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.

The McCaskill Saga, Example of Intolerance?

Here's a great article about tolerance when tolerance means learning to agree to disagree such as in the case of the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu as a result of a very public witch hunt.

Practicing true tolerance requires disagreement; it requires dissension.

But as the administrators at Gallaudet prove, our society has discarded real tolerance and has replaced it with a kind that says, “You disagree with me? Then you’re intolerant.”

It necessitates complete neutrality, and it limits people from picking sides on social issues.

This is dangerous.

It's better to learn tolerance than to automatically brand people as bigoted merely for disagreeing.

When gays support McCaskill

Here's a guy who is gay makes a point about the importance of not stifling a healthy debate and makes a note about the whole marriage thing by referring to the McCaskill/Gallaudet snafu.

As actively engaged citizens, we are supposed to be involved in healthy, productive debates about this topic from one end of the Free State to the other in advance of casting our ballots. But for some reason, decent folks with legitimate viewpoints frequently choose to remain silent. Why? 

We've seen pundits like the Washington Post's Richard Cohen saying, "The opponents [of same sex marriage] have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice," (June 28, 2011). Is a statement like this intended to invite robust debate, or shut it down?

Who can forget the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco last summer, vowing to exile beyond their city limits any person or business (i.e., Chick-Fil-A) questioning the notion of same-sex marriage? Seems more like tyranny than collegial dialogue.

When the Washington Blade published the names and addresses of everyone who signed the same-sex marriage petition which led to Question 6's inclusion on the Maryland ballot, this incited multiple instances of personal harassment. It led to people being confronted by strangers in their driveways. It went so far as to jeopardize the employment of Gallaudet University's Chief Diversity Officer, Angela McCaskill. These types of incidents are meant to intimidate those who hold a differing view from expressing their views. Yet these folks had only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation.

People who don't have a prejudiced, homophobic bone in their bodies are afraid to make known the fact that they're not prepared to jump on board with same-sex marriage. The too-clever proponents of the new law have conflated the issue of ending prejudice against gays with the notion of same-sex marriage. They are unrelated.

Doug Mainwaring is right. Dr. Angela McCaskill only signed a petition, not a letter of condemnation. Equally true is that the stifling of true dialogue through fear and intimidation will not go anywhere. The very act of turning this into a personal agenda for the ulterior purpose to make sure McCaskill gets fired is nothing more than a personal harassment case. In short, the hallmark of a bully. Yet the irony plays itself out here when president Hurwitz requested that Gallaudet University establish an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students back in 2011 stating (see page 2):

We are currently developing an anti-bullying policy for faculty, staff, and students. A brief video, “It Gets Better,” was made by Gallaudet students and is available at http://youtu.be/WoaYsF_OzXU."

It gets better? I beg to differ. Who would've thunk that a faculty member would actually try and bully another faculty member into submission in the hope of getting that member fired? 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candy on the McCaskill/Gally Mess

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

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

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

By Candy.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Pres. Hurwitz backpedals furiously....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Check out the latest interview with McCaskill.