Gallaudet University - a 'Hearing Space' for all?

Recently I read a recent article in Deaf Echo on "Hearing Space, A Conversation Among Deaf Writers" where several people contributed to an online discussion regarding whether having a "hearing space" at Gallaudet University would be a good idea or not based on an unconfirmed proposal that such a "space" is being planned.

Let's start from the beginning. There is no way that Gallaudet University can enforce a rule that whoever enters the campus must sign only. A near impossibility. Firstly, those who are hearing or have some hearing loss (i.e. mild/moderate, with hearing aid) should not be made to feel that they cannot use their own voice at a table at, for example, one of Gallaudet University's eateries while dining with another hearing person or two. This "hearing space" is really about using one's own voice to communicate and not about a "hearing" status per se. It should be called "Open Zone" or something similar instead because there are people with hearing loss who prefer or are more comfortable in using his/her own voice or are in a position where you have non-signers and must use voice to communicate.

Now, second question, should these "Hearing Space" designations come to fruition on campus will these designated areas allow people with hearing loss to use it as well so they can talk instead of signing? Suppose a group of hard of hearing people with their hearing aids prefer to go to these designated areas? Should this "Hearing Space" only be available for hearing people? What about people with hearing loss who grew up talking and listening with their hearing aids (or in this case nowadays cochlear implants) who have no problem in having oral discussions with other people?

But to have a designated lounge room or a designated area where people are free to talk without fear for reprisal or scorn reminds me of this picture below:

Water fountains with "white" and "colored" signs above them

An approved segregation between "hearing people" and "deaf people" by giving hearing people their own "colored fountain" in the effort to appease people and not upset the rest of Gallaudet University's population of deaf people for using their voice to communicate.What this brings to mind is the concept of shame by practicing semi-inclusiveness, "You are welcomed here but you need to go to a separate place first because you're not like us."

Right now I am unclear if this "Hearing Space" would be more like having a designated lounge, sort of like a teacher lounge. Or does this "space" include a designated spot at one of the dining or eatery places on campus such as Rathskellar or the Marketplace? More clarification is needed on exactly what this "Hearing Space" entails.

What about people who talk on their cell phones on the campus of Gallaudet University? The moment a hearing or hard of hearing person picks up his cell phone to answer it while on campus at Gallaudet University in a pubic place is essentially creating his/her own "hearing space" to begin with. And, yes, Gallaudet University is a public place and talking on a cell phone isn't a crime. Will people be encouraged to use these segregated but designated "hearing spaces" just so they can talk on the cell phones without fear for reprisal or scorn? Or heaven forbid lose their job because somebody caught a hearing teacher talk on her cell phone in Rathskellar?  Or have hard of hearing students earn their Scarlett Letter 'A' for daring to use his cell phone to talk while at the Marketplace?

Believe it or not I've actually witnessed an interpreter who received a phone call on his cell phone and proceeded to talk out in the open near the Marketplace. But he signed while he talked. Does this make it any better? It was rather odd that for a private and personal call he'd make his discussion publicly known for all those "eavesdroppers." Oh, sure, people will say it's about "respect" but I don't see it that way any more than people signing what they've just texted for all "eavesdroppers" to see.

A discussion among people at a table (e.g. the Marketplace) is usually a private affair and whatever they say shouldn't be of any interest to outsiders, deaf or hearing. Eavesdropping is disrespectful. This isn't about communication access among deaf people but rather about the relative privacy of communication in a public place.

I liked what Joseph P. Rioto had to say commenting about this so called "Hearing Space" (see third comment):

I would suggest that the university takes a hard look at the concept of pluralism. Although the word is not mentioned explicitly, the concept of pluralism is very obvious in the resolution that was adopted by the International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) 2010 last summer. The resolution says to respect all languages and forms of communication. I do not need to elaborate the possible consequences if the university chooses not to abide by the resolution. Some of the arguments that I have seen apparently want to reject or greatly restrict the resolution and that is a serious matter.

Respect for all languages and forms of communication goes both ways. Restricting them for the sake of ideology could lead to intolerance and discrimination by turning Gallaudet University into, as Joseph P. Rioto puts it, "a cathedral that is dedicated to the god of ASL." How far is too far? Until this "Hearing Space" is clarified we'll have a better grasp on exactly who brought up this idea and what issues drove people to suggest this "Hearing Space."

The Gallaudet University Global Warming Scare Video Library

I wonder how many Gallaudet students are actually checking out Gallaudet University's global warming scare video libary? Are students that gullible?

Focus The Nation- Global Warming The Spread of Infectious Disease - but the problem is that this isn't the case with pathogen carrying insects like mosquitoes. In fact there is a peer-reviewed article in Malaria Journal that questions the problems of stating that global warming will cause an increase in the spread of infectious diseases and that, for example, Malaria doesn't thrive only in tropical or warm areas.

Few people are aware that it is less than forty years since the final eradication of malaria in Europe and the United States. Indeed, the disease was common in the period from the 16th to 18th centuries that climatologists term the Little Ice Age [33], and data from burial records around the Thames estuary reveal that mortality in "marsh parishes" of England was comparable to that in areas of transmission in sub-Saharan Africa today [40,41].

Until the mid-19th century, the northern limit of transmission was roughly defined by the present 15°C July isotherm. Denmark and parts of Sweden suffered devastating epidemics until the 1860s. Incidence diminished thereafter and the disease had essentially disappeared around the turn of the 20th Century. The same was true in Finland, except for a brief recrudescence in 1941, during the Russo-Finnish war. Figure 1 shows the distribution of malaria cases in Norway between 1860 and 1920. In England, there was a gradual decrease in transmission until the 1880s, after which it dropped precipitously and became relatively rare, except in a short period following World War I. In Germany, transmission also diminished rapidly. After World War I it was mainly confined to a few marshy localities [36].

Too bad that Gallaudet University won't have the information I've provided available for students to read and make up their own mind instead.

Or how about this global warming scare video called, "Focus The Nation : Habitat, Species, and Global Warmning" where it uses scary satellite pictures of the extent of our North pole sea ice "disappearing" comparing a 1979 satellite photo to that of 2007 of the same month. Never mind the fact that satellite photos began in 1978 and that we have only 32 years worth of data and not hundreds of years or thousand of years of data to compare it with.

Here's a time lapse of North Pole sea ice extent from 1978 to 2009. And compare that to Gallaudet University's scare video.




Photos seen below taken from Gallaudet University's scary before and after video results on lowest sea ice extent ending at in the month of September in 1979 and 2007.





Scary, huh? But since 2007 onward the sea ice extent has been gaining grounds since if you look at a sea ice extent graph seen below which is updated daily and can be found here. Too bad that Gallaudet students weren't aware of the limited data extending back barely 30 years which doesn't prove anything about global warming. Must be the nice brainwashing campus atmosphere? After all these years, not a single, solitary Gallaudet student or even a professor ever challenged my assertions that this whole global warming theory (yes, a theory and not a fact) is but a farce and a global wide hoax heaped upon unsuspecting and clueless people. But, shhhh, don't let Gallaudet University and their students know that.

When global warming hoax kills...and fools millions.

It's one thing when, for example, thousands of Deaf/deaf/hh people are easily fooled by global warming hoax. But what happens when gullible people who seriously believe in the global warming fantasy kill themselves as a result?

From the "The Resilient Earth" it talks about the problems of propaganda and how untrustworthy scientists and policy groups were able to affect gullible people around the world:

In a news maker interview in the February 12, 2010, edition of Science, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science attempted to respond to the avalanche of criticism that has engulfed the IPCC since the uncovering of the Hadley CRU emails and the discovery that many of the assertions in the AR4 report were taken from untrustworthy sources. Field has been designated co-chair of the report by Working Group 2, which will examine the impacts of a changing climate for the 2014 edition of IPCC reports. He helped write the rare public acknowledgment of error apologizing for the statement in the 2007 IPCC report that stated the Himalayan glaciers were “very likely” to melt away by 2035.

“It's clear there really wasn't a body of evidence required to assign that "very likely" term,” said Field. “It's hard for me to figure out what might be a process that would sustain the credibility that should be associated with the IPCC process,” he continued, “I must admit I don't really have a mature strategy for how we deal with [substantive] errors.” And there in lies part of the problem—the hoopla surrounding global warming has been the result of a politically motivated, haphazard process that hurriedly prepared a series of slipshod reports based on shoddy, substandard science aimed at selling the dangers of climate change to the public. That process now stands revealed as a colossal farce.

A colossal farce is putting it mildly after a decade's worth of global warming screaming saying that this so-called "global warming" science was settled. Don't laugh. But for a deaf/hh guy like me who've known for several years the problems of this global warming theory (as caused by man) wasn't even for once fooled by all this only begs the question on exactly how many Deaf/deaf/hh people we're easily fooled by all this. The question is pressed harder when it comes to Deaf students at Gallaudet University.

When it comes to colleges and universities who help promote actively the global warming crusade, shouldn't they be held liable in their continual attempt to brainwash students rather than assure ways that they think for themselves? For example, say, at Gallaudet University?

Two years ago I wrote an open letter to Gallaudet University of which I emailed to then President Davila (but never gotten a response) about this whole global warming propaganda effort being pushed upon on what may be impressionable students. Though it was interesting to see that in a newsletter announcement in Inside Gallaudet there was an article entitled “Gallaudet to join Focus the Nation’s fight against climate change” back in 2007. And Gallaudet seem to not mind the fact that Focus the Nation organization use of scare tactics that were completely unfounded about the coming doom in a "few short years."

"Focus the Nation is exploding because, across the country, educators and students at every high school, college and university understand that we have just a few short years to act decisively to hold global warming to the low end of 3-4 degrees F."

And interestingly enough, that link to Inside Gallaudet's article is no longer there but can be seen in Archive.org. And if you look at the archived article you'll find a paragraph where Dr. Solomon of Gallaudet University make a suggestion to readers to read up on the 2007 IPCC's report on "Climate Change" as an authoritive report.

For more on climate change, Dr. Solomon suggests reading the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in April. This report is the first indication of unequivocal agreement among scientists that climate change is occurring. The panel’s Summary for Policy Makers provides a straightforward outline of their findings.

Yep. It's the same 2007 IPCC report that is riddled with errors, bad sources, multitudes of non-peer reviewed reports were used and the use of fake data to pressure policy makers to go along with the global warming scam. It's no surprise that a perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC.

How much longer til Gallaudet University own up on their push for this "global warming education" upon impressionable students? Despite the fact that the IPCC and their scientists and reports are now seen as wholly unreliable sources?

Where are the encouragements for professors, the students and faculty members to debate against the merits of this so-called global warming theory? Or is it a climate of fear on campus that they are unable to do so?

"VAX WARS"

Here's a start on a trip through memory lane. One was the "VAX WARS" at Gallaudet University which was posted in the bit.listserv.deaf-l section (it goes back to 1992) where many students participated in the VAX discussions to battle each other out with wits, stupidity, intelligence, ego, fear and vanity.

Here's a start as part of my analysis of the past newsgroup discussion (i.e. bit.listserv.deaf-l) on a paranoid topic that has come up even on DeafRead, "Deaf Community Dying?" (see alternative link here). And that was in 1992, and not 2008. But the difference there was that cochlear implant wasn't even a part of that discussion since the issue was sidetracked (no suprise there) over one opinion that left out a crucial word, "may" in post #8 out 216 that would've prevented all the uproar:

After all, despite our deafness and our pride, we all (may) have the deepest wish to be hearing. Period.

Many went apoplectic after reading that comment while some clamored for that person who made the comment ought to leave Gallaudet University. There are many familiar names such as Trudy Suggs, Neil McDevitt, Todd Elliott, Rob Underhill, Amy Kurtz, Stephen Hardy, Mike McConnell, Pat Robertson, R. Bondroff, and even Andrea Shettle. Did I miss anyone important? There are many more names that may be familiar to you but not to me. If you do find your comments in there, has your position changed since 1992 in that discussion?

May the VAX be with you.