Rate your professors at Gallaudet University

Maybe it's time to take another round of look at professors at Gallaudet University and rate them accordingly. Go here and check out the Rate My Professor for Gallaudet University. Scores range from 0 (complete failure) to 5 (top notch). Not only can you rate your professor, you can include some comments about your professor that you had while as a student at Gallaudet University. Useful tool in weeding out the undesirable ones or at least get yourself prepared to take that professor's class expecting the the worst or best of it.

Dr. McCaskill speaks....names her accusers.

An important lesson that it's better to resolve these things behind doors with a better understanding on what has happened rather than to make assumptions.  Here is a signed video of Dr. McCaskill making her stand against witch hunts. It was Dr. McCaskill who exhibited professionalism, and not those who allowed people to make brash, wild charges in a witch hunt quest that really does not go anywhere nor does anybody any good. Three people made that mistake and it wasn't Dr. McCaskill.

And so the process begins, maybe, on getting Dr. McCaskill to be reinstated back to her CDO position but with a caveat from her attorney:

The president of Gallaudet University said Tuesday that the chief diversity officer who was put on administrative leave after signing an anti-gay marriage petition is welcome to eventually return to her position.

But an attorney representing Angela McCaskill said that would likely only happen if the university compensates McCaskill for the emotional distress she endured, along with the damage to her reputation. There are also calls for university trustees to examine the situation.

“I am dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance, a university that manages by intimidation, a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff and students,” McCaskill said at a press conference in Annapolis on Tuesday afternoon, with the assistance of an interpreter.

A bullying atmosphere at Gallaudet University using fear and intimidation with the "agree with us or else" mentality. Why would Gallaudet University want to live under that reputation when teachers have to live in fear from reprisal.?  Eventually McCaskill will get re-instated but at a cost to the university that no amount that can repair her ruined reputation. 

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. 

McCaskill retains a lawyer

It was a matter of time until Dr. Angela McCaskill retained a lawyer in the eventuality if she does gets fired as Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University for signing a petition to put a referendum on a ballot regarding same sex marriage in Maryland. Her lawyer will explore legal options to get her re-instated.

The lawyer for Angela McCaskill says she is "not anti-gay." Attorney J. Wyndal Gordon says McCaskill will speak in greater detail about her actions at a news conference Tuesday in Annapolis, Md.

Gallaudet is the nation's leading university for the deaf and hard of hearing. McCaskill, who lives in Maryland, is the chief diversity officer at the school. She was placed on leave this week. Gordon says he is exploring legal options to get her reinstated.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and other gay marriage supporters have criticized the move, saying McCaskill should not be punished for exercising her First Amendment rights.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/12/3047640/gallaudet-official-hires-lawyer.html#storylink=cpy

The key thing that's important to see is that even gay marriage supporters have criticized Gallaudet University for punishing McCaskill by placing her on administrative leave. There are actually people out there who recognize the importance of exercising one's First Amendment. And the right from fear for reprisals for exercising that First Amendment.

Kokonut Pundit's New Milestone...and more!

Well, I've finally reached my 2000th blog piece today. The 2000th blog I did was an explosive blog piece called "McCaskill's Fired!" How appropriate. I believe my blog, Kokonut Pundit, is the most blogged site for a deaf/hh blogger on this side of the deaf blogosphere with over 2000 blogs since 2004. No other deaf/hh blogger comes close. I've written over 2,000 blog pieces which is like writing a book the equivalent pages of War and Peace that's 1,440 pages long. It took me 8 years to get to this point and I'm amazed already that I was able to achieve my 200th blog piece today. I'd like to thank the new and loyal readers who have come to visit my blogs to read my special way of blogging. And so I shout from the rooftop in celebration of my 2000th blog piece. Eight years in the making. I'm no Tolstoy but certainly you have heard of me. I'm the blogger who writes blogs that everybody loves to read. Well, almost everybody. Pssst! They're the haters kind. But don't look now. Watch carefully my counter below (scroll down) and you will see how close I am in my next milestone while my counter slowly counts toward the 1,000,000th hits. That's one million if you missed seeing the zeros. That, I'm sure, is enough to celebrate. And, if you wait til October 22, 2012 you will see another new milestone being mentioned as well. Guess what that would be? Any takers?

Huzzah for me. Rah. Rah. Rah!

Ok. Enough of that. G'night folks.

McCaskill's Fired!

He finally did it! Fired Dr. Angela McCaskill as Chief Diversity Officer of Gallaudet University after working for 23 years at the university. And her lawyers have just informed Gallaudet University that they intend to sue the university in a civil and criminal lawsuit for voter intimidation and mental harm seeking $200 million dollars in damages, and charges of criminal violation against the president of Gallaudet University and several administrators involved in the decision to fire her by using the D.C Code of illegally interfering her right to sign a referendum. Her lawyers say "It's about principle, not about money. People should not fear retaliation at place of employment for signing a petition, a referendum, or even a recall petition. This was a witch hunt and Gallaudet University followed that path."

Of course, McCaskill hasn't been fired. Never happened. Yet. Just a scenario I painted.

Now, should that scenario happen  then doing so would probably become a very expensive proposition for the university.  An expensive lawsuit could hurt their bottom line, perhaps their future as a college and a very possible reality that president Hurwitz could go to jail for firing McCaskill but that's a fuzzy line to that possibility. There is a Washington D.C. law that prevents an employer from firing an employee for signing a petition, for example, that an employer doesn't like as way to bully employees into submission.

Under the D.C. Code, it is a criminal violation for “[a]ny person who … by threats or intimidation, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with, the right of any qualified registered elector to sign or not to sign any initiative, referendum, or recall petition.” The sentence for violating the provision can be up to a $10,000 fine and a year in prison.
…Because a Maryland law — and not a D.C. law — is at issue in the referendum, however, the D.C. Code’s criminal provision is not directly implicated. But, it could indirectly apply to McCaskill’s suspension through a civil lawsuit in which she seeks money or reinstatement.

Remember, folks. McCaskill signed a petition to allow a referendum for Maryland residents an alternative option to vote against the state's Civil Marriage Protection Act . She is absolutely entitled to sign a petition for a referendum. She didn't write an op-ed piece to the editor demanding that gay couples should not be allowed to marry. She did not carry signs on street corners demanding that natural marriage ought to be the rule of law. And so on. She exercised her civil rights to sign for a referendum. But, boy, somebody sure had plenty of time on their hands and a serious axe to grind in the effort to find McCaskill's name through 110,000 other names and addresses which was probably based on a tip received and decided to go hunting.

I'm sure president Hurwitz and Gallaudet University's administrators are taking their time with their lawyers if firing her would be such a smart move or not. Would it be worth it?  A safe bet?

Family Research Council has already set up a petition drive to help re-instate Dr. Angela McCaskill. So far there has been 16,654 responses on joining the petition drive. Will it work?

Meh. We'll see. More drama down the road I suppose.

Associated Press on Dr. Angela McCaskill

Here's another round of drama as reported in the Associated Press that'll soon reach a crescendo regarding the story of Dr. Angela McCaskill who is the Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University. She is now in "hot water" with university officials for practicing her constitutional and civil rights on signing a referendum petition for Maryland's Civil Marriage Protection Act without fear of reprisals. Though no crime was committed and yet she was placed on administrative leave by president Hurwitz although not clear whether the leave was a paid administrative leave or not.

"I want to inform the community that I have placed Dr. Angela McCaskill on paid administrative leave effective immediately. It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer; however, other individuals feel differently. I will use the extended time while she is on administrative leave to determine the appropriate next steps taking into consideration the duties of this position at the university. In the meantime an interim Chief Diversity Officer will be announced in the near future."

A group called "Marylanders for Marriage Equality" who is for the Maryland's Civil Marriage Protection Act had this to say about Dr. McCaskill's right to her own opinion regarding the referendum petition she signed.

Marylanders for Marriage Equality issued this statement by campaign manager Josh Levin.

"We strongly disagree with the decision to put the chief diversity officer on leave and hope she is reinstated immediately. Everyone is entitled to free speech and to their own opinion about Question 6, which is about treating everyone fairly and equally under the law."

Was this an attempt to squelch Dr. Angela McCaskill's freedom of speech through intimidation exercises? Some may say yes. Others say no. An another witch hunt attempt to get another deaf employee fired for having an opinion? Was Dr. Angela McCaskill's free speech infringed upon? Marylanders for Marriage Equality thinks so.

So far there are 7 responses in the Associated Press' comment section with one being the most vocal:

Dr. Hurwitz:
I just read on line of your placing Dr. Angela McCaskill on administrative leave because she signed a petition to place an anti gay-marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland. Although I live in Louisiana and have no connection with your University or anyone involved in this incident, I was so shocked to hear that such action would be taken merely for the exercise of one's civil rights that I felt compelled to contact you. Surely we have not arrived at a point where employees of universities are expected to waive their civil rights in order to be employed in any position at the University. The fact that she was a diverse city officer should have absolutely no bearing on this issue. I hope that you will use this as an opportunity to reaffirm your University's commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. The mere act of placing her on administrative leave has a chilling effect, and should be corrected quickly. Should you and the University not correct this egregious infringement on Ms. McCaskills civil rights I certainly hope that she takes appropriate legal action. Please do the right thing in this matter.

The next question is that if she is let go by president Hurwitz for exercising her constitutional and civil rights to vote or even sign a petition to get a referendum on the ballot so voters can have an option will she sue Gallaudet University for damages for infringing on her rights? What will president Hurwitz do next? Only time will tell.

An update.

From U.S. News:

Gallaudet spokeswoman Catherine Murphy told Buzzfeed that the university did not have "a policy against political participation." When asked about the nature of the petition and if the university had any policy regarding such political participation, Murphy told NBC News in an email: “For the moment we are sticking with this (Hurwitz) statement. Please understand that in an administrative personnel matter we won't be saying anything more until we get complete clarity on what took place.”

McCaskill was the first deaf African American female to earn a Ph.D. from Gallaudet, where she has worked for 23 years in various roles, including becoming the deputy to the president and associate provost of diversity and inclusion in 2011, according to her biography on the university website. She did not respond to an email seeking comment and it was not possible to leave a phone message.

Fire an African American Gallaudet University employee for political participation at her church and exercising her freedom of expression, freedom of speech, constitutional and civil rights?

Good luck, president Hurwitz.

Update number 2.

This is simply an old fashioned witch hunt in the hope to have the person fired for expressing an alternative political opinion. This is strangely familiar since this happened to another deaf person for expressing a political opinion on a sensitive deaf-related issue did people try and get this person fired for having an opinion in her own personal blog. 

Why did Matt Hamill come out of retirement?

Everything you ever wanted to know on why Matt Hamill came out of his year long retirement as a MMA fighter at the UFC can be found here. Words of encouragement can still reverberate in a person's mind from a loved one that has since long passed away. It only takes a few reminders to bring back that voice of encouragement. And it can become a powerful source of inspiration.

Matt Hamill wins his 13th MMA fight

Enjoyable night at the Buffalo Wings sports bar with numerous large tv screens to watch up close the UFC 152 match with Hamill vs Hollet. One thing different about Matt was his near clean shaven head but the real story is Matt's comeback after his 1 year retirement from the MMA UFC. Matt was evidently in control in all three rounds with a minor cut around his eyebrow. It was clearly an easy call after three rounds with a a score of 29-28, 30-27, and 30-27 in favor of Hamill where he won his 13th fight. More in depth analysis of the fight can be found here. 

The real fight anticipation at the sports bar was the Jon Jones vs Vitor Belfort and was the highlight of the fight that night at the bar. Odds were in Jon Jones' favor to win with his exceptional fighting skills. Jones was able to get out of a deadly straight armbar which he struggled to free himself for about 30 seconds. After that he wouldn't allow himself to make that same mistake again and returned the favor in Round 4 giving him an Americana armbar winning the fight with a submission win

A reminder...Matt Hamill in UFC fight on Saturday

Don't forget to watch Matt Hamill's return the UFC ring tomorrow, September 22 against Roger Hollet, once again, since Matyushenko tore his Achilles tendon.

Vladimir Matyushenko tore his Achilles tendon, taking him out of the fight with returning Ultimate Fighter season 3 product Matt Hamill.

The funny part of the whole thing, however, is that Hamill will now face the fighter he was originally slated to face at UFC 152, the debuting Roger Hollett.

Hamill (10-4) has been in retirement since losing to Alexander Gustafsson more than a year ago, at UFC 133. He was originally slated to return against Hollett at UFC 152, but the opponent was switched to Matyushenko when Hollett fell out of the fight a few weeks ago.

Now, with the injury to Matyushenko, it appears Hollett has had time to recover and will step back into the fight with Hamill.

Hollett (13-3), who fights out of Nova Scotia, gives the Toronto fight card a little more Canadian flavor. Hollett is riding a five-fight winning streak, including a victory over John Hawk under the Bellator banner, so he doesn’t intend to make it an easy return bout for Hamill. 

Find your nearest sports bar that will show the UFC 152 fights. Will the Deaf Hammer in his 15th fight beat Roger Hollet? We'll know tomorrow.  Who do you think will win?

From the hands of quacks.....

Past and present, how are the two connected? How does the past influence the present and into the future regarding deaf and hard of hearing people?  You have your quacks back then in history's time and then you have some more quacks today. Here's a guy gal who has an interest in studying the medical past and how it impacted society:

I am a PhD candidate at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Toronto. My research broadly focuses on early nineteenth century developments in English medicine and biology. In particular, I am interested in how medical communities defined and dealt with diseases and how these definitions had an impact on society. I am also interested in medical technology, especially diagnostic technologies.

Currently, my research focuses on early nineteenth century developments in aural surgery, a branch of medicine focused on treating and classifying ear diseases. In particular, I am examining the life and time of the aurist John Harrison Curtis (1778-1856), who was amongst the first “self-professed” aurists of the day.

The title of my blog, “From the Hands of Quacks,” derives from the otologist Joseph Toynbee (1815-1866), who infamously declared he planned to “rescue aural surgery from the hands of quacks.” Considering how I’m also examining the tension-filled relationship between “reputable” medical practitioners and “quack” aurists, I thought this line would be fitting for my dissertation title. What comes after the colon, I haven’t figured out yet.

And be sure to read his her recent blog (and his her later ones) covering the subject of deafness and the medical applications or quackery that were attempted on people with hearing loss or in his words "aural diseases." Lots of contents to cover if you want to delve in this historical perspective from a different angle.

It's one thing to learn about the history and its mistakes, it's another thing to dwelve on it every single minute of it in the name of political correctness and the gnashing of the teeth like some people are wont to do. Well, this guy sure makes it interesting.

My lost video...resurfaced!

This is an old video (with subtitle) response to Deaf Pundit's, aka Jeannette Johnson, comment that I've long forgotten. Never bothered to put my video up on YouTube the day after she mentioned about a blog I did and "Candy's" back in June 2011 with her comments in one of Deaf Jeff's blog piece. Needless to say, it was something that made me shake my head with incredulity and a raised eyebrow. So, once again, if you're curious go ahead and see my video.

A picture collage

Here's a collage of pictures of myself in different times, the places I've gone to, and things that I have done in various stages of my life as an adult. As a deaf/hh person I'd say what I've done was rather unique. Some are deaf related. Some are things I've done in solitude. Much of them outdoors as you can tell.

Click here for a larger picture.

What can you tell that I've done or the places I've visited? What grabs your attention? Which picture stands out the most?

Lost and Sound....a documentary video.

Lost and Sound is a moving creative documentary, made by a partially deaf filmmaker.

It weaves its way through a startling world of sound and silence, via the ears and brains of these extraordinary people as they try to re-discover music after deafness: a dancer deaf since birth, a young pianist who lost her hearing as a baby, and a music critic facing sudden partial hearing loss. Music is one of the greatest of all human experiences; millions of us fall under its spell every day, and it engages more parts of the brain than any other human activity. But 1 in 7 of us will experience deafness in our lifetime. What if you lost the ability to hear music? Could you find it again… and could music find you? Featuring: Dr David Eagleman, Philip Ball, Professor Nigel Osborne, Dr Katie Overy, Professor David Huron, Dr Robert Zatorre.

And if you've forgotten, there are plenty of culturally deaf people who do enjoy music in their own way either visually or audiologically, or both.

Remember this music video?



Music is a very important part of me and my life since I play the piano by playing mostly Ragtime music such as here with me playing a piece in this video on my Ragtime Piano blogsite. I can relate very well to these people when it comes music and dealing with hearing loss.

A cure is worth it....or not?

The now famous news of gerbils whose own deafness were nearly restored using stem cells to treat their hearing loss will probably be the turning point in medical history on the path to restore hearing loss for the human population. It'll be a matter of time until we are able to reverse hearing loss in humans using stem cells. This would bode good news amoung the many 35 million people with hearing loss in the United States. Not to mention a highly lucrative field once it gets going. I would say that 98% of the population with hearing loss would more than likely accept this news as positive and that many would accept this medical procedure for themselves instead of opting for hearing aids or cochlear implants.  The remaining population (2% of the total population of people with hearing loss) consisting of some 600,000 or so culturally deaf people would either accept this news positively, negatively or remain on the fence about it. 

Now, being culturally deaf does not mean all of them would be against this medical choice on choosing to restore hearing loss should a medical procedure actually becomes available.

Being culturally deaf also does not mean a person has to be born with a hearing loss first and learn to sign early on. Many late deafened people are culturally deaf.

Being culturally deaf does not mean a person must not wear hearing aids or cochlear implants. Or that he or she must go "au naturel" instead of relying on hearing aids or cochlear implants. Many culturally deaf people wear hearing aids or cochlear implants.

I would say that those culturally deaf people who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants would be more than likely support for the restoration of hearing loss in people using stem cells than not should it becomes available and a reality. And that it becomes a medical choice and not a law.

Would I take it?

Sure.

It'd be for my right ear only since that is the only ear that can hear well and it wouldn't take much for my ear adjust to the new clarity of sound in its natural splendor without my hearing aid for the first time in my life. As for my left ear I don't wear a hearing aid since I do not derive any real benefit due to the severe/profound hearing loss I have. Although the possibility does exist that I could "train" my left ear for years with a hearing aid and then opt for the procedure. Who knows?  I'll just bide my time and if this medical procedure does happen during my lifetime then I'll have the opportunity to make an important decision.

I'd say it's worth it for myself to see that my hearing loss in my right ear be restored and be fully functional. Others will have a different opinion about it and many would personally be against it. So, for those who are shaking their heads, if there's a cure for blindness, then please do not opt for it for yourself or for your baby if you have a serious vision problem. After all, you wouldn't want to look like a hypocrite for being against on the restoration of hearing but accept the restoration of sight?  Can't have one's cake and eat it, too.

Civil Rights History in Both Political Parties

A Civil Rights claim:

Civil Rights laws to help blacks have all happened because of Democratic push.

That's factually false. Historically and legislatively false regarding Civil Rights laws. 

Here's a little history lesson for people who do not know. Republicans have championed Civil Rights and supported freedom and liberties for minorities for over a 140 years while Democrats did this for over 50 years.

First, it was the Republicans who brought forth a series of Civil Rights Acts to the forefront beginning in 1866. And then you have the 1870, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts. A century worth of repression by Democrats who pretty much didn't want to do anything with black people and sought ways to lessen any liberties given to blacks by Republicans in Congress during the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century. This is true during a period of time when you had Democrat controlled Congress in much of the 20th century who sought ways to strike down or restrict previous Civil Rights Acts by passing laws and such that restricted the freedom and liberties of black Americans by reversing what Republicans in Congress have tried to do right beginning in 1866. It was only during the 1960s that Democrats began to progressively do the right thing and to uphold civil rights for minorities.

It was the Republicans in Congress and even Republican presidents who have done the right thing in the 19th and 20th century but only to see Democrats reverse their efforts in order to limit any freedom given to blacks and minorities.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

File:Control of the U.S. Senate.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then you then have more Democrats joining with Republicans who helped contribute to the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts. Before any of this was possible Congress had to abolish slavery first by passing the 13th Amendment on April 8, 1865. 100% of the Republicans in Congress voted for the Amendment while 63% of the Democrats were against it in the Senate vote. This Amendment set the stage for future Civil Rights Acts and other Amendments.
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

1866 - the first Civil Rights Act passed by most Republicans (67%) while most of the Democrats (90%) voted against Senate bill #61.
TO PASS S. 61. -- GovTrack.us
Slavery and the Making of America . The Slave Experience: Legal Rights; Gov't | PBS

The Senate passed the 14th Amendment on June 8, 1866, by a vote of 33 to 11 (33 Republicans voted yes, while 3 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted no).
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

TO PASS H. J. RES. 127. (P. 3042-2) -- GovTrack.us

Then in 1869 in a Republican-controlled 40th Congress voted for the 15th Amendment giving blacks the right to vote. Nearly all Republicans in Congress voted in favor, though a few abstained, saying it did not go far enough. Nearly all Democrats in Congress voted against the 15th Amendment.

The House of Representatives passed the 15th Amendment on February 25, 1869, by a vote of 144 to 44, and the Senate passed the 15th Amendment on February 26, 1869, by a vote of 39 to 13. On March 30, 1870, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 15th Amendment by the states.

15th Amendment to the Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

1870, 1871, and 1875 Civil Rights Act - All passed mostly by Republicans in Congress. Special note on the 1871 Civil Rights Act:

Quote:

1871- Republicans Outlawed the Ku Klux Klan. In 1871, the Republican-controlled 42nd Congress passed a Civil Rights Act aimed at the Ku Klux Klan. Guilty of murdering hundreds of African-Americans, this terrorist organization had also eradicated the Republican Party throughout most of the South. The law empowered the Republican administration of Ulysses Grant to protect the civil rights of the former slaves in federal court, bypassing the Democrat-controlled state courts. The 1871 Civil Rights Act, along with the GOP’s 1870 Civil Rights Act, effectively banned the Klan and enabled Republican officials to arrest hundreds of Klansmen. Though the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually strike down most of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan was crushed. The KKK did not rise again until the Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Black History « It is time to wake up America !

In 1957 Democrats decided to join in on the push with Republicans to help enact a new 1957 Civil Right Acts.  It wasn't until 1991 when the Democrat party took the lead on the percentage number of votes over the Republican party when they voted for the 1991 Civil Rights Act.

1957 Civil Rights Act - passed with 93% of the Republican votes and 59% of the Democrats votes in the Senate.  Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sign the first Civil Rights Act in 82 years. 
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. PASSED. -- GovTrack.us

1960 Civil Rights Act - 83% of the Republicans in the Senate voted for it while 64% of the Democrats voted for the HR #8601 bill. And this was a Democratically controlled Congress (65 Democrats vs 35 Republicans).
HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL. -- GovTrack.us

1964 Civil Rights Act - 81% of the Senate Republicans voted for the bill while 64% of the Democrats voted for the bill. This was during a Democratically controlled Congress with 64 Democrats vs 32 at the time of the vote (4 Senate seats were vacant).
HR. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. MANSFIELD MOTION THAT THE SENATE TAKE UP THE BILL. -- GovTrack.us

Civil Rights Act of 1968 - 68% of Democrats voted for the H.R. 2516 bill while 91% of Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate with Democrats in control the seats.
Y=71 N=20 TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN SALE OR RENTAL OF HOUSING, AND TO PROHIBIT RACIALLY MOTIVATED INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON EXERCISING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. -- GovTrack.us

House of Representatives with 86% of the votes being Republicans and 71% of the votes being Democrats.
TO PASS H.R. 2516, A BILL TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON ENGAGED IN ONE OF THE 8 ACTIVITIES PROTECTED UNDER THIS BILL MUST BE RACIALLY MOTIVATED TO INCUR THE BILL'S PENALTIES. -- GovTrack.us

Civil Rights Act of 1991 - 96% of Democrats voted for the S 1745 bill while 88% of the Republicans voted for the same bill in the Senate.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us

95% of Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill while 77% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1991 bill.
S. 1745 (102nd): Civil Rights Act of ... (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us


So, now you know the legislative history on Civil Rights where one or both parties sought ways to help blacks and minorities attain their freedom and Civil Rights as would be granted for any human beings.

Tale of a hypocrisy and Marlee Matlin

News is still reverberating about the latest development on the treatment for hearing loss when gerbils in a laboratory were deliberately made deaf had their hearing loss reversed using human embryonic stem cells.

The stem cells were used to make immature nerve cells. Those were then transplanted into the deaf ears of 18 gerbils.  

Ten weeks later, the rodents' hearing ability had improved by an average of 46 percent, with recovery ranging from modest to almost complete, the researchers reported.

Not totally a cure yet but certainly in that direction that hearing loss or nerve deafness can certainly be reversed.  A key conceptual working model demonstrated here using the medical knowledge and technique that can readily be applied on humans, and that adult stem cells would be used as well.

With that news Marlee Matlin was asked about the medical break through with stem cells.

“Think about this. What if someone told you that you could’ve been made different than the content person you are with genetics. Would you? Now think how millions of deaf people who lead productive lives, would feel when told that babies born deaf can be ‘cured’.”  

Matlin also told followers, “Be proud of who you are, regardless of what people think is a “handicap” or “normal.” Normal is what you want to be. Don’t let anyone tell you who or what you should be.”

The problem here in reference to the yellow highlighted part above is that parents of deaf or hard of hearing babies have the parental and legal right to make an informed decision regarding the use of stem cells to reverse their baby's hearing loss once that procedure becomes safely available. They can either go forward with the treatment or reject it. And odds are quite high that most parents will prefer to opt for the stem cells treatment than to forego it. This would be absolutely true when we have someday stem cells that can reverse blindness or low vision condition would parents opt for that treatment for their blind or low vision babies. Chances are high that culturally deaf parents of a deaf/blind baby would stop at nothing to see that their baby get the stem cells treatment for blindness but not deafness when they value more on vision than hearing. Just as any parents would see any other medical condition would they like to see reversed for their babies. A hypocrisy in action folks. In fact, there wouldn't be any outcry from the culturally deaf community if there was a stem cells treatment that could reverse vision loss in babies, children, teens and adults.

But here's another "hypocrisy" about Marlee Matlin's. She champions for the donation of free hearing aids to deaf and hard of children around the world with the Starkey Hearing Foundation. I think this is great! In fact she regularly attends this annual gala event called, "So the world may hear." This year's gala 2012 event raised a record $7.6 million dollars and had many notable celebrities like:

President Bill Clinton, Maria Bello, Robin Williams, Marlee Matlin, Billy Crystal, Forest Whitaker and Sammy Sosa attended this year's Awards Gala, which raised a record $7.6M. But the biggest star was the power of hearing.

And yet she warns us about stem cells treatment for hearing loss? What's her stance on stem cells treatment for curing blindness or low vision in babies?

The power of hearing. Yes, that's a strong draw and reason for people to support on finding ways to alleviate hearing loss. Even Lou Ferrigno (who received his Esteem Envoy implantable hearing aid) and Gary Busey (Marlee Matlin confronted Busey his hearing loss that he needs to get a hearing aid seen in the Celebrity Apprentice show by which $1 million dollar was raised for Starkey Hearing Foundation) who were at the gala event as well. It won't be long until celebrities support for the cure for hearing loss through stem cells treatment.

Now, here's the irony.

Marlee Matlin is perhaps unwittingly helping people understand and value the power of hearing for several years by attending the "So the World May Hear" gala annual event that began in 1984 and supports the distribution of free hearing aids to children around the world. Deaf and hard of hearing children around the world with their free hearing aids are getting a taste of that power of hearing and experience the joy of being able to hear sound.  And with that taste in mind already experienced they certainly would want to opt for stem cells treatment to reverse their own hearing loss if they had that choice and the means to do so.

Now, I'm sure some in the culturally deaf community would express their shock and outrage over this but let me remind some of the culturally deaf people that the bulk of their community do wear hearing aids and cochlear implants. Look around whenever you are with a group of deaf and hard of hearing friends. How many of them are wearing hearing aids and cochlear implants? Why are they wearing hearing aids? Why cochlear implants? What makes you think they would not want to opt for stem cells treatment to reverse or simply improve their own hearing?  What makes you think they would not support parental rights to make an informed decision to provide stem cells treatment to reverse hearing loss for their deaf/hh babies?

So, who is really showing the hypocrisy here?

Is the death of culturally deaf community that far behind? Or is it just plain paranoia? 

Oral only are now officially Deaf by Humphries and Padden

The "Redeafined" blog is one of the few blogs and people out there using the capitalized "D" in "Deaf" to not mean as an inclusive group for all deaf and hard of hearing people - an attempt at a new ideology, or in this case moving the goal post, on what "Deaf" today supposed to mean in place of deaf and hard of hearing. I explained earlier in my recent blog on how that example of using "Deaf" is set to fail because of the confusing message and meaning behind it will simply be lost with the rest of the population of people with hearing loss.

Simply put, it won't work.

JPR said it well in one of my blog about this very same subject:

I shake my head at the ideology that Dr. Donald Grushkin exhibits. It is his business to think whatever he wants (the First Amendment is intact, last time I checked) but the ideology will not be helpful at all. It fails to recognize the pluralism and the huge diversity in the deaf population as you described. It is offensive to many deaf people who do not identify themselves as members of the Deaf culture when the proponents of the ideology insist that they must be Deaf. Have the proponents learned anything from the history? The U.S. attempted to impose the idea of Melting Pot on the immigrants but it did not succeed. Instead, the immigrants still retained their identities that they acquired from their native countries or cultures. Saying that all deaf people are Deaf is like trying to impose Melting Pot on them. It is not going to work, as you said.

Indeed. it won't work because people have their own identities and how they are comfortable with it. You cannot force an ideology on other deaf and hard of hearing people's own identities in the name of collectivism and unity.

JPR continues:

I have to wonder why some people are promoting the ideology of applying the cultural identity of Deaf to all deaf people in spite of the reality. Is it because they want to build the Deaf Ethnos? Is it because they fear that the technology of cochlear implant and medical technologies are changing the landscape of the Deaf culture? Is it because they want to build Deaf Utopia where unity and single identity (read: collectivism) are required? I will wait and see what true colors they are showing over the time.

I explained in response to JPR's comment that a "Deaf utopia" doesn't exist in the sense of "deaf and hard of hearing utopia" when taken on with the new meaning and definition of "Deaf."

Is Gallaudet University is an utopian example? In what way? Socially? Technologically? hierarchically? It may be an ideal place to go for a variety of reasons but the problem is you have deaf and hh people at Gallaudet University that make up 95 to 97% of the campus population. That kind of tight social fitting cannot be done at that level once you leave the gates of Gallaudet University. You become 0.2% (0.002) of the total population in the United States. The only way to achieve something close to that of Gallaudet University if you live in large enough cities (e.g. Rochester, NY; and perhaps in some surrounding communities of Washington D.C., etc) that have large clusters of culturally deaf people in their area. That's not utopia, neither is Gallaudet University's example. Rather it's an example of isolationism by mixing with your own kind and very little to do with hearing people.

All black universities are not examples of an utopian campus. Ideal perhaps but not utopian because they've become isolated with their "own kinds." An utopian society would be more liken where members are able interact with each other across culturally and linguistically. For that to happen technology will be key in helping bridge that communication gap where it becomes 2nd nature to communicate with anyone regardless of mode of communication or language used.  (In reality) we'll be more likely to segregrate ourselves withn our "own kinds" than to mix and interact with those not of "our kinds." Just our basic human nature that we do this. Nothing utopian about it no matter how much fantasy you can throw it to other people.
 

So, the "reDeafination" use of "Deaf" will not confuse the message, the meaning and definition as established by Humphries and Padden back in 1988.  We have deaf and hard of hearing communities, not a Deaf community because a Deaf community means a culturally deaf community and not of those who are hard of hearing who are fine with speaking and listening, oral users, S.E.E. users, CUED speech users, deaf AGBell members, and anybody with a hearing loss who isn't a culturally deaf person. I can imagine the utter ridiculousness in trying to convince a person who has a high frequency hearing loss but has mild hearing loss ("late deafened") that he is a Deaf person.

No. It won't work. Still kind of incredible that people are willing to shove some three decades of the definition brought forth by Humphries and Padden in 1988 (as seen proudly in NAD's explaination) down the drain. If they weren't dead already they'd be rolling in their graves.

Why "Deaf" (big D) for all with hearing loss won't work

I want to add more on what I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.

First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.

Who to blame? Well, we all know who.

Secondly, in the Google search you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf."  In an ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf.  In other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the glossary of disability groups or organizations.  Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf.  That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as NIH.  And the examples go on and on.

The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.

The divisiveness will continue.

That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.

The old CAD Bylaws 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.

It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.

Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years.

But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language. Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.

Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.

Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people.   They already developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.

Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation. 

Don Grushkin on what you said about the d/D as being divisive.

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work. You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.

Good luck on undoing all that.