fit for certain jobs. Angela has never stated what her views are on Marriage Equality and she will never tell us and she has a right to keep that information private. I signed a petition once on an issue which I disagred with, but I wanted voters to decide. Does it mean that I supported that issue? No.

Let's suppose (what if) CDO position is up for grabs. Several prospect applicants applied for it. Interview is conducted. I can tell you that the law DOES NOT ALLOW questions that asks about a person's personal beliefs. Which means it would be against the law to ask a person if he/she supports Marriage Equality. Ergo, you all will NEVER know what the new CDO's position on ME will be unless he/she decides to divulge that information. IT IS AGAINST the law to ASK such questions. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. I used to be an EEO Counselor and received training. We were required to keep our personal beliefs out of our job. If we couldn't or if evidence showed we did not, we would have lost our job. If we were to sign a petition out of our work place and hours, we would not have been punished. These are facts regardless of your personal view on whether or not a CDO can sign such petition or not.

Let's move on to a much more revealing information that Dr. Angela McCaskill shared. She said,

"I quickly looked back to the protest of 2006 (see video on Unity for Gallaudet with MJ Bienvenu in it). Several radical people pushed the students to the front to debate student's agenda. It was not the student's agenda. It was not student's agenda back then and it is not student's agenda now."

(see video of that remark starting at the 4:39 time stamp).

Who are the people that pushed the students to the front during the 2006 protest - the Unity For Gallaudet protest? It's easy to see who she is referring to. She is referring to faculty members. Several faculty members = who? If we remember which faculty was very involved, we would remember that it was MJB. I personally was told MJB was the one who spearheaded the protest by an individual who worked on campus and by another individual who had contact with faculties and staffs on campus. I did not have rock hard solid evidence, but hearsay, back then..that is, until Dr. Angela McCaskill revealed that information during the press conference.

MJB and other radical and/or extremist faculty members are the ones that are very into deafhood and, they are the ones that took advantage of the students by pushing them out front to make it look like it was the students agenda to protest during 2006.

It would be suffice to say that MJB and her fellow faculty members whom are radical/extremist were the ones that put Gallaudet at risk and Gallaudet was at risk of losing their accreditation after the protest in 2006.

They could very well be the ones that were causing a lot of chaos on campus, pushing students to bully and harass those who use their voices on campus, and so on.

It would make sense that these radical professionals were against someone who wanted to embrace all deaf people and supported changes that is inevitable, such as the rise of cochlear implants and allowing war vets to be part of Gallaudet. It now makes more sense why they were against JKF.

What is interesting is that MJB and her partner immediately wrote a letter to Dr. Hurwitz and demanded that Dr. McCaskill be fired. Dr. McCaskill proposed (she was thinking of Gallaudet and the students) to offer a campus wide dialogue on that situation instead. But, Dr. Hurwitz was pressured by MJB and her partner. One can only surmise what the pressure was, considering that MJB played a big role during the protest of 2006.

Several employees of Gallaudet have confirmed that MJB did not like Dr. McCaskill and was jealous of her. These same employees say that there is more to the story and that McCaskill was being bullied by certain faculty members.

Reading the comments at Rate My Professor, at least four comments over there is revealing and backs up with what I have said.

If MJB really cared for Gallaudet, she would have worked with Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. McCaskill and participated in a campus-wide dialogue to resolve this situation. Instead, a deaf-gay publication broke the news. You want to guess who tipped that media off?

We knew that deafhood ideology and deafhood radicals were behind the protest of 2006. Now we have stronger evidence of such. 
============================


This is Kokonut Pundit responding here. I am now scratching my head with this old-new info.

Pres. Hurwitz backpedals furiously....

I think this is somewhat to be expected. President Hurwitz of Gallaudet University is now backpedaling about the whole Angela McCaskill dust up when he put her on administrative leave raising eyebrows and getting national attention because of it.

Earlier Tuesday, Gallaudet University President Alan Hurwitz sent a message to the campus community, to "indicate forcefully" that the school would like to work with McCaskill to enable her to return from administrative leave and continue as chief diversity officer.

He wrote, "While I expect that a resolution of this matter can be reached... this will require that she and the university community work together to respond to the concerns that have been raised."

During a press conference Tuesday, McCaskill described the university as one of intolerance that manages by intimidation and bullying among faculty staff and students. She asked to be reinstated.

At her afternoon press conference, McCaskill said the anonymous faculty members who reported her petition signature to President Hurwitz were M.J. Bienvenu and Kendra Smith.

In response, the two faculty members said in a statement, “At this time, we would prefer this matter be a discussion between the University and Dr. Angela McCaskill.”

Gordon says Hurwitz’s statement today is a 180 degree turn from last week.

“We certainly want to give him a chance and explore his sincerity in the statement that he made to the public. But at the same time we are cautious about his intentions because he had a chance to do this some time ago,” Gordon said.

M.J. Bienvenu and Kendra Smith try hard to stay out of this mess. Sorry, but they are part of the whole problem here that caused the escalation and created the growing sinkhole that threatens to engulf Gallaudet University. It's totally disingenuous to say that the discussion ought to be be held between McCaskill and the University. Well, that "University" also includes the faculty members who were the ones who precipitated the whole thing and caused this whole affair to denigrate into a national attention.

From what it's worth based on President Hurwitz's words, "indicate forcefully," this is looking more likely by the minute that Gallaudet University will end up working with McCaskill and see that she returns after her administrative leave to continue as chief diversity officer. This won't happen unless McCaskill is compensated well for damages to her reputation and character before she thinks about returning to Gallaudet University as CDO. The favor is obviously in McCaskill's court. President Hurwitz knows this. So does Gallaudet University. But I think the damage is too far gone to continue on campus and she may end up suing or that Gallaudet University agrees behind closed doors on  offering her a hefty compensation package instead.

Agree with us.....or else mentality.

Such an atmosphere seems to pervade at Gallaudet University and elsewhere amongst some bloggers and vloggers. Case in point, a "Deafhood? No Thanks" Facebook group which is open to the public was formed on May 18, 2010. It's a safe-haven for those who favor open society approaches such as equality for all deaf people regardless of their backgrounds, communication methods and technology options. All without the need to adhere to any singular mindset thinking the solution is a one-size fits all. That Facebook group is an exercise on the free expression rather than to adhere to a political correctness mindset that pervades in certain groups in the culturally deaf community. And because many of us favor the approach on allowing the free exchange of important information and ideas regarding communication choices, educational choices, technological choices and parental rights for them to make informed decisions we have learned that it's better than forcing parents with limited choices. A limited choice foisted upon people with an an attitude of, for example, "your-children-belong-to-us-and-not-to-you-so-you-better-do-as-we-say." That has the "agree with us or else" mentality mindset. And if you don't agree then the name callings come raining down.  Something that the public will continue to witness time and time again. Something that Dr. Ron Stearn has warned about on focusing too much on being a closed group. Diversity is key. Respect is key.

The AB2072 issue is a good example of the "agree with us or else" mentality whenever bloggers presented their own alternative opinions about the subject not popular to some people.  Those who vehemently disagreed would actually contact a blogger's employer or make the threat of contacting their employers which is very much in line with the "agree with us or else" approach mentality. Candy, a well known culturally deaf blogger, experienced exactly that first hand for simply disagreeing or for having alternative opinions not popular with certain factions in the culturally deaf community. And because of that known culturally deaf people contacted her employer hoping to get her into trouble and perhaps fired.

Another notable culturally deaf blogger (name withheld) experienced first hand the bullying approach "agree with us or else" mentality with threats to contact the blogger's employer to make known the blogger's online activities. That was enough to make a trip to the emergency room for a mental breakdown.

The "agree with us or else" mentality is sometimes manifested in various ways like wishing the death of a toddler baby boy just because they do not like the boy's deaf father or use some other fantasy excuse as justification for making those wishes. Or you have bloggers who blog in such a way to encourage readers to do their dirty work, whether intentionally or not, to out people who blog anonymously by encouraging them to dig for more information. Why?

Despite that you can have anonymous commenters or bloggers who can still make great and credible arguments without the need to go to the extreme for those who disagree. Who says anonymous people have to identify themselves whenever they make cogent arguments? It's just simply better to agree to disagree rather than to make online threats veiled or otherwise to out people and such.

All this brings me to this new drama unfolding and how it's becoming a McCaskill vs Gallaudet University vs Bienvenu vs McCaskill. A sinkhole that guarantees to get bigger if things do not resolve quickly. All it took was one selfish act in the effort to publicly "expose" McCaskill which quickly escalated into its own growing sinkhole at this moment. It would have been better to confer privately behind closed doors to understand what the issues are in a show of respect and decorum. Instead people succumbed to this "agree with us or else" mentality which was presented to president Hurwitz of Gallaudet University. He became an unwitting pawn in this whole scheme to get Dr. Angela McCaskill fired purely out of selfishness.  This is the kind of sinkhole that could put Gallaudet University in danger of being swallowed financially with potentially more lawsuits from more than one person and even Congress may look into it. All this has the making of a public relation nightmare at the national level for Gallaudet University.  A level that could easily clip all other dramas to date including DPN1 and DPN2 protests with the Dr. J.K. Fernandes in 2006 brouhaha should this new drama spiral out of control.  This isn't about "social justice" but purely a witch hunt gone awry. This is also about "deafhoodism" exposed in its rawest form with the mentality of agree with us...or else in order to to get people to "fit in"  rather than accept diversity for what it is.

But we say, no thanks. We'd rather agree to disagree.

We can do better as a community of fellows with many commonalities and shared experiences, and not about political correctness. We see people as equals whether hearing, hard of hearing, or deaf. Whether they know sign language or not. Whether they prefer to speak or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is the respect for our fellow human beings. What happened that day wasn't about respect but pure selfishness.

UPDATE: Check out the latest interview with McCaskill.