Josh Swiller on the McCaskill/Gallaudet Snafu

Josh Swiller wrote a good piece in the Huffington Post about the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu. Not that I would necessarily agree on everything he wrote there are some points I do not quite agree on. If you don't know who Josh Swiller, he wrote a book called "The Unheard: A Memoir of Deafness and Africa."  The guy who like many others before him who attended Gallaudet University while as a student faced discrimination by his own class peers just because he could speak.

In the Huffington Post piece he wrote:

President Hurwitz and the university administration should be commended for respecting their students' feelings and processes. Keep in mind as well that at no point has Gallaudet said it did not want Dr. McCaskill back; it just wants to respect the community's process.

By making a very public announcement to the community and essentially to the nation about putting Dr. McCaskill on paid leave was tantamount to firing her. Though she wasn't fired and still on paid leave yet this is the essential equivalent of putting a scarlet letter on her forehead branded as a person who could no longer be trusted. This was a process that immediately destroyed her character and reputation in a negative way for signing a ballot initiative petition (referendum). She made no anti-gay remarks whatsoever. Signing the referendum is not the equivalent that she's "anti-gay" but rather she supports the right of people to vote on a ballot rather than leave it to a handful of people in the legislature. Yet people continue to look the other way. Her name dredged up and sought for a public flogging if she didn't comply by issuing an apology for participating in a democracy. Diversity isn't about meeting and attaining some ideological purity test. And that is exactly what Gallaudet is trying to do. Diversity is also about including support for those with minority, religious, or political sentiments. There is no wanting her back. How would they want her back? Her reputation, relationship, and character already distinctly tarnished or irreparably ruined.  Gallaudet's action does not indicate that they want her back but would only do so if it turns out to be a cost effective exercise because it's cheaper to compensate her financially and allow her to keep her position and title than to go through an expensive, public relation nightmare lawsuit.

That was Gallaudet's mistake.

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.