Angela Mccaskill sues MJ Bienvenu, her partner and Gally

This was bound to happen when you have someone go after a person for political and personal reasons in the effort to get the person fired or demoted from her job. A witch hunt that went out of control and smeared a good person's name. Angela Mccaskill is suing for defamation and discrimination.

 http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/02/61701.htm

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.

McCaskill's petition...what does it look like?

Here it is. Go here and see exactly what the petition looks like that Dr. Angela McCaskill signed. Reading it says that this recent bill (now law) on allowing same sex marriage (Civil Marriage Protection Act) should be voted on by the people of Maryland rather than allow the Maryland legislature to craft the bill and pass it and for the governor to sign it to make it a law. There is nothing anti-gay about it but a support to let democracy take place. It is suggesting that democracy ought to be the route to let the registered voters of Maryland to either approve or reject this (the then) proposed bill (Civil Marriage Protection Act) at the next general election. If it passes, then it goes through the proper legislative channels to be voted on, passed and eventually becomes a law. If the voters reject the bill, they have in place an alternative language to define natural marriage.

Seeing the petition in its full form makes Gallaudet University's appearance of "neutrality" even worse seeing that prejudice and acts of discrimination and bullying are more likely when they put Dr. McCaskill on administrative leave thus violating her civil rights and her first Amendment Right. Whoever began this witch hunt had nothing more than the desire to see Dr. McCaskill go. And if it came from one of the staff or professors at Gallaudet University then that person probably had issues with McCaskill herself in the beginning otherwise a witch hunt against her wouldn't have happened.  Maybe it's this person who started the witch hunt ought to be fired for conduct unbecoming?

Hat tip: "Candy"

The letter 'D 'is for Discrimination but not Diversity

The letter 'D' has been brought to you by Kokonut Pundit. Next, I'll show you how to count to 10 to help you maintain your cool. Here's an article called "The 'Diversity' Police Strike Again" which is a very good read.The money shot is on the 2nd page:

But there is not a single mention of gay or lesbian issues on the university’s web page entitled, “About the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.” Instead, the Mission Statement declares, “The mission of the Office for Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet University is to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed. The Office for Diversity and Inclusion will achieve its mission by collaborating with units on campus to intentionally design a comprehensive, university-wide approach to diversity; facilitate equity, access, social justice and inclusion; and, empower students, faculty, and staff to build a diverse and inclusive campus community. Through the cultivation of diversity, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion will lead efforts to institutionalize diversity as a fundamental transformative force that fosters professional growth and academic excellence.”

Can someone fulfill this role without believing that marriage should be radically redefined? Is it possible for the Chief Diversity Officer “to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed” without believing that a man should be able to marry a man and a woman marry a woman?

It noted that "there is not a single mention of gay or lesbian issues on the university's web page" but about promoting and ensuring that "diverse members" thrive and succeed in a rich academic environment.  But the question was whether a Chief Diversity Officer can fulfill that role without believing that marriage should be radically redefined? Certainly so. Even Planet Queer noted students they interviewed on the Gallaudet University campus who thinks so.

 “Dr. McCaskill is well liked by students. ‘She’s been a great ally to the LGBT community and supported many of the LGBTQA Resource Center’s programs,’ said one student, who asked to remain anonymous. ‘I’m heart broken about this.’” So, you can be a friend of the LGBT community without believing that marriage should be redefined.

The term "diversity and inclusion" has always meant the welcoming of diverse viewpoints and ideologies and peoples. But Gallaudet University is at a cross road with their "Office for Diversity and Inclusion" on whether to get co-opted by the term which is doublespeak to mean the opposite of what true diversity and inclusion is to mean in the name of political incorrectness.

This reminds me of the very same doublespeak when it came to the new term "deafhood" which was classically displayed by the CAD organization to mean something else. They levied a requirement in their old 2005 CAD bylaw in order to join their organization if you happen to be a deaf or hard of hearing person.

The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

That term was used to discriminate and profile deaf and hard of hearing people as a political correctness litmus test. This "diversity and inclusion" term is being co-opted to mean something else as well. Making stuff up as they go along in the name of political correctness rather than simply respecting people for who they are. We see people obsessing about what they are as part of their ideological litmus test that comes attached with an ideological term. If we can do away with that things would go a lot smoother around here. Otherwise this whole process is tantamount to having the thought police think you've committed some sort of crime if you don't accept the "deafhood" notion thinking you're against culturally deaf people or if you don't agree with the new doublespeak of "diversity and inclusion" mean you're against gays. Hardly. Both examples are steeped in political correctness as way to bully people into submission to think and act the same way. That's not diversity but rather discrimination by those who are against true inclusion of those who have differing opinions instead of out respect the differing opinions. That is exactly what the "Marylanders for Marriage Equality" group has done by showing respect towards Dr. Angela McCaskill stating she has the right to her own opinion regarding the referendum petition she signed and asked Gallaudet University to reinstate her position as Chief Diversity Officer.  That's true inclusion and diversity right there. Gallaudet University has not shown that. 

Balderdash Challenge

Ah, that word, "balderdash." Love the way it sounds. Instead of saying, "Nonsense!" one can say with a British accent by uttering the word, "Balderdash!"  I think it make conversations a bit more lively by throwing in some British words and phrases what I think is a hoot to say them.

A spot of tea, sir? No!? Well, I'm gobsmacked!

Anyway, back to my original line of thought my "Balderdash Challenge."

It's really simple and it's based on some people's anti-sentiments about my blogsite or rather more specifically about some of my blogs I've written. According to some hand-wringers' claims (see here) that my blogs are not, um, "compatible" with some of their ideological reasoning when it comes to publishing my pieces in Deafread (according to some people who commented). And my challenge to those people is simply this. Find my blogs that you think are not "compatible," make a list and explain in detail why the case. And when you do, be sure to present it somehow so the public can see it such as in your blog. Talking about it doesn't prove anything unless you have actual proof with your interpreted version on why one of my blog isn't "compatible" for Deafread. I'd say "good luck" with that endeavor otherwise it'd be all hooey on your claims of such on the effort for censorship.

Oh, one reason why I choose the word "balderdash" is because of the neat piano ragtime piece called, what else, Balderdash, written and performed by the famous, stupendously and naturally gifted ragtime pianist Tom Brier. Love to have that piano music sheet.



And, oh, don't use this video as an example against me because otherwise it'd be a bunch of, well, piffle.

Again, a spot of tea, sir?

The Death of Deafread

I just find it funny whenever the words like "balderdash" and "poppycock" are expressed, especially if its done with a British accent. There are many synonyms that go with it like "flapdoodle," or "humbuggery" which is just as funny. So are the words like "crapola," "crock," "drivel," "fiddlesticks," "rubbish," "hokum," "hooey," "malarkey," "tosh," "piffle," "taradiddle," and, probably my favorite, "twaddle" because it sounds so funny when one says it. Why am I bringing up those words? Well, in a word, Deafread. Or more specifically it's the moaning and gnashing over Deafread's aggregator site and how it supposedly cause the a-wordism to overflow. The problem is that it's an aggregator site. It does not discriminate. In fact, there is a disclaimer saying,

"DeafRead does not endorse any of the blogs by the mere act of publishing."

Secondly, it publishes anything that's related to hearing loss, Deaf culture, deafness issues and so on. No where does it says "Deaf people only" or "Deaf culture only" in bright pink neon letters. And so these frothing of mouths over what Deafread publishes is a bunch of, well, twaddle. The idea of Deafread is to allow a variety of viewpoints, opinions, experiences, and perspectives to be published by bloggers and vloggers who are either hard of hearing or deaf, or have a connection to those people. There are bound to be unpopular opinions, perspectives and viewpoints to be blogged. That just goes with the territory.

Lately I haven't been keeping up with all the readings over the last few months and I'm a bit behind on what's going on. It's like riding a roller coaster. You just want to get off for awhile and have a picnic on a green grass by the lake for a calm and peaceful moment.  Do I want to get back on that roller coaster? Not really but I do have my own thoughts and opinions on a lot of things and so I blog.  Just recently someone told me to go and check out Jeff's blog. I asked why but told me to check it out anyway. And so I did. Nothing unusual. Just that Jeff is being Jeff. Just a lot of bitching. And he has every right to say what's on his mind, however cryptic it may be. I wasn't sure where to look but I suspect it had to do with what started the conversation was J.J.'s comment on Deafread, myself and Candy on the problem of trying to enforce a-wordism in an aggregator site. That was confirmed by my friend when I asked for clarification if this is what he was referring to. The discussion continues with Jeff, Deafpundit, Dianrez, Ann, and a few others jumping in. From the looks of it comes down to is people somehow trying to find a way to control Tayler's Deafread. That sort of thing has been going on for some time.

First there was a group of Deaf people that wanted to get rid of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread in order to control views seen and heard in the Deaf community via Deafread aggregator site beginning in 2007.

They tried that and....failed.

Another year passed and suddenly a new idea on the effort to control Deafread's content and that was to try and force Tayler Mayer to institute guidelines in DR by implementing the "a" word. And attempt to heap social guilt on him. But Tayler realized it'd be an impossible job to enforce that concept because there is no acceptable definition and it was just a cover.

They tried that and.... failed.

So after three years of trying to control Deafread people as a last resort boycotted DR by walking out as bloggers who were once linked in the Deafread aggregator list.

And so what I'm seeing is another round of discussions on finding ways to try and control Tayler's Deafread aggregator's site according to their demands.  Yet Ann makes a good counter point.

There's the other side of the coin, Jeffrey.

There are some Deaf-centric ppl who actually criticize and deride those deaf who choose to hear and speak. Mind you, I KNOW I'm deaf and don't pretend to be otherwise. Yet I don't go around criticizing those who use ASL and are culturally Deaf as inferior.

The prob is that some ppl, regardless of language preference and hearing technology or not, cannot respect the choices others make for themselves and are comfortable with. That's what it comes down to.

There would have to a "deafism" guideline, if an *udism guideline is to be adopted in DR.

Fair's fair, but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines...

Just because I don't discuss ASL/sign language in such breadth and detail with lofty praises does not mean I have a disdain for it even though I do sign. Even my daughter signs. Ditto my wife. And even my friends whether they sign in SEE, PSE, SE, or ASL.  Granted, I am comfortable speaking and listening, and I prefer that communication route because that is what I do daily with my other friends, relatives, family, co-workers and people in general as well. I have my preferences and nothing about superiority.  If that were the case then I wouldn't have friends in the Deaf community. I simply would not want to interact with them. Remember, having a preference does not equate with superiority. Just because I see things differently does not mean that the Deaf community ought to be extirpated or that ASL be vanquished or shunned. I just have a differing viewpoint and perspective on these things, and the people I wish to associate with in the deaf and hard of hearing community, and Deaf community. There are people who do not like my blogs. And then there are people who do like my blogs. These people happen to be Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing. Nothing new there.

This is a problem on the internet because it's easy to judge people from behind a screen and thus I must remind myself constantly the caveats of using the internet versus meeting people in person which can result in a totally different perspective about the person. Each person who reads a blog read it differently than the next person. The reader forms a picture about the blogger. And if it's something that the reader doesn't like about the blog piece for whatever reason it can leave a negative impression about the blogger based on his or her interpretation. But the next reader may come off with a positive impression. No matter what, people will either like the blog piece or not. Despite that fact what doesn't do any good is to target people like Deafpundit did by calling certain known deaf, hh, and Deaf bloggers the a-wordism. Only this time people are attempting to use the a-wordism as the de facto reason or guideline for removal from Deafread under the guise of "non-conformity." In other word, finding another way to encourage censorship. This is just as bad when John advocated for the removal of "deficit thinkers" from Deafread. Like Ann said, "but oh, what a headache to enforce such guidelines." I agree.  And I think it all boils down to absolute control one way or another come hell or high waters. 

In case you're wondering at this point on why I'm writing the word "a-wordism," it's my way of disagreeing on how such a word is used against other people for political and ideological purposes in the attempt to harm people whether done consciously or subconsciously because of prejudice or hate.  I recognize that discrimination does exist against people who are deaf and hard of hearing which is why I favor technology to help bridge that communication gap. I favor all kinds of communication and language access because there is no one shoe size fits all.  It is a complex issue in a complex community of people with hearing loss from all walks of life.

As for Deafread, perhaps people would rather see the aggregator site die and shut down for good rather than see it continue as it were? Maybe it's time that Tayler shut down his site once and for all? Maybe it's time that Tayler repent to the Deaf gods for his transgressions and get his 50 lashes across his back?

Poppycock.

Fiddlesticks.

Piffle.

Drivel.

Twaddle!

"Hoodless"....

It was a sad day to witness the beginning on the calling of deaf/hh people as "hoodless."  I warned people in my blog 5 years ago about the dangers of judging people for what they "have" or "don't have" when it comes to "deafhood." Which was why many of us made the point of saying "Deafhood? No thanks" and joined the DNT Facebook for that very reason. We continue on with own our unique but deeply personal journey in life as people with hearing loss and how we identify ourselves as and whatever makes you happy. We recognize the value of diversity, and that we support and respect all forms of communication and language.  We say "no thanks" to "deafhood" because we recognized right away it would lead to acts of discrimination and segregation. It has simply become a glorified ideology specifically and mainly for culturally deaf people, and nothing more. That's the problem. It's not really about for anybody with hearing loss. There's a certain sine qua non when it comes to "deafhood," believe it or not. We don't presume who has "deafhood" and who doesn't, and that was the trap we recognized at the very beginning.  We prefer to move forward and not backward and instead would rather follow ICED recommendation to accept and respect all forms of communication and language whether combined or used alone be it PSE, ASL, SEE, cued speech, oral-aural, oral, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help with the communication, or plainly just do without them.  We have respected those differences since day one even before ICED came out with their own recommendation.

I'm sad to say this but I continue to be correct on this.

I will continue to say "no thanks" and just simply accept you as for who you are, and not about what you are.  That's a simple recipe for happiness.

Diversity or is it really discrimination in action?

There seems to be a bit of a diversity "hiccup" making rounds in the blogosphere lately. As for me, diversity is about simply accepting people with hearing loss for who they are regardless of their communication preferences. Accepting diversity is also about understanding their limits and communication preferences.

We should be conscious of that at all times.

Yet I've noticed lately a particular conundrum from people exclaiming from their perches about how they accept diversity but their actions speak otherwise. Simply put. A person should not discriminate against people's communication limitation by being selfish. One good example of the hypocrisy abound is not to include captions/subtitles or at the very least provide a transcript of video made by a person with a hearing loss.

This lecturing of "diversity" really goes down the drain (even laughable to watch) should you gaze your eyes upon a deaf/hh person's YouTube channel and notice that none or very few of the videos are NOT captioned/subtitled. Not even a transcript at the very least.

That alone should cause you to pause and wonder.

Does a person really accept the diversity of people with hearing loss if he or she refused to include captions/subtitles or transcripts for a video he or she just made?

I can already hear the choruses of excuses from deaf and hard of hearing people the reasons for not providing captions or transcripts.

*with a whiny voice*

"It's takes tooo longggg to do it!"
*stamps feet*

or

"I can't do it...it's tooooooo hardddd to translate!"
*throws a pencil across the floor*

or

"I simply don't have enough time!"

*whines*

"I want to keep it pure so it will be less confusing."

Whatever.

I'm sure they'll find a way to come up with their own patented excuses. Kind of like coming up with another "My dog ate my homework" kind of shtick excuse.

It wasn't long ago when I realized my own hypocrisy for not captioning my own videos about three years ago in a blog I wrote and discussed about. It was then when I realized that I have the tools, the software, the means, the resources, the time and the power to include everybody, deaf or hearing, so that peole can understand what I'm saying whether it's by voice or thru signing. The majority of my videos (both signing and by voice) are captioned and only a very few, regretably so, are not captioned (signing videos only).

Accept diversity in a population of people with hearing loss means you understand their limitations and communication needs as well. Hypocrisy stinks to high heaven whenever you see deaf/hh people demand captioning on videos but when it comes to their own vlogs they don't even lift a finger. How convenient if not selfish knowing for a fact that more than 99.5% of the U.S. population out of 310 million people do not know sign language. Never mind the rest of the global population, the results would still the same.

*Checks out the many vlog channels on YouTube to see if some deaf and hard of hearing people included captioning or transcripts.*

Nope.

No captions there.

No transcript either.

*Looks around*.

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Hmmm....

*Checks another vlog channel*

Nope.
Nope.
Yes.
Yes.
Even a transcript!
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.

Hmmm...

Rather a curious observation on hypocrisy, I'd say.

By now you're probably thinking, "Ah ha! Yeah, well, Mike doesn't accept diversity of deaf kids and not expose them to sign language."

On the contrary. Sign language is for everybody. And when it comes to parents, they are the ones who decide and make informed decisions (hopefully so) regarding their deaf/hh child.

So, let's not go off topic shall we?

If you wanted hypocrisy from me I could've easily vlogged with my voice and not provide captioning. And hear wailings from deaf/hh people for not captioning my video blogs. But never fear, I do include captions not only to meet the communication access needs of those viewers but about reaching out to a much potentially larger audience out there.

A no brainier.

But I'm sure you're getting the gist of where I'm going with this. If you're going to tout this whole "diversity" thing on your soapbox then you better back it up with your own actions whenever you vlog. Otherwise, your own words, spoken or signed, will literally fall on deaf ears.

Pun intended.

Josh Swiller - hate vs love

Josh Swiller. Who is that guy? Well, he's a hard of hearing person (deaf, too) who went to Africa to meet with Africans who are deaf and see how they live their lives in silence among the hearing population. But what was interesting was on the event that made him decide to go to Africa that changed everything, enough so for him to write a sobering book about his experience.

In one video below he explained how the people at Gallaudet University didn't accept him. Below are the video still shots with captions.

Imagine back then when he attended Gallaudet University he was actually discriminated against solely because of his speaking ability. And because of that he ultimately ended up going to Africa through the Peace Corps. What is amazing is that even today some Deaf people continue to target him. And for what reason? God only knows why. Envy? Jealousy? Don't like him because he can talk? Because he can hear? For his views? Opinions? Prefer to talk and not sign? Exactly what is it?

Josh has also done speeches before as well at a Toastmasters Club.

In the first video below  is Josh on the phone who gets a call from an old friend back in Africa. The second video below is Josh giving a speech about his book, his experience and how it all happened. Enjoy!





From his blogsite, he currently runs a non-profit dedicated to international advocacy for the deaf and disabled and oversees outreach projects at Gallaudet University where he is a visiting professor. Be sure to buy his book.

Avdism as a crutch excuse?

This "a-wordism" has lately become vulgarized through the repeated abuse of the word, marketing, and just plain ol' fashioned use of the internet to help spread the word. In the main heading of my blog I stated, "Don't use deafness as your crutch. We all face adversity in our life and don't let it become an obstacle but a challenge!" Yet it is true and a sad fact that people are discriminated for what they are and it shouldn't be like that. But that isn't justification to abuse this a-wordism by over-playing this particular discrimination card. Just like when people use the race card for every single supposed racist act when it never happened or existed a la Gates-Crowley Incident. People on both end purposely practice discrimination. Yes, even Deaf people against hearing people, even discriminate against those who prefer to talk despite their deafness. The horrors!

Maybe the answer to this a-wordism will either be that technology becomes so great and prevalent and accessible to all will ensure that this a-wordism wouldn't be an issue since techology would become that great 'equalizer.'

Or perhaps more likely that biotechnology would come early and a cure for hearing loss is made real where all babies born deaf will become hearing through the help of stem cells, thus the decline of Deaf culture and community would occur through attrition in the next 100 years. Some say this cure for babies born deaf won't happen in our lifetime or that it won't happen so "soon" in 10, 20 or 30 years. Or some simply believe it'll never happen and it'll be impossible for the biomedical technology to come up with a cure for hearing loss. Oh, wait, I think the cure for babies born deaf or acquired hearing loss very early on is already beginning in clinical studies this year.

The CBR Center for Regenerative Medicine is collaborating with two leading medical institutions to initiate a research study that would evaluate using a child's own cord blood stem cells to help restore or improve hearing that's been damaged from injury or sickness.

Specifically, we are looking for children under the age of 18 months whose own cord blood is stored at CBR and who have sustained hearing damage...

Regardless, this a-wordism may eventually go away either wholly or to some extent. Just a matter of time. But for the time being, do not use it as crutch and an excuse for your deafness. Certainly we have really dumb hearing people who don't know better but ignorance is not the same thing as accusing them with the a-wordism. Educate them instead.

A one time opportunity….don’t blow it.

"I pledge the allegiance to Citizen DeafRead." Now, sign on the dotted line. And I'll need a urine sample from you.

UPDATE:

My email to one of the DeafRead editors:

Please remove my Kokonut Pundits link from the DeafRead aggregator list. This includes remove my blogsite name from the "Inactive Blogs" page as well. Also, remove "Deaf Strongman" and "Deaf Aikido" from DeafRead's "Inactive Blogs" page. I will not have my blogsite's name be affiliated with and used by DeafRead as part of their marketing efforts (ie. "Inactive Blogs" page). Tayler has overstepped his boundaries by pre-emptively removing Rachel's Cochlear Implant Online blogsite without any due process based on faulty reasonings and assumptions. The editors, including you Jared, are all complicit in this since Tayler is speaking on behalf of all of you. This single episode is utlimately responsible on fracturing the deaf, Deaf, and hard of hearing community even further. Yet, egos by editors seem to say that they stay the ground, not apologize or not retract what was said. Everybody knows this. Why do you think so many have requested, including Deaf, non-CI users, that their links be removed from DeafRead? Your policy is unsound, arbitrary and with no clear definitions or outline to help define your guidelines. An example can be seen in Joey Baer’s page where he promotes a Sprint Product. He is sponsored by Sprint. Hypocrisy is too mild of a word to describe DeafRead's policy/guidelines. Of all the blogs DeafRead had to pick to be forceably removed on a supposed "violation" you guys had to choose Rachel's blog which is one of the most popular cochlear implant blog around. Even I wouldn't be that stupid to use trumped up charges to remove her blog and without due process.

Again, remove all of my blogsite names from the "Blogs at DeafRead" page, including the "Inactive Blogs" section.

Have a nice day.

Mike McConnell

UPDATE II:

You know what? Both Rachel and Paotie’s blog names are still listed on the “Inactive blogs” page. Paotie, didn’t you request DeafRead to remove your blog link? What about telling them to remove the name “Paotie’s Green Couch” on the “Inactive Blogs”?

Since DR removed Rachel's they still have her blogsite name on the "Inactive Blogs" section but mislead readers with this statement:

“Inactive Blogs (230)Those blogs are marked as “inactive” because they have not written anything in a few months. Blogs either “die” or go on haitus. If you have written something to your blog and wish to re-activate it, it’s as easy as e-mailing us!”

I’d say that’d be seen as deceptive practices right there. Rachel’s site was removed and not because of “inactive” status or “died” but forceably removed. If DeafRead removed any blogs due to violation of their “guidelines” they should not have the names of these blogsites around. Plus, when blog owners request DeafRead to remove their links, it would also be in good faith that DeafRead remove their blogsite names from any list, including the “Inactive Blogs” list.
Seems like they keep the names for posterity sake or a “resume” sort of thing. I also see few others like Anonymous Deaf Law Student who recently requested DeafRead to have his/her link removed.

Why should bloggers lend their blogsite name to be used by DeafRead if they officially requested to have it’s link removed? Shouldn’t common sense say that if there is such a request DR should also be obligated to remove the name as well?


CONTINUE MAIN PAGE OF BLOG ENTRY.....

I’m writing this blog piece as probably a one time opportunity in support of Rachel only because I feel very strongly about this whole situation regarding Rachel’s blogsite. I have concluded, unamiously so, that the editors of Deafread have overstepped their boundaries using outrageous claims and the moving of the goal post.

Looking back with my contributions to the blogosphere I concede to the fact that many do see me as a “leader” of sort in the deaf and hard of hearing world and that I have something well worth contributing to those who need an anchor of some sort to help see the world for what it is which is why I’m writing this blog entry. It’s undeniable that this is not a friendly world when you have people who reject you on the basis of your hearing loss and/or cultural status. That's a simple but sad reality. And that there are people who thrive on paranoia thinking it serves as their logic in the real world.

Now, when it blows, it really blows. And when that happens then you know something is seriously wrong and you look to the source of why it went off. And this is perhaps turning out to be one of the biggest uproar in deaf/hh blogging history on the internet where bloggers who are Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing are in support of Rachel’s case in overwhelming numbers. More bloggers have asked Deafread to remove their blog link from their aggregator list at anytime than before. This is about a case where Rachel’s blogsite was summarily banned by the editors of Deafread on the basis of two things that were, of course, based on a lot of assumptions but were never checked upon or verified.

But before I go further there is this one undeniable and simple fact in all of this. All of the editors, including Tayler, FAILED to contact Rachel in the effort to allow her the opportunity to explain before them against their so called claims about the lack of notification of Rachel’s “affiliations,” “professional relationships” and the “commercialization” aspect of her blogsite concerning her cochlear implants and the company or organization that support cochlear implantation.

That’s an undeterred and undeniable fact. Face it. It cannot be shooed away with vacillating, defensive comments. It happened. That's the black eye.

Rachel was never given the opportunity for due process. Deafread editors’ own assumptions made them judge, jury and executioner without fully exploring and determining what the correct facts are in all facets of this case. This whole thing reeks of paranoia and self-righteousness. And the ironic thing is that Tayler discussed at length about “good faith” from bloggers in his recent blog comments when in fact he showed none towards Rachel in giving her the opportunity to reciprocate in her own defense. Instead her blogsite was banned from Deafread without a shred of proof based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions saying that she was there to deceive readers and (the horrors!) Deafread editors, too.

SHAME ON YOU, RACHEL!!

So, here we go.

Here are some, if not all, of the sound bites that came forth from Tayler, one of the editors, and Deafread’s site that just makes you go…”Hmmmmm.” But the first lob and accusation came from one of the DeafRead’s editors:


THE ACCUSATION!
6) Commerical Sites. We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!).

Sources:
http://www.deafread.com/guidelines/
http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=195


THE LOBS!
“Blogs disclosing professional relationships earns trust” - yet never once bothered to describe what those “professional relationships” are supposed to be. Platonic or the quid pro quo type of stuff where financial rewards result? Again, nothing was clarified about those things in Deafread’s guidelines. NONE!

Claimed that she did not reveal her “professional affiliation” with a cochlear implant organization or company in her blog - (Fact: it has never been the requirement of Deafread to demand from bloggers to reveal any “professional affiliation” before a blogsite can be accepted. Furthermore, Rachel blogged about her being a Cochlear Awareness Network (C.A.N.) member back on April 12, 2008, almost two months ago. And again on April 20. But compare to the Ambler Rambler, she made her “affiliation” known on February 11, 2008 about C.A.N. five posts later after joining DeafRead’s aggregator list. Ambler Rambler is still around. Might as well get her blog out, too. All in all, things were made up along the way here.
http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=122
http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=112
http://robyncarter.blogspot.com/2008/02/political-bureaucracy-and-cochlear.html


“we publish their posts in good faith just as we did Rachel’s. If evidence surfaces that they are abusive of DeafRead Guidelines, appropriate action will be taken as we did Rachel’s.” - In other words they claim to have “evidence” that Rachel was “abusive” of DeafRead’s guidelines. They have yet presented any “evidence” to the contrary.

“It's DeafRead's job to ensure the blogs are not influenced by corporate ties.” - But I couldn’t help but noticed what Tayler remarked in Rachel’s blog comment, “It’s when they promote those products in entries that we cannot allow. This is written in our agreement with our sponsor.” – post #22. That sponsor would be Sprint. In short, Sprint is dictating to Tayler (i.e. DeafRead) on what is allowed and not. Fear of competition, I suppose. Fear of losing a sponsor, I suppose. Judgement gets clouded or influenced in this case, I suppose.

Tayler makes the statement in his blog concerning DeafRead Guidelines saying that “published entries should not promote or market a product by a blogger affiliated with the product’s provider.” - Should not? Should not!? But I then ask the question, why the hell not? Editors can simply not select that blog entry for link publication on DeafRead.

“One must reveal any commercial affiliation..” -Any? Just any? And why the hell should they? Even a little ol' volunteer work affiliation kind of thing? Is Sprint afraid of something or what? This is one person's conflict of interest telling others not exhibit any conflict of interest. Smart move, Tayler.

“DeafRead has humans who use judgment in deciding which posts are published at DeafRead.” – Does that judgement includes banishment of a website without proof and without contacting the blog owner giving him/her the opportunity for due process? Besides, what editors do is called “discrimination at work.” That is their job. If a blogger blogs about a product he or she is pushing in a blog entry then the editors would then have the power on whether to accept the new blog entry based on Deafread’s own “simple” and “direct” guidelines or not. Besides, this gets a bit weirder and cumbersome later on seeing the excuses for their justification to ban Rachel’s blogsite.

“lack of transparency also violates the trust of DeafRead viewers” - Uh, like not revealing that you have volunteered for an organization very early on in a blog, most notably the ones that support cochlear implants? What’s next, sign a loyalty oath to Deafread’s owner and editors or what? Sounds ominously very Orwellian-like.

“..published entries should not promote or market a product by a blogger affiliated with the product’s provider.” - “Should not"...? Well, if a blogger is doing that then make sure the editors don’t link to that blog entry!

“ …product promotion of any type cannot exist in the entry itself.” - Sigh, again, listen carefully editors, simply do not link to that blog entry. But your answer is to ban a whole blogsite instead? Isn’t that a bit too…um, reactionary?

“Recently a blog was discovered to carry undisclosed ties to a major commercial industry.” - And they make it sound like Rachel committed a criminal fraud here. She a friggin volunteer! Not a paid one. Does not get any commissions or compensations. No quid pro quo stuff, either. She’s returning her thanks by helping increase awareness about people who wear cochlear implants, namely herself.

“Blogs are based on the concept that people can write openly and freely about their thoughts and opinions.” - Though they’ve gotten a bit Orwellian lately.

“ …misled DeafReaders and as a result has destroyed trust in the blog as an independent source.” -Destroyed trust? If there’s ever an exaggeration, this is it folks. Hyperbole at its best. See Exhibit A. Rachel is now painted as a big, ole meanie set out to purposely destroy people’s trust. Outright defamatory, I’d say. Tayler, please provide proof that Rachel’s action has single-handidly “destroyed trust” of readers in her blog. Nobody was misled here except for those who insist with that fantasy in mind.

“Bloggers can mention or review products as long as they are not affiliated with the company.” - OK. Editors can, again, simply not accept that blog entry by not linking to it in DeafRead. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!!!! Editors? You are reading this? Is Tayler looking over your shoulders or what?)

And then Tayler was really grasping straws by espousing a conspiracy-theory-in-the-works about Rachel and her blog.

“This blog is part of a network whose purpose is to bring awareness about a company’s product; furthermore, the blog content fits into the network’s mission statement. Consequently it has been disqualified.” - Interesting. Tayler offered no link to Cochlear Awareness Network (CAN) website. Nor a link to what their mission statement is about. Let me help you, Tayler.

Q - What is the Cochlear Awareness Network?
A - The Cochlear Awareness Network is a group of volunteers each of whom have lived deaf but have had their hearing returned through technology. They have chosen to be members of the Network to tell their stories, proactively raising awareness for the wonderful changes in their lives.

Q - What do Advocates do?
A - Basically Advocates tell their own story. They do this by making presentations to community and interest groups or clubs or one-on-one to potential recipients. They may also seek publication of their personal story in local newspapers. They may also help out at trade shows and talk to people referred by their local Cochlear Implant Clinic.

Now, I see no mentioning about the requirement to bring awareness about a company’s product. Their mission statement does not even imply this. This whole thing by the editors (note: Taylor are speaking on behalf of the editors') are nothing more than a non-sequitur thing. Even if a volunteer does discuss a particular product, so what? Really, Tayler is grasping straws here it’s literally comical. Instead of a thousand paper cuts, it’s a thousand eggs on one’s face.

Rachel wasn’t pushing an cochlear implant product on her blogsite. They made it sound like it was some criminal enterprise on what Rachel was doing by going around constantly deceiving the readers and DeafRead editors! But if talking about her cochlear implants and her experiences while growing up and into adulthood to those who are interested on hearing her even with specifics on a company brand of her cochlear implants (or even about other people’s CIs) and call that deceptive “promoting” or “marketing” then I need to sit back and have a good laugh over that one. One phrase come to mind, “making a mountain out of a molehill.” Clearly aimed at cochlear implants all the while getting into an apoplectic fit.

The short of it:

1) They claim that she failed to announce her affiliation (ie. Rachel’s volunteer awareness work) with an organization such as Cochlear Awareness Network (C.A.N.) and was justified in their decision to ban her blog link from their aggregator site based on faulty reasonings and assumptions.

2) They claim that her site is a commercial site that benefits a cochlear implant company.

The long of it?

Ongoing BSing continues with amazing feats of dodging and weaving, and the latest buzz phrases.
Time to stop this nonsense, Tayler (editors, too), and do the correct and ethical thing by apologizing to Rachel and retract what you have said in your blog. And perhaps do some serious revamping of DeafRead's policy regarding acceptable and non-acceptable blogsites and blog entries.

But first I want to direct your attention to what “Deaf Anonymous Law Student” said about this whole farce:

Goodbye to DeafRead - June 5, 2008
It pains me to say this, but I am leaving DeafRead. I orginially joined Deafread hoping that I could present an unique point of view and encourage aspiring d/Deaf law students. However, these hopes become moot when DeafRead espouses a discriminatory and Deaf-centric policy by banning a certain blog.

I have posted about our need to UNITE in order to succeed (professionally, at least) and I cannot participate in an aggregator that thwarts this sentiment.

So, if you like this blog, please do bookmark me and say hi sometimes. I welcome everyone of all stripes, deaf, Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and many more. Hopefully there is enough supporters out there to make writing this blog worthwhile.

And that's coming from a law student! That is, a deaf law student who could one day become the first d/Deaf judge.

Indeed, the espousal of a discriminatory and Deaf-centric policy. Deaf Anonymous Law Student said it very well. The person decided to leave, perhaps for good. And I'm sure other deaf/hh law students who are a part of that network group are thinking negatively about the whole DeafRead thing, too.

Lastly, I make this challenge to the rest of the editors of DeafRead that they need to step forward and make their own personal statement, uncoerced and without any undue influence. I cannot on my good conscious accept Tayler’s words on what he has said in his defense on behalf of the editors. It is quite curious that these editors are silent on this issue which may be damning in its own right. I hope there is a King sized bed with enough room for all of the editors to lie in the mess they just made...on behalf of Tayler.

In a bubble world paranoia would be the people’s own worst enemy thinking the very worse when it has never been the case.

Now, let me end this blog entry by saying….

“My plan is working flawlessly!” *rubbing hands* Heh, heh!

More later…maybe…or should I turn off the lights now?

When Racism is worst than the a-wordism at Gallaudet University

As I said before, I believe that the charges of "avdism" (the a-wordism) on campus of Gallaudet University as being “rampant” or even “prevalent” are nothing more than shrill than fact. Are there examples of a-wordism on campus? Sure. Rampant? Hardly. Considering that this IS Gallaudet University where students come in from the outside world full of discrimination (or very little depending where you came from) and even oppression in many cases on a campus full of deaf and hard of hearing students, faculty and staff who are equal in every way. Including the equitable and free communication for all which is desirable though this not quite the case considering the "rampant" act of marginalizing students who don't sign very well or prefer to speak and/or use their hearing aids. But that's for later.

What we have here is a marginalization against students or people of color on the campus of Gallaudet for years. Even back in 1989 when I addressed this to IKJ and a group of people in my speech regarding the diversity problem and marginalization. Today, I have said ever since May 2006 the “Unity for Whom” question because I’ve the seen what the atmosphere was like then and compare that to now which has changed little except there's more awareness. The people of color is still pretty much the same, ratio-wise, a plus 90% mostly white as it was 18 years ago when I started at Gallaudet as a freshman on January 1988.

Kristi Merriweather pointed out in her observation when she wrote a blog piece in DeafDC called "A Fictitious Protest for Fictitious Reasons."  She made several salient points on how the recent protest marginalized students of color just because they are in the minority. Healing cannot be done unless we do the "mea culpa" part (it means "my fault") in acknowledging our role, somehow, somewhere, that have made what we are today and where are with Gallaudet University, which is an institution first that serve all deaf and hard of hearing people who may want to be a student someday. Approximately 20% of the people who took the "mea culpa" poll believed that we are all at fault somehow for this protest mess, while the rest of those who voted continue to assign blame at others except for themselves. I said my "mea culpa" many moons ago.

The first step as I said is the "mea culpa" and Noah Beckman finally took the correct step in doing so yesterday in his interview with Newsweek.

Will you write a letter?

Oh, absolutely. I’m guilty of being oppressive and part of that is taking ownership and responsibility. Back in May, when I told a specific group of people that they couldn’t speak in front of the student body [during the initial protests against Fernandes]. It was the black group of students who wanted to speak. …That wasn’t the best decision I’ve ever made, so I’m definitely guilty of that oppression. At the time my thinking was that I didn’t want to have a message that was confusing.

Many students of color objected to the whole selection process, not just the appointment of Fernandes. Did they get much help from the other protesters?

The white students didn’t do anything to support students of color and work together. [The black students] wrote a very powerful letter, and the board didn’t respond, and the SBG didn’t support them in this process. That must’ve been in November or December—awhile back. So with that, I think the racial differences were clear on our campus. I was guilty of that racist behavior, and it’s not something I’m proud of. So, I think the healing process along those lines is critical. I’ve learned so much since May and with this process, to have a higher level of sensitivity to the various groups on campus, to have respect for students of color and increase the sense of unity.

The uproar started when the final three presidential candidates were announced. Gallaudet’s students of color were concerned that a white candidate with only a master’s degree was included, while a well-respected black candidate, Dr. Glenn Anderson, was eliminated. At the time, some white students said Gallaudet wasn’t ready for a black president. Do you think they were right?

I’d like to say no, but there are some groups of people, small groups of people that have that attitude. It exists on our campus, sadly enough. We’re definitely more than happy to see any qualified individual, person of color or not. The most important thing is to have a person right attitude and the right sense of respect for Gallaudet and who we are as deaf students and in the deaf community, more than anything else.

Racism on campus of Gallaudet University has always been the case and many were constantly side-lined just because they're the minority population. Like many others who were or are also marginalized or pushed aside just because they are different and want to see things to ensure that they, too, are seen as equal participants and receive the same equal communication regardless of background or communication preferences. So, until we hear more "mea culpas" this healing won't go anywhere.

You probably know who those people are.