Deaf staff bullying others at ASDB?

Where is this "I am - Fiver!" when you need her or him around (see near bottom of page)?

If this bullying actually happened then this would be the first known example of Deaf teachers or staff bullying others in the effort to get him or her in trouble by making up nonsense stuff. The practice of instilling fear into those who have alternative opinions or beliefs when it comes to deaf education, mode of communication and language development. Here's one hard of hearing staff or teacher at the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind, who may have worked there at one time, recalled his time the going ons while working at ASDB as seen in the comment section of the Arizona Daily Star reporting on the  explosive ASDB story.

Working at ASDB not being in the in crowd, everyone watches you and reports silly crap to your supervisor. I know I was good at my job, but I allowed myself to be pushed out because going to work in a hostile work environment everyday is not healthy. Being watched and being called into your supervisors office everyday for petty stuff becomes old and tiring. I look back now and wish I would have went and talked to Robert Hill, but Nancy A. would have probably told the deaf community and I would have hell to pay.  

Bullying some of the teachers and/or staff as well as bullying hard of hearing students at ASDB? Have these incidents actually taken place at that school? If so, then it's a disturbing revelation.

Do you recall one anonymous commenter from two years ago under the pseudonym "I am Fiver!" who proclaimed to be "the most dangerous threat to their (Deafhood) plans" and discussed the idea of this so-called "assimilation" plan?

Shel has been the most vociferous with her attempts to rationalize these methods that are oppressive to those children with residual hearing and speech that can be developed. The “bi-bi” approach, or rather “movement” is operating under the guise of “teaching language and culture.” This implies that ASL and Deaf culture are only incidental to the teaching, when in fact, those concepts are the main goal. Auditory methods and speech articulation are suppressed under the rationale that it is necessary in order for these children to “assimilate” ASL to proficiency. There are many fallacies regarding this assumption. But just bear in mind that these people are profoundly affecting the lives of these children by altering the primary language to ASL and by exposure to a culture that has not been defined.

There is no theory or empirical evidence that ASL is a “bridge” to English language learning, even though this very premise has been claimed by many renowned (unnamed) educators of the deaf. In the past these advocates for “bi-bi,” ASL, etc. have alluded to, or insinuated that such a thing exists. But when pressed, they admit that there is no evidence. This has not stopped them, however. They are fervently working to manufacture “studies” and seeking out established language experts to validate their methods, by claiming parallels about how hearing persons learn foreign language. It is not the same! Learners of a second language have already acquired their primary language!

The goal of our schools, whether they are public schools for the hearing or public (state schools) for the deaf, the majority of states require that English must be taught as L1 (English=First Language). This is not happening in deaf schools where ASL is being taught as L1 (ASL=First Language). In such cases, this is clear violation of state law. Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school. I suppose, I do not know, but suppose, that they will rationalize their actions by saying that deaf require a visual language in order to communicate. All that they are doing is engraining these children into a language that is little known or used outside of deaf circles.

The minds of young children are “in the process” of being wired in early childhood. Although much of this “wiring” occurs in the first 2-3 years, it continues for many years after this “ideal window” for language development. Once a child is “wired” for a language of a certain type, that mode becomes life-long and unlikely to change. Proponents of the “bi-bi” movement know this, and are pressing forward with this misguided approach that will create a whole new generation of deaf individuals bereft of English language skills, recognizable speech, and enculturation into an extremely small minority “society” that has historically, and likely to remain a social and economic under-class in perpetuity.

Sounds like this "Fiver" person is somebody from the inside of ASDB or was on the inside or at another deaf school. At least the person appears to know a lot more details than he or she would care to share. Is this really about regaining a sure toehold on the whole indoctrination process the reason behind the constant bullying, if true, and the taping of a hard of a hearing student's mouth for talking in class, if true? Then perhaps once the investigation into these allegations on both sides at ASDB gets done it might shed some light on the veil of secrecy among the staff and the going on. Then again we might not get to the bottom of this. But one thing for sure, it won't be pretty once the investigation is over. 

Gallaudet University - a 'Hearing Space' for all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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