Editorial questions keeping Gallaudet University Open

More troubles at Gallaudet? Interesting article.

Sometimes people with an outside view can only see so much the value of keeping an institution open thinking it's a waste of tax-payers' money seeing "little in return" while others, primarily those "on the inside," see Gallaudet University as a great institution rich with history and culture, and have spawned world class graduates in more ways than one although it does have its own shortcomings.

This is the danger that Gallaudet University faces everyday when dealing with people who can only see so much in the value of maintaining Gallaudet University.  It's simply not a university for college students but an institution that provides elementary and secondary education to deaf and hard of hearing kids on the campus of Gallaudet University. So, it's not just the 1575 college students attending but the other 280 kids for a total of about 1850 students who go to Gallaudet University and get their specialized attention and education through sign language.

Please, bare with me and keep your temper at bay, and maybe hold your jaw while you're at it.  Read on.

At what cost is it worth keeping Gallaudet University going with a campus population of mostly deaf and hard of hearing students numbering about 1850 students in total? Has the university become unwieldy for its size while the cost born mostly borne by the federal government? Perhaps the appropriated amount given to Gallaudet each year by Congress to the tune of about $123 million dollars a year (2009 - 2012) would be seen as too much? Or too little? An appropriated amount which covers only 70% of Gallaudet's operating budget, a percentage amount that's been fairly consistent over the few decades. $123 million dollars each year not may not sound much but it does add up over the course of 11 years and you get a total of almost $1.2 billion (not million but billion) dollars (see page 7)!  Already, a billion dollars spent in 10 years time. And in ten years time we've witness the murders, saw the marginalization of other communication preferences,  the 2006 protest and now the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu that continues to build that threaten to capture the nation's attention.

Or has the university become the epitome of excellence seeing a return investment in students who have become successful alumni who come back and donated money or give back to the university? Like to the tune of about $3 million dollars each year or about 1.8% of the annual budget (see page 10). Or is it the avant guard communication access whether you're fluent in sign language or not? Or the raising of the bar on educational standards and expectations from students? Or an example of an institution that brings deaf and hard of hearing students from around the world?

Now, like I said before, this whole McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu is becoming a public relation nightmare threatens to swallow Gallaudet University and raises the specter of more people asking on the "outside" why has Congress spent over $1billion dollars over the last 10 years for this institution?  Yet students would appear, to those on the "outside" looking in, to be a bunch of ungrateful whelps who think they are owed something who sometimes put their ideology over education.

As you can see, you have the danger of how certain image is being projected about Gallaudet University to those who are watching the whole thing on the "outside" and those who don't or wouldn't know any better. Or maybe they do know better and see for what it is?  But warning is in the writing and people are beginning to ask. There may come a time when the question gets asked on whether Gallaudet University worth keeping the gates open. Only time will tell.

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? 

Do I support the Closed Captioning bill HR 3101?

NAD has the latest information regarding on trying to get Congress to pass a Closed Captioning bill this April 15 (HR 3101 -Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009 ) though it does not contain language to enforce YouTube or iPad.

There was a bill before HR 3101 and that is the H.R. 6320: Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2008. That bill never became law and died in Congress. Congress moves slowly in passing laws while technology moves even faster and is based on demands, marketing potential, improving technology in the computer chip and programming sector, and a greater understanding of the need for closed captioning by corporate and public entities. Since the introduction of H.R. 6320 technology on closed captioning, especially over the internet, technology moved ahead with its own self-propelling captioning initiatives along with people who are passionate about closed captioning in getting it pushed out into the public mainstream.

Google adds real time automatic closed captioning although not perfect it's a start and they recognize the need and marketing potential as well. Google sets the stage and worldwide example on the importance of investing in captioning of videos whether on television or internet. And that speech recognition technology has now gone mainstream, this will only continue to improve to the point where all videos will automatically transcribed and include closed captioning. This is fast becoming a reality. Law or no law.

Hulu adds captioning to their movies and television shows. The list continues to grow.

Blackberry phones are beginning to have Closed Captioning capability to view videos on your smart phones' screen which is definitely smaller than a 13-inch screen television screen. So does the iPhone.

Captioning is available on digital television as opposed to analog television where a 13-inch screen exempts it from any captioning requirement. A digital television is different set of technology that includes captioning where it continues to improve.

The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 (“TDCA”) requires, generally, that television receivers contain circuitry to decode and display closed captioning. Specifically, the TDCA requires that “apparatus designed to receive television pictures broadcast simultaneously with sound be equipped with built-in decoder circuitry designed to display closed-captioned television transmissions when such apparatus is manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States, and its television picture screen is 13 inches or greater in size.”

The Federal Communication Commission\'s Digital TV (DTV) proceeding incorporated an industry approved transmission standard for DTV into
its rules. The standard included a data stream reserved for closed captioning information. However, specific instructions for implementing closed captioning services for digital television were not included. The Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA), a trade organization representing the U.S. high technology community, has since adopted a standard, EIA-708 (High Definition Closed Captioning for purposes of this document), that provides guidelines for encoder and decoder manufacturers as well as caption providers to implement closed captioning services with DTV technology. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its DTV proceeding, the FTC proposed to adopt a minimum set of technical standards for closed caption decoder circuitry for digital television receivers in accordance with Section 9 of the EIA-708 standard and to require the inclusion of such decoder circuitry in DTV receivers.

Simultaneous closed captioning companies in finding a niche market that exploit closed captioning needs.

Closed captioning included in DVR via TiVo.

ETV is metadata that cable providers recently began integrating into their broadcasts, and the TiVo patent will allow the company to sync both this as well as closed caption information and display it in an interactive method. This includes closed captioning text, a menu or digital video and sound effects. TiVo also promises more advanced uses thanks to this type of technology, such as marking sections of a program they find particularly interesting and then sharing them with friends who also have a TiVo DVR.

Prior to the patent award on February 9th, TiVo already offered ways for customers to view closed caption data, and viewers can also subscribe to a show or order more product information when watching a commercial.

ABC takes the lead on internet captioning.

HTML5 captioning effort with demo videos of an earlier HTML5 version.




What I've listed so far is just an short example of things to come in the world of closed captioning (or subtitling). Let the market forces send a message to corporate and public entities on providing closed captioning on digital tv, smart phones, and online videos over the internet. The trend is clear and that technology is increasingly making it easier, such as YouTube's automatic captioning service, for companies and businesses to include captioning in their videos, whatever the format.

I have mixed feelings about getting the government involved to force companies to comply, especially when technology continues to leap frog ahead with the embedding of closed captioning as a standard practice. Let the market dictate this direction at this point in time. Consider where we were 2 to 4 years ago for online captioning opportunities. There were essentially none. Currently, the trend in captioning is clearly picking up. It's a matter of time till captioning is done as part of any video programming since advertising and marketing pressures will help ensure that. And that social awareness and consciousness will be another factor in pushing closed captioning to the top of their collective consciousness. Bottom line? It's coming and without the need for government intervention to make closed captioning mandatory for all online videos. Technology moves faster than the government could in trying to pass a bill. And that's encouraging.

$415,000,000 Considered for Research Work on Deafness - including a cure

This bill under H.R.3293 is recommending that approximately $415,000,000 in funding be available for the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, which includes hair cell regeneration and stem cells with the goal of finding a cure for hearing loss.

Hair Cell Regeneration and Stem Cells- The NIDCD should continue building on new approaches for regenerating lost hair cells, including developing technology for gene transfer and gene vector generation, and testing the viability of regenerated cells in animal models at the levels of nucleic acids and proteins. Comparative research on responses to hair cell damage in regenerating and nonregenerating species is also urged. The Committee encourages the NIDCD to expand and support stem cell research in the auditory system, with areas of focus to include the use of stem cells to replace lost hair cells and peripheral neurons via transplantation; integration of stem cells into sensory epithelium; and innervation/re-innervation of the partially deaf or deaf cochlea. The Committee continues to encourage further studies to correlate hair cell replenishment with improved hearing.

Currently as of 8/4/2009 the bill is placed on "Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 149."

Which means this bill is coming along. And based on the description on the need to expand research on hearing loss with the ultimate goal of finding a cure for hearing loss is encouraging.