Donna, Heidi and I wrote about academic gatekeeping in this publication about sign language research in sign language communities with Sign Language Studies (soon to be produced in ASL).
Our article was originally turned down by the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education after two very intense revising sessions, and to this day, I can not forget one reviewer's comment about our article: "too anti-hearing".
I thought this pictorial comic perfectly describes the beauty of online access / open access for all of us, especially for our visual language.
51 comments:
THANK YOU for bringing this up! We need to distinguish between original research and theory development or opinion essays.
Original research in medicine can save lives (or cause deaths, if flawed.) This is where gatekeepers are needed who are critical and hard-nosed about what gets published.
Even when it passes the editors, original research is open to interpretation and different people can interpret the data in surprisingly opposite ways.
Theory development and opinion essays such as the two papers in JDSDE have a lower standard of proof and need to be evaluated differently.
Opinion doesn't stand alone very well, and can be easily shot down when the basis for the opinion is weak. The two papers were written mostly on personal observation and cited sources that are themselves open to question. The writers also have political agendas that can be questioned.
It can happen that more professionals publish refuting papers based on THEIR personal experience. Others can also publish supporting experiences and thus start a useless controversy.
The value of opinion essays or theory development is whether they inspire original research that comes up with new useful data.
Dianrez, there are many who think Mr Ladd's deafhood contains a lot of personal opinion, he is deaf there was bound to be a slant on his writings. The jury is out about what percentage of personal opinion there was.
The problem with 'Deaf' history is it was virtually unrecorded at all, so researchers/academics delve into archives,perhaps see a mention of a deaf person or incident, and because there is so little about it, have to 'flesh out' the item to make it worthy of inclusion.
Often there is NO Indication of sign use or degree of loss either, so 'artistic licence' creeps in as well, I am highly suss of deaf volumes as a result. Our best bet is recent memory or firmly established references by others.
Mr Ladd's opus I think collapsed after the first 20 pages which was blatant personal opinion and assumptions, for me this negated what followed.. so sadly few of us are able to discuss the merits of deafhood properly, since you had to accept his assumption before reading onward, it wasn't possible. He was playing to he 'Deaf' political gallery, but few if any British were fooled because he included references to pad it out after that didn't back up his assumption..
There is 'further discussion' on his opus, but little of it pertains to referential fact, but on his OPINION.
Hi,
I'm not a native ASL-user. I never will be. So on one point and a few others made in the Fernandes/Myers article, I agree. It's hard to attain standards of fluency in ASL set by native ASL-users. This is true of English as well, and of any other language. I am a native user of English. Nonetheless I constantly hone my writing skills... not because I'm out to prove anything but simply because I love writing. No matter how much I write, however, there will always be better writers out there with better grammar skills or a better grasp of irony or of the dramatic... what have you. That's how it is. That's how it always will be whether you're teaching German, Korean, Spanish, or a class on banging out Morse code on a telegraph. As a teacher, at the end of the day, either you can teach this stuff or you can't, and as a student, you can either make progress toward learning this stuff, or you can't. If I'm teaching an English class and I have a student who is from Australia or from England, fine. I can make allowances for the fact that English as the language is spoken (or written) in those two countries might look a little bit different from English as it is spoken and written in America. But when you hand in your paper on Monday, don't try to pull a fast one on me. Your paper has to measure up to standards set by my colleagues, hearing and Deaf and deaf alike, who in turn do not want the Almighty Microscope of the MSCHE burning a new hole in their collective foreheads. Thus if I cannot understand what you are talking about after a reasonable amount of effort, I will give you an 'F' or at the very least order you to redo the paper... in English. The act of doing so does not make me an oppressive English Nazi. You can't on the one hand say I have to meet particular standards and then on the other not tell me what they are, or else leave them up in the air until we decide collectively that no other languages or language users anywhere are being oppressed while I teach the language the class schedule actually says I'm supposed to be teaching.
If you really want to take a new direction in Deaf/ASL Studies, why don't you take a shot at answering this question: Where is the dividing line between hearing/deaf people who do not wish to learn ASL because they do not want to bow down to the demands of white native ASL-users, and hearing/deaf people who do not learn ASL simply because they don't want to expend the effort? This is an important question, because odds may be high that a hearing/deaf person who does not want to expend the effort to improve his ASL skills is also not going to want to expend the effort to improve his skills in the signed language of some other country, his PSE skills, his SEE skills, his CUE skills (just to leave sign language behind for a second) or his lip movement skills so that oral deaf people can lip read him easily. If their reasons are not rooted in audism or colonialism, we should know what they are.
Thank you for your time.
I totally agree with you guys. I, too had a paper submitted and savagely rejected. While I don't think the paper was perfect by any means, I do think it was publishable and based on solid research foundations (unlike the Fernandes/Myers articles).
I think the real reason the paper was rejected is that it came from a very strongly Deafhood perspective, and the reviewers (whoever they were) did not share that outlook, and therefore rejected primarily on that basis (it didn't jibe with their worldview).
The problem is that journals such as JDSDE have very few Deaf people or Deaf-centric people on their editorial boards, so it is harder for Deaf-centric folks to submit papers from a Deaf-centric perspective. Especially when these perspectives are more strongly divergent from what is currently viewed as the "standard".
Without seeing the original draft, I can't determine how much hostility it has toward the hearing people. After reading the final version of your article in Sign Language Studies (I subscribed to it for many years and so, I have your article in my possession), I can only imagine how some passages could be considered as anti-hearing. But, my imagination is not necessarily true and therefore, I must give the full benefit of doubt to the authors of the article (that they did not intend to be against the hearing people).
Putting aside the question on whether your article is against hearing, I do notice that your article is heaving biased toward the truly natural sign language users. The implication is that the deaf users of the other communication modes such as PSE, SEE, Cued System, or even oral methods are considered to be less valuable than the true users of the wholly natural sign languages. The numerous mentions of the phrase "Sign Language community" throughout the article seem to reinforce this perspective. I could be wrong about this and am open to correction. I do notice that the opening paragraphs attempted to address the widely diverse deaf people but it seems that this original intention was forgotten as I went through the article. Instead of seeing it as anti-hearing, I see it as excessively pro-Deaf. There is nothing wrong with it but that is how I felt about the article. If my feeling turns out to be correct, it does not surprise me that it fits with SLS like a glove.
The issue about open access is a poor excuse that some authors to use as the reason why their articles were rejected. They always have the opportunity to make their articles available anywhere on the Internet. For example, you can make your original draft available on the Internet, i.e., your webpage at Gallaudet University, without going through Sign Language Studies. But, they precisely did not want to do that because they wanted their articles to be published in any prestigious journals to get some kind of credit that they otherwise could not get if their articles were made available outside of the journals. That's the real problem with the mentality of the academics. I realize that I am too hard on the academics but they need to realize that the real problem lies in, to use few fragments of your article, their ontological and epistemological paradigm ("publish or perish", for example).
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Thanks for this blog posting!
Open access to scholarly papers and research papers ought to be widely available.
The paid subscription to the JSE is kinda outdated in the Internet era.
I will come back with another comment.
RLM
Dianrez & DonG- agreed & thanks for commenting!
MM & Anonymous,
I'm not sure if you read our article- we try not to enter the debate re: ASL vs other types of sign language/communication or native ASL vs late/non-native ASL users... (that's all on Myers and JKF). The point we're trying to make is that we are members of sign language communities, and that members of sign language communities should have the right to oversee research done on them/their communities, following similar principles the the Maori, Aborigines, Native Canadians, and Botswana communities developed for research ethics within their communities.
Joseph, I forgot to add that for the SLS publication, we re-included many of the things JDSDE asked us to leave out. So that's probably the version closest to the original draft (of course, with much better grammar & correct citations, thanks to the reviewers of both journals).
All, thanks for the food for thought & commenting.
Raychelle, I read your original article. I agree with your points there and the points you made in your recent comment. And it's because I agree with you that I am reacting so strongly to the Fernandes/Myers article. The implication behind all of this is that certain practices are unethical. For you it's academic gate-keeping, because the practice holds back pertinent information. For me it's tolerating "researchers" who report only half of the truth (and often not even that), which in my book is the same thing as lying (and I'm sorry but a simple statement acknowledging that Deaf people and ASL have been 'historically oppressed' doesn't cut it).
Something I'd like to point out (I could be wrong on this but the facts should be easy enough to check): Faculty at Gallaudet were until recently evaluated for signing skill (not ASL skill... "signing" skill) using the SCPI. I think you needed to have a rating of "advanced" to be eligible for tenure. I could be wrong and it might be a lesser ranking. And it's also possible that some faculty from fields that do not require a lot of interaction with deaf students at Gallaudet (???) were allowed to squeak by with ratings below even that.
Anyway, I think it was recently resolved in a faculty meeting that we'd switch over to the ASLPI. Only new hires, however, are required to meet the new standards. All other tenured faculty were grandfathered in at the levels they were at on whatever tests they were tested with at that time.
My point: where are the white native ASL-users pulling all of the strings, here? Which do you think is more likely... that faculty--hearing, Deaf, and deaf alike--who have already passed the SCPI simply don't want to deal with the bother of having to buckle down and obtain a decent rating on the ASLPI... or are they REALLY resisting the oppression and manipulation of white Deaf native ASL-users? Come on. There's so much anti-"Deaf" sentiment out there already and so much anti-ASL sentiment out there already... in my opinion articles such as the Fernandes/Myers articles are simply fuel for the fire. Fernandes and Myers will have my respect as "researchers" when they start interviewing faculty members at Gallaudet who barely attained satisfactory ratings on the SCPI (or never took it at all), have been signing in shaky PSE and SEE for decades now, yet still managed to obtain tenure and make a great deal of money. Why didn't they ever improve their skills? Some were only teaching two classes a week (or less after enrollment dipped)!
White native ASL-users are the big problem group on the power hierarchy? Give me a break. It's like concluding Kennedy really died from heatstroke because the sun was shining that day.
I see that I misunderstood the second paragraph of your blog. When I read, "Our article was originally turned down by the same journal after...," I originally thought that it referred to SLS (because it was the nearest journal mentioned before it, according to the expectation of the English grammar). With the clarification that you provided, I still do not know all reasons why your article was not accepted by JDSDE and I could not rely only on the negative comment that you mentioned as the basis for making my own judgment.
I would like to go over your point about the danger for a journal to have complete control over the publication of the articles in the journal. SLS is not anything different from JDSDE in term of controlling of which articles will or will not be published. Don't you think that this is also true for your new journal that you are going to set up? Once you form your journal, do you think that it is still a danger for the editorial board of the new journal to have control over the articles that are submitted to the board? Or, do you believe that there will be no such danger in the new journal? Say, if I write an article explaining why Deafhood borders on fanaticism supported by many historical references, would your new journal accept it?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Anonymous,
I get where you're coming from - it's easy to bash native ASL folks - but based on current evidence (e.g. subpar signing/ASL expectations at Gallaudet for tenured faculty), its obvious someone else is pulling the strings. The same for JDSDE. Agreed. And good one about Kennedy :)
Joseph,
English isn't my forte, so I apologize for not being clear earlier, but thank you for the opportunity to try again! :) Our article was accepted with revisions by JDSDE, we went through revisions twice, then it was ultimately turned down. Then we went to SLS and it was accepted.
Oh - I'm not setting up a new journal. Instead of using the typical hearing phrase "I hear birds talking about this and that", I said "I see birds twittering about" the possibility of a new, pro-Deaf/ASL journal being set up soon. Thank you again for allowing me to clarify myself :)
Very good question - I'm not sure how the new journal will screen submissions, but yes, like with all journals, there is always the danger of excluding some views, but at least with this one, I know my view will not just be accepted but celebrated. I know of no other peer-reviewed journal where I can feel that way with (and I suspect for many of us), so that is a huge milestone for the Deaf/ASL community - a place where we can call our own in the academic community.
Ideally, if I were to set up a journal, I'd make the journal submission, revisions, rejection, acceptance stages transparent to the community somehow. All reviewers would not be anonymous, and all authors would not be either. And since the world can see each stage, that, I believe, would force all of us to be more accountable with our feedback. The only problem I can see with this process is that ideas/findings can easily be "borrowed" or "stolen" early in the submission stage by other viewers... but then again this can be prevented by making the entire process copyrighted. I'm sure there are other potential problems with this idea, but ultimately, what I believe works is transparency... the details can be hashed out eventually. What do you think, Joseph?
p.s. And we all (as in everyone, hearing or deaf) pick journals we know may be more aligned with the ideas presented in our articles- I'm sure you can find a journal easily that would accept your article on how Deafhood borders on fanaticism, smile. Unfortunately it isn't the same for me (and my buddies in Botswana), that's why we call it academic gatekeeping...
Yes -- I like that comment about a Deaf-centered journal would not only accept our view, but celebrate it.
I think there would be room in a Deaf-centered journal for opposing views, such as Joseph P.R.'s idea that Deafhood is fanaticism. However, the difference is, such an opposing view would HAVE to be based on sound, solid research and theory, something that JKF and Myers definitely did NOT have in their articles.
JPR and others think the article is fine, because it fits with their world view, so they are not analyzing it as critically. We all have our biases. Even when we claim we are not biased, we still have a bias. that is why research has to be based on solid evidence and theory -- to help balance for those biases.
My misunderstanding is not all your fault. I should have noticed that the context did not support my original interpretation.
Your suggestion for making the process of accepting or rejecting articles for the new journal totally transparent looks good. It will depend on how willing the authors and reviewers are in losing their anonymity. Whether the new journal will not be as controlling as JDSDE and SLS remains to be seen.
I want to make a minor correction on copyright. All ideas are uncopyrightable (Section 102, Paragraph (b) at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html). It is always possible and legal for anyone else to copy the ideas from the submissions. In the academic world, it is considered plagiarism but it has no effect outside of the academic world in respect to the ideas.
Responding to the comment made by Dr. Donald Grushkin:
I don't like the implication that I am not using my critical thinking skills just because the articles by Drs. Fernandes and Myers happen to be on the same wavelength as mine. Would it be proper to suggest that those culturally Deaf people are not using their critical thinking skills when they accept Deafhood without questions?
As for the comment made by the latest anonymous, may I suggest that the change in Gallaudet University's mission statement to focus on ASL and (impliedly written) English is an example of the power that the ASL users is using to advance their own position?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
To Anonymous above,
Can Gallaudet obtain teachers with top-notch signing skills in EVERY subject that is offered in their curriculum for EACH teaching semester? I wonder.
Many state and federally funded universities and colleges are having difficulty finding teachers qualified to teach certain subjects on the salaries they offer. They will take a teacher who can teach a certain subject but who can barely speak English in many colleges, because these teachers are the only ones willing to take low salaries. It's a common complaint among American hearing students that they can't understand their teachers because of the teacher's poor spoken English. Go figure. Whose fault is it really? Universities are under tremendous pressure to account for the funds and they're under a time squeeze to justify the expense.
Blaming Gally signing standards on anti-ASL or anti-Deaf sentiment is a poor argument.
Ann_C
Ann, that's NOT what I'm trying to say. As you argue, whose fault is it? Bottom line it certainly isn't the fault of white Deaf native ASL-users. You're right entirely, universities (not just Gallaudet) select the best people they can get at the time. My point is that the standards put in place at Gallaudet have to be voted in by a body other than "just" white Deaf native ASL-users. And if you look at other schools, especially throughout history up to today (not just colleges here), what do you think we'll find... a greater number of institutions where ASL dominates because white Deaf native users, however large their numbers may be, dominate everything else, or will we find the same old mixture of all kinds of teachers who can't sign very well in ANY form (ASL, PSE, SEE, etc) and furthermore "won't" devote more time to it?
I'll try to put this more accurately. What Fernandes and Myers are doing is sort of like comparing the damage done by a fire that burnt and damaged the remains of a house after the house was struck by a tornado. The fire here, I'll grant, may very well be white Deaf native users of ASL. Yes, the group can be oppressive. I've experienced that oppression myself. But the tornado is most definitely hearing people. And after reading their articles I'm struck with the same sense of surreal absurdity that I would be struck by if somebody took me by the hand and led me through the remains of an utterly devastated town, with torn-off roofs hanging from treetops and bodies flung as far as five miles away, and then they stop at one house where a power line snapped in the wind and burnt up the back porch, and then they point at the porch and go "Good God, look at all that damage!"
Our community is screwed up. There are a great many reasons why it is screwed up. White Deaf native ASL-users only one part of the reason it is screwed up, and that group always HAS been "only one part of the reason." We need a much deeper investigation into and documentation of what those reasons are, and their underlying influences, to begin making any headway AT ALL.
And these two "researchers" are pointing at the porch.
JPR said: "As for the comment made by the latest anonymous, may I suggest that the change in Gallaudet University's mission statement to focus on ASL and (impliedly written) English is an example of the power that the ASL users is using to advance their own position?"
Yes and no. How many groups had to approve that mission after it left the room it was created in? And in the room it was created in, how many of its members were white Deaf native ASL users? Do Fernandes and Myers offer any kind of a count for this type of thing? Wasn't it approved by some of the administrators and run by the general faculty and staff and changed a bit more based on their suggestions before it went to the BOT for final approval? How many white Deaf native ASL users were there when it was time for a vote of "aye" or "nay?"
Or are we talking about general influence? Okay, have Fernandes and Myers measured that influence accurately in a way that can be replicated? In other words can they prove that they measured the impact correctly and accurately? I'm almost afraid to ask because I don't want to be slapped with the label "ASL militant." Now they DO offer many anonymous communications from people who feel "invisible." You know what? I have no doubt whatsoever those communications are real. I don't take issue with them over that at all. I take issue with the implication that A causes B.
I don't know if you are a white native user of ASL. I'm not, as I've said. But I know many. None of them have ever kept me from getting a job. Hearing people have kept me from getting a job, however, and hearing people have harassed me on the job far more than white Deaf native ASL users. In fact, I have a much better chance of getting a job than a quite a few white Deaf native users of ASL I know I fit into the hearing world better than they do. Harsh truth. I'm not proud of that but I have to eat, same as you.
For every white Deaf native ASL-user (and I even resent any implication--not necessarily coming from you--that this group is in and of itself a group... are ALL white Deaf native ASL-users the same?) who has ever pointed at me and made the "hearing" sign by his or her forehead, there has been another dozen hearing people calling me a Deaf Radical for standing up to the things they do. I don't mean ignorant hearing people, I mean hearing people who have worked wth deaf people for years.
Articles of this type have got it backwards in the sense that they give a few sentences or a buried paragraph somewhere in acknowledgment of what hearing people have put Deaf people through (and deaf people... let's not forget that), and then the rest of the article to arguing that white Deaf native ASL users are the biggest problem, and even that how many of them (and many "deaf" people right along with them) feel about audism and colonialism is somehow creating an even thicker boundary that further isolates the culture in its insularity. For researchers who argue that deaf people should be free to express themselves in whatever language or combination of languages they so choose, speaking as a deaf and not Deaf person, I feel quite controlled... as if the only appropriate way for me to feel is one that THEY don't think is oppressive to other groups of deaf people.
"My point is that the standards put in place at Gallaudet have to be voted in by a body other than "just" white Deaf native ASL-users."
The "body" you're referring to is, I take it to mean the board of trustees? The president of Gallaudet? The professors? The student body? Just who? Don't tell me it's the hearing bogeyman. I mean, c'mon, Gally is not a hearing university-- it's a college for d/Deaf students.
Is tenureship of a Gally teacher's position based solely on his signing abilities? I'm sure that's not the gold standard for maintaining a teaching position at even Gally. Ever consider the qualifications to teach a subject well? Many colleges regard a teacher qualified if he has the teaching credentials to teach a subject regardless of the fact he is from another country and can't speak English very well, or even sign PSE. No offense, but that's a reality out there.
Ann_C
Ann, I'm pretty sure the BOT had the final say. I know for a fact there were several meetings that were held that were open to the entire campus (and many people came... students, staff, and faculty alike, of all colors, both genders, all ages, hearing, Deaf, and deaf) to provide feedback.
I'm not going to respond to the hearing bogeyman thing. If you don't think that this particular group has the vast majority of the power when it comes to decisions made in deaf ed, etc, I personally choose not to expend more energy trying to get through to you. I've seen this particular argument go around and around in the blogs, and I'm not getting on the ride.
I'll leave with this: There's a bogey man and it's white Deaf native ASL-users. They're being turned into the scapegoat. I'm not even Deaf and even I can see that. So I'm simply making the decision not to get on THAT ride, either.
As a white "deaf" non-native user of ASL, I respectfully declare here and now that Fernandes and Myers, though they make several points, do not speak for me. What they see as the problem is not what I see as the problem, and I reject their conclusions. I resist their implications. It is important to me that they both understand one, not all white Deaf native users of ASL are the same, and two, not all deaf users of some other type of signed language are the same, just because Fernandes is deaf and Myers supported her position during the protest, these facts in no size or shape or form now mean that all "deaf" people are now aligned behind them. I am not singling them out because of who they are. Furthermore, though a lot of people may not believe this, I'm not making these declarations because of who they. I don't agree with them, period. And if there's the slightest chance that my staying silent might somehow convince them that I do, then I'm going to speak up. What I really want to do is simply ignore them both, but I now think that would be the more destructive course of action.
Final thing: pardon my typos or don't. Up to you. No doubt in some future scholarly article, I'm going to get quoted (or somebody like me is going to get quoted) and [SIC]-ed to death. It's too much of a pain in the rear end to cut and paste my comments from MS Word.
I'm done.
Anonymous,
I haven't been able to read the Fernandes & Myers article yet, but I will get around to it some time. I'm going to try reading this article as though it was written anonymously.
Unfortunately because of the circumstances surrounding Fernandes' appointment and subsequent protest of her position at Gally, there are plenty of people who have axes to grind. Fortunately for me, I was never at Gally, so I have the position of being able to read the article's writing on its on own merit and not because of what the writers are known for. I will write or blog abut my own conclusions after I get the chance to read the article.
I have no problem with your declaration that you're a white "deaf" non-native user of ASL and that you find Fernandes & Myers' work don't speak for you. You have the right to dissent and I can respect that. I understand what you mean by the tornado then the fire, it's the double whammy on the deaf landscape.
Ann_C
Great entry, Raychelle, Donna & Heidi!! Go for it! It is evident that there is a *pattern* of rejecting deaf-centric individuals' works & efforts to get their articles published.
About Gallaudet's Mission Statement being manipulated by "white Deaf ASL users" is amusing. At Gallaudet, I recall seeing/hearing people work on it for ... YEARS before it was approved by the BOTs.
It s not like ASL users can waltz in and get to post it up in matter of minutes. What happened is that there were lots of debates that ultimately led the University to acknowledge the important relationship between English and ASL.
Ann_C: I was at Gallaudet when Fernandes runs the Academic Affairs. I was at Gallaudet when Shirley Shultz-Myers runs the Honors Program and frequently sneered/berated at Deaf students who failed nor did get in the Honors Program.
However,I already read her article. One thing I can attest about them: They are nothing *new*. It is not about grinding axes. It is all about knowing their *antics* and her goals in inciting the reactive responses.
First of all: Fernandes (She awarded herself a tenure in Deaf Studies Department when she was the Provost!) & Shultz-Myers do not teach Deaf Studies nor ASL classes. Granted, they have Ph.D degrees but either is not in Deaf Studies/ASL Studies.
So their views simply lost its credibility right away ...
Oh, check my youtube.com bit more about how things work in Gallaudet's departments. What I experienced is something that Fernandes should not be proud of.
R-
To the anonymous person: You have all good questions that I cannot answer. They will require a lot of data collection in order to formulate the answers to them. As for the influence, I can state, with strong certainty, that Dr. Benjamin J. Soukup who is the current chairperson of Board of Trustees at Gallaudet University is a fine example of how powerful an ASL proponent can be. Now that he occupies the topmost position at Gallaudet University, he is able to align the university with the ASL ideology. I have to restrain myself from passing my moral judgment on him and the university but it shows that there is a real possibility for the ASL ideology to be inhospitable to other deaf people who do not fit with the ideology like a glove (i.e. students coming to the university are expected to use ASL, the next president is expected to have fluency in ASL (full disclosure: I am the one who asked the Presdential Search Advisory Committee about the requirement to have ASL fluency; this is not to brag but I feel that I have the obligation to disclose as preemption against accusation for omitting information), applicants for some jobs in the university are expected to have fluency in ASL). This trend may (or may not) be a source of concern for Drs. Fernandes and Myers.
I want to share this with the readers and the anonymous person to add some credibility to his or her experience with the hearing people at Gallaudet University. The commentary (as such is labeled in the journal) titled "Learning about Hearing People in the Land of the Deaf: An Ethnographic Account" by Audrei Gesser as appeared in Spring 2007 issue (Volume 7, Issue 3) of Sign Language Studies is, at least for me, eye-opening in how the relationships between different groups functioned in Gallaudet University. I googled on it looking for an abstract and found it at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/sign_language_studies/v007/7.3gesser.html .
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
JRP (and everyone else),
If Ben Soukup (whom I have met briefly and/but don't really know well) can make unilateral decisions about Gallaudet, without any additional approval from the rest of the BOT, then your concerns may have some merit. On the surface, however, this would seem to be a bit... not impossible but not that simple, either. There are other members on the BOT who are "deaf," hearing, hard-of-hearing, etc, yes? I don't know and I'm asking. Actually, no, I DO know. A great many people on the BOT are hearing.
Now that being said, two things come up. The BOT can't always work in a vaccuum, right? They have to deal with faculty recommendations and concerns, administrative recommendations and concerns... And these groups don't just scribble things up the night before the BOT flies in. There are committees at Gallaudet, there's a senate, there are a lot of groups. They're most definitely NOT--I repeat... NOT--"white native ASL-users." Ben Soukup in this instance, even if he's tossing out oppressive ASL-directives left and right, is a burnt porch in the middle of a tornado devastated village. And two, whatever Ben says cannot necessarily be law without some sort of vote. If that's true, the BOT of Gallaudet University deserves to be dismantled. If that's true, governance of Gallaudet is a farce.
I don't know how many people are now reading this blog or following the comments. But I need to ask you something.
Do you feel safe?
I don't. I never have. I certainly never felt safe around either Fernandes and Myers but they too are burnt porches amidst the endless wreckage. When I think about the issues that hurt this community so much I feel depressed and frustrated and angry and frightened. I don't have a lion's share of the claim to the pain... I simply have "my" pain. Perhaps it's identical in many ways to the pain of other deaf people, of white native ASL-users, and even hearing people who have some kind of relationship with deaf/Deaf people... I don't know. But I assure you that my pain and my anger and my fear is THERE. And I want it to go reach RESOLUTION.
Fernandes and Myers are not taking me along the route that will make it reach resolution. They're simply inciting more hate. And that's a frightening thing. Prejudice and discrimination and the violence that inevitably follows aren't distant things that happened to other people during the race riots in the 60s or something like that. It's here and now. If you're deaf or Deaf or hard of hearing in ANY capacity, I'm betting you know this. I'm betting that you too have faced that crushing feeling that comes from being surrounded by so much stupidity and seething hatred day in and day out.
If you want real resolution, you have to hit these people where they live. As frightening as that might be, there's no way around it. You have to stand up each time and you have to say "You know what, I respect your right to express your opinion, but the line between us isn't something that's going to get drawn later. It exits NOW. I may choose to disagree with you. Don't assume I'm against you, and don't assume I support you. I can think for myself. I always COULD. And to the exact extent that you do not yet realize that, in my response to you, I am going to MAKE you realize that."
Fernandes and Myers do not speak for me. I am a white deaf non-native user of ASL. I have my self-esteem and dignity, I have eyes to see what is right and wrong, I have enough bravery to stand up for what I believe in, and I have the empathy for those stuck in the same frustrating situation I'm stuck in. I will not see my empathy and my bravery and my spirit corrupted by half-truths, deliberate blindness to the greater issues, and the intimidation of those who believe they have more power than I do. I have power too, and I will use it.
Ridor
Great to see you here. What's your
youtube URL?
Keep vlogging so the whole deaf world can see. Remember your blog helped us win the victory and outthrow Fernandes!
JPR: I have to dispute your comments about Ben Soukup being "a fine example of how powerful an ASL proponent can be."
Wrong answer, JPR!
I met Ben Soukup. I can attest that he is ASL user but he also can speak. Why? I theorize that in order to succeed on his own, he had to circumvent the paths without stepping into a mine. He managed to do so without becoming a casualty at the hands of hearing oppressors and ... deaf non-native ASL users (I preferred the term: Hearing Apologists).
Ben attended Gallaudet -- never graduated. In fact, his doctorate degree was not earned. It was awarded to him by IKJ not a long time ago because of his accomplishments with CSD, a non-profit organization which he founded and turned it into a national organization.
Basically, he told me that when he left Gallaudet many years ago, he realized that there are many obstacles piling in front of him to a point where he won't succeed if he joins somebody's business ...
Not many organizations, businesses and/or schools would wanted a native ASL user to take the top position. Even if he climbs from the bottom of the ladder, there are people who will do anything to prevent a true Deaf native ASL user from getting the top position.
These organizations, agencies, businesses and schools/programs are largely ruled by whom? Hearing people *and* hearing apologists. These are the ones who routinely prevent, stop and halt "white Deaf native ASL user" from achieving the top post in any setting.
Why do you think IKJ sat on the throne? And why do you think Roslyn "Roz" Rosen was removed as the Provost of Academic Affairs in favor of an inexperienced fool in Jane K. Fernandes?
You see, IKJ is "deaf", Roz is "Deaf", Jane is "deaf". There was a disagreement between Roz and IKJ on a financial issue that enraged IKJ and had her terminated and brought someone similar to his tendencies -- and that was Jane. Roz was different from IKJ. Everyone has the right to be 'different', truth be told. IKJ wanted someone similar to who he is. He found that in Jane.
As for Ben, Ben Soukup built CSD from scratch in a tiny closet at a deaf school in Sious Falls after realizing that he will never be able to jump in and lead somebody's organization/agency/business due to the fact that he uses ASL all the time.
And CSD became successful to a point where people started to wonder why IKJ did not bring him on to the BOTs -- that ultimately forced IKJ to bring him on the BOTs. Showered him with awards and degrees. And my, Ben eventually ended up being the Chairman of BOTs.
He is quite aware that there are "deaf" non-native ASL users (hearing apologists) who are vocal and destructive in distorting the accomplishments of Deaf native ASL users.
MJ Bienvenu is what Jane Fernandes probably meant by "white Deaf native ASL user" -- For many years, she could not teach at Gallaudet. Even with the fact that she has enormous experiences, armed with tons of research papers and possessed a doctorate degree -- the hearing peers and hearing apologists decried that MJ is militant and "bad for Gallaudet". They blocked her from getting a simple teaching position at Gallaudet. It took a long time for Gallaudet to resist and ignore these vicious attacks and finally bring her on the board which she deserved a long time ago. And it took a bit long time for her to take over as the Chair of her department.
(continued)
Yes, I'm "white Deaf native ASL user" and I see the injustices and prejudices against us from these hearing peers and hearing apologists who would do anything in their power to derail the careers whom are proud of their identity and language!
And we fought back.
So for you, JPR, to say that ASL users are being inhospitable is not fair. What about me? What about MJ? What about Ben? What about these deserving "white Deaf native ASL users" who worked hard to achieve their goals only to be disparaged by people like you, Jane and IKJ?
For a long time, Gallaudet University has been dominated by hearing peers and hearing apologists. It is fitting that we take back what is ours, like it or not.
I see it as justifiable action. Their methods did not work in the last 100 years. So let's try something different. That's what frightened Shultz-Myers & Fernandes -- they did not want the positive changes. They wanted to retain the same old system that held/intimidated the white Deaf native ASL users back to keep them from getting the influential and powerful positions. Meanwhile, they enjoy the ride to the top just like IKJ did.
That's my views of what is going on at Gallaudet. And I knew because I was there as a student. Not only that, I am friends with many faculty, staff and administrators who told me the stories repeatedly throughout my collegiate years and beyond.
To quote a character in a film which I just saw recently, "What can be broken must be broken!"
I think that is what we had been doing from day one. And it did not sit well with Jordan, Fernandes and Shultz-Myers. And hearing apologists like Karen Mayes and perhaps, you as well, JPR.
Raychelle: Sorry for a long comment. Had to stuff it all in ...
As for someone asking me about youtube? Just check youtube.com/ridor9th -- you should be able to see dozens of my vlogs -- the recent vlogs talk about JKF & SSM.
Cheers,
R-
Ridor & Anon-
You both are right on the nose. Everyone doesn't realize we native deaf users are actually puppets used in research be it MRIs and linguistics tests or observed in educational settings or for various psychological, IQ tests. We are actually recruited very heavily for those kinds of tests either in public (NATIVE ASL USERS NEEDED!) or in private by e-mail or in person (come on, it's worth it, you're gonna help those hearing researchers see what is truly deaf!).
Then after the tests we are paid $$ and discarded on the street like junkies desperately looking forward to the next test for more $$.
Ultimately, who put us on that pedestal? Who put us on the top of that triangle? Researchers. We didn't put ourselves there. think about it. All this native deaf crap came out of the 1970's. Before that, everyone simply signed and people were divided into groups that signed, and used more Englishy signing. Simple.
If you're arguing that native deaf were always that large clique of fun, bullyish, loud, wild students at a deaf school (either K-12 or at Gallaudet) "supposedly rejecting" all the other non-natives for decades, even before the 1970's - it's because of two reasons:
1) Shared experiences: They've (native ASL) been there all their lives, so they're very comfortable with the setting (deaf school) and they've been friends together all their lives too, so their language is very, very intimate (not many people would understand, even native ASL from an older generation). The native deaf staff at this school probably babysat those kids and their children might spend all summers together. You can also find a few non-natives in this group where parents sent them to the deaf school as a toddler - that supports my claim that cliques are not formed on native-ness, but on familiarity, shared experiences and closeness.
You can see those cliques spill over to Gallaudet as well. Those groups, say, from CSD Fremont, stay in a Fremont group at Gallaudet. Maryland SD kids stay in MSD group at Gallaudet. Those groups merge more now than they used to because of all the tournaments between far-away schools and camps in the summer (e.g., YLC) bringing them shared experiences and when they arrive at Gallaudet, they immediately re-connect. It's the shared experiences that bonds them all.
And you can easily say the same for kids from large mainstream schools - those kids stick together, maybe because they feel overwhelmed and intimidated by the sheer confidence of those deaf kids from deaf schools who happen to know a lot of deaf staff/teachers at the school/university they're at, and know they way around. It all comes around to shared experiences, that is misunderstood by outsiders to mean bullying.
2) Well-adjustment - deaf natives at strong deaf schools are also usually well-adjusted psychologically (not all of the time lol) - they never had to deaf with parents wishing they were not deaf, countless tests, rehabilitation & therapy appointments as well as being dropped off at schools that have no one there like them (or just a few), always feeling left out or struggling to fit in all their lives. So this "well-adjustment" by native deaf is often misperceived as over-confidence and bullying. They're just comfortable with their identities and being themselves.
As a native deaf, I'm not proud of particular native asl bullies, and believe me, I've been bullied by them as well. But we all know in every group (native deaf, mainstream deaf, oral deaf, solitaire deaf, etc) there are bullies, so it doesn't make sense to assume ALL native asl deaf are bullies based on their shared experiences and well-adjustment.
(Continued in next comment)
That brings me to my next point. I'm also proud of my heritage, in a humble way (if there is a such a thing lol). I am proud I come from a multi-generational deaf family. I love my parents and my siblings to death!!! I am proud we have been able to preserve ASL in its beauty generation over generation. I've mentioned this occasionally, for example, in my resume, cover letter, in my interaction with other people, in my vlogs, during job interviews, etc. And believe me, if I had a penny for every time another native deaf told me, "Hey, I wouldn't use that native deaf card - it just makes everyone else feel bad. We already have enough crap to deal with, we don't need to rub it in", I'd be a millionaire. That pisses me off to no end because who put us on that pedestal? Not us. I didn't ask to be put on top of that triangle. We were put there by other people and we're being punished? Now I can't say I'm from a deaf family without worrying what other people might think? We have to apologize for who we are?
Another point. I talked to a deaf doctor working closely with dna/genes, s/he said:
1) Jewish folks have a 1 in 10 possibility of carrying the deaf gene (small pool, higher incidence of Jewish deaf)
2) Euro-Americans have 1 in 30 possibility of carrying the deaf gene (larger pool, less chance of those 1:1 to meet)
3) Black Americans, there isn't a ratio yet because there's too few black multi-generational deaf families (I can only count two families I know of, and one of those two are actually a mix of black/spanish/indian) - geneticists say this is very rare, black people in general do not carry the deaf gene. I didn't ask about Native Americans, Asians and Hispanics.... but I suspect the scenario would be similar.
So that argument that white deaf native users oppress all out there is crap. It's easy to say that because there are 40 white deaf natives to 1 black deaf native. That's simply proportion.
Now that crap from Fernandes and Myers only serves to prove my point even more.
From what I have observed through my research, it is not an easy task for me to locate Deaf-centered scholarly journal articles but it is easy for me to locate "deaf-related" articles but with no "deaf-centered" perspectives. It has led me to question the composition of the board. Because the journal, per se, concerns Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, it is crucial for all who are involved in decision-makings to have a keen knowledge of Deaf Studies/Deaf Education. I'd love to see how many Deaf-centered articles are rejected vs how many are accepted comparing to non-Deaf-centered articles. Understandably, some articles are rejected on the grounds that they may not conform to the rigors of academic standards, but we should look at those that do satsify the rigors of academic standards. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to locate those unpublished articles unless they are available somewhere else. I am glad that we are addressing this important issue because our contributions to the academic world are valuable. Additionally, scholarly journal articles are our opportunity to make our culture recognized and respectable in the academic world.
(Just so you know, I'm the Anonymous poster who talked about tornadoes and fires and Kennedy really dying of heat stroke above...)
As long as we're getting down to the heart of the matter, let's ask a few important questions.
Let's assume that there's a hierarchy of power within the deaf community. Hearing people are a part of it if only simply by virtue of the fact that over 90% of our parents are hearing, as are our families.
Let's also assume that white Deaf native users of ASL are also a part of the hierarchy.
Here's a question:
Can "supporters of Fernandes and Myers" also by themselves be their own group in the hierarchy? Note here that the question itself does not automatically qualify as an attack on these two people. Groups are made up of individuals. Therefore, in analyzing the power strategies (of obtaining power and oppressing others) of any group, you can easily name different individuals. There could be a group in the power hierarchy made up of people who support Ben Soukup (if not, who else could cause JPR's concerns?) or MJ or IKJ or Roz or practically anyone.
(continued below)
(...continued from above, from the Tornado vs the Porch Fire commenter...)
So. How does a group "have" and "exercise" power in such a way that moves it up or down the hierarchy? There has to be a mechanism, yes? Raw numbers alone don't necessarily put a group at the top. There are far more middle class and poor people in the United States than there are rich people, but rich people control more wealth and property by a margin so far in excess of the other two groups it's laughable.
Can "professinoal position" be a mechanism? Can "the ability to fire or dismiss" be a mechanism (the story about IKJ and Roz could apply)? Could wealth be a mechanism? Level of hearing? Speech clarity? Ability to fit with the hearing world better than a white Deaf native ASL user?
Here's another question. Suppose that a given room filled with 100 deaf people has 20 people of color, various races... not just black. Suppose the power group "Fernandes/Myers" express their views and five of the twenty in turn express support. Suppose further five others disagree and ten are silent.
Like it or not, this situation inherently contains a number of political realities that cannot be sidestepped. A number of questions, for any research done on the subject to be truly unbiased and valid, must be asked. For example:
1) Does the power group "Fernandes/Myers" have at its disposal mechanisms that might coerce the support of any of these twenty people?
2) It goes the other way as well: Does the power group "Fernandes/Myers" have at its disposal mechanisms that incite the hostility or at the very least the disagreement of any of these twenty people?
3) If the answer to #2 is "yes," can the mechanisms be isolated and removed so that we can test to see who how many of the twenty will agree or disagree in the absence of these mechanisms? (Note that if you cannot isolate the mechanisms you cannot have a control group and you will thus NEVER KNOW FOR SURE).
4) Are the twenty in the room representative of the twenty thousand outside of the room? What is a truly representative sample of the community, which in a sense is simply a "bigger room?"
(...continued below in its final part...)
(...last part...)
Do you see what I'm getting at? There's a lot of anonymous communications in the Fernandes/Myers article. And again, I'm going to state clearly, I believe these anonymous communications exist. No doubt about it. I believe that there truly are deaf people who feel invisible. For what it's worth, wherever/whoever you are, my heart goes out to you.
But were these people unduly influenced by the fact that, for example, Fernandes at the time was the provost or president-designate of Gallaudet University? Or even later when she became the provost of the university in another state and therefore in a way remained a powerful figure in our community politics? Were they influenced by the fact that Myers runs the Honors program? Were they influenced by some other type of sentiment? For example, if "Not Deaf Enough" was a politcal sentiment that actually existed at any time data was collected for the study, why is it so impossible to believe that a backlash sentiment existed simultaneously... and "Too Deaf" was something out there as well? Can we prove beyond doubt that some of these people were unduly influenced by that sentiment? Could they have been unduly influenced by the fact that the power group (again, assuming it's possibly they ARE a power group) Fernandes/Myers by their own declaration were not in the camp of "Not Deaf Enough?" Perhaps that could have implied that they were in the opposing camp?
And what of the other 80 "white" people in the room?
If the power group "Fernandes/Myers" has the right to discount these questions and imply that white Deaf native users of ASL occupy a position on a power hierachy that oppresses groups below it, we can discount any claim it makes that IT doesn't have power. But you'll notice that the indivduals that make up this power group make no such claim. They acknowledge that they are white, middle to upper-middle class (at the very least), and so forth. It's just that in my opinion they don't acknowledge OTHER types of privileged status they may hold.
And I would like to see that investigated. I'd also like to see how they justify their claim that their samples are representative. I'd like to see them stand up and justify exactly how all white Deaf native-users of ASL are all the same, and how all non-native users are all the same.
My claim that Fernandes/Myers do not speak for me has less to do with who they are as people than it does with the fact that I'm tired of seeing "research" of this type go unchallenged by the community. As was said earlier, we have a lot more access now (or at least easier access) to information published about us. Questions of this type should simply be seen as the community, through its individual members, taking responsibility for claims made and information published. Not as personal attacks.
I find the whole thing a revalation as brit, 'middle class' ?! I thought you all went to America because class systems drove you there, now you establised your own lol... What I want to know is what Fernadez is on about when she states 'Audism and the American version of deafhood' is the core of the deaf community.." ? What is the 'American Version' of deafhood ?
I will start with the comment made by the anonymous commenter at 7:14am and 7:23am.
If the researchers are to be blamed for creating a fictional hierarchy of deaf people, what is needed to be done is to gather enough scholars to write an article pointing out the great error in them in order to invalidate several decades worth of their researches and submit it to, say, Sign Language Studies for publication. Blaming them for what they did does nothing.
Then, I have to wonder if their other researches need to be rejected as well. I am guessing that the anonymous commenter did not intend to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am also guessing that if the researches look very favorable on the native Deaf people, these researches should be accepted without question but if some other researches that do not look favorable on the same group of the people, these researches are automatically placed under suspicion. This is called bias.
The information about genetics looks interesting but the deaf doctor (is it really necessary to identify the level of the hearing loss of the doctor?) needs to provide more information on which genes he or she was talking about. It is possible that he was focusing only on very few genes that have high incidence of deafness and doing so, he was ignoring many other genes that may cause deafness.
About the comment made by JP: It will be interesting to see the ratio of articles accepted for publication to articles rejected. I have to ask, however: How do you know which article is Deaf-centered? What standard or measurement will you use to judge whether an article is Deaf-centered or not? This is one issue that Drs. Fernandes and Myers covered.
Finally, on the latest comment made by the anonymous commenter who used the analogy of tornado: Allow me to focus a little on the saying: "The oppressed become the oppressors." Now that the native ASL users have gained the prestigious recognition from the linguists and sociologists, they are able to enjoy the special privileges that are bestowed on them as the result of the recognition. For example, they now are able to state that they have language. ASL course can be offered at colleges for credit. ASL can be studied in its own right. All of these are very positive and contribute to the human knowledge.
However, some or few of them (it is difficult to quantify) are using the privileges and language power to advance their own interests against the deaf people who are not like them in term of communication and life. We have seen them saying that the SimCom, PSE or SEE users are bastardizing ASL. We have seen them saying that children who use SimCom, PSE or SEE are automatically at great disadvantage for learning. We have seen them using Deafhood to show that they are on the wrong way and need to be led to the right way of Deaf life. In essence, they who were formerly the oppressed start to act like the oppressors by not recognizing that there are diverse ways for the non-ASL, deaf people to live.
The readers will claim that there is a heap of researches supporting the way of the native Deaf people and therefore, what they are doing is legitimate. I don’t dispute the researches. But, to use the researches to deny the non-ASL, deaf people their right to be themselves is not legitimate.
(Continued in next comment)
(Continued from previous comment)
This is one reason why I brought up the mission statement of Gallaudet University. Why did Gallaudet University choose to focus only on ASL (and English) and exclude all other communication mode? This is not like many deaf programs or services throughout colleges in the U.S. They try to fit the needs of the deaf people, rather than requiring them to fit one way, that is, ASL. Is it because there is influence of the native Deaf people that is having effect on the people at the university?
(As a side note, I stand corrected that it is nearly impossible for Dr. Soukup alone to change the mission statement. There must be enough support from the people throughout the university to change the mission statement. However, I still stand by my position that the support would not be possible without the influence from the native Deaf people and people, both hearing and deaf, agreeing with the native Deaf people.)
Returning back to the comment made by the anonymous commenter, the recurring theme throughout the comment is the power. I could not encourage the misuse of power. If people are using the articles of Drs. Fernandes and Myers to gain power over any other people including the native Deaf people, this is flatly wrong. I don't see that way. The purpose of the articles is not to cause the hostility among the deaf people but to point out that we don't have to listen to the native Deaf people at all the times. They are not the gods. There are many more different kinds of deaf people out there and they do deserve a place in Deaf Studies and Deaf Education on the same par as the native Deaf people. Whether this will happen, we will see.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
JPR: I usually do not respond to your comments in the past on many blogs mainly because I admit that I could not stand reading your comments.
But after reading your last two comments, I had to step in once again and refute your points.
Why did Gallaudet University choose to focus only on ASL and English in its Mission Statement?
Because the Total Communication Philosophy has *failed*. The attempts to include different modes of communications in the classrooms is next to impossible. It is an utter failure. Just look at deaf schools across the nation in the last 40 years which they instituted the TC philosophy and it really messed up a lot of Deaf peeps.
Look, the so-called hearing professionals had their way and it failed. Now, the Deaf professionals wanted their turn. What's *so* wrong with that?
No, incorporating ASL in its Mission Statement does not mean that you're required to "fit one way, that is, ASL."
Please just visit Gallaudet, you'll see that there are hundreds of students who do not rely on ASL 24/7/365. But the big picture is that the *original* ideal of Gallaudet beliefs is that it supports English *and* American Sign Language.
Yes, the changes to the mission statement occurred right after a long period of discourse that took place at Gallaudet. By educating the accurate information, people gets the big picture of what should happen at Gallaudet -- that's how many ended up agreeing with the native ASL users.
Again, what's so wrong with it?
Yes, Shirley and Jane wanted this article to be published in order to drive a wedge in our communities in one of their attempts to control the status quo.
I will agree that there are many more different kinds of deaf people out there and that they deserve a place in Deaf Studies. I'm all for that. You continue to ignore the facts that for years, the native ASL users were marginalized by the non-native ASL users in every capacity at Gallaudet and beyond.
I'd like for you to compare several deaf schools with Maryland and California-Fremont.
Maryland & California-Fremont has changed into a place where native ASL users takes the leadership in guiding their schools which has resulted in an explosive growth of student enrollment and has maximized the quality of Deaf Education.
Compare these schools with ... Ohio, West Virginia, Montana, Oregon, Virginia and North Carolina.
Compare the data of these schools and be sure to look at Who's Who -- then get back to me on that, dear.
Let's face the truth: These people tried and failed. And it is our turn.
Again, what's so wrong with it?!
R-
JPR, (Tornado/Fire commenter here...)
All I can say to you and anyone still left reading is this: Ask yourselves if Fernandes and Myers are even capable of facing any of this anymore. They might not be, and that's a real danger. Think on it. Plenty of people who supported the protest have said they didn't care how "Deaf" or "deaf" Fernandes was. Does it seem likely they're ALL lying?
That can't be easy for them to face. Can you imagine how much discomfort that must cause? Can you imagine how hard it must be to say, if even just to yourself, "Okay, yes, somewhere along the line I might have screwed up, I might have hurt some people too badly." In fact on that point I give Fernandes a bit of credit... I think she DID acknowledge this somewhat in the early days of the protest, that disciplinary actions she took might have angered some people. But then she quickly retreated into "Not Deaf Enough," and IKJ went with her. IKJ may have LED her. We'll never know.
So where does that leave us? What does your brain and heart tell you? Are white Deaf native ASL users responsible for all of the evils in this community? For most of it? As JPR said it's difficult to quantify, but ask yourselves are the people at the government level funding the state deaf schools themselves hearing or deaf? Most of the parents? Most of the teachers in the various schools?
If Gallaudet closes someday, that's the fault of white Deaf native ASL users, now? And not at all the fault of anyone who abused his or her power while working there? Not at all the fault of any hearing or Deaf or deaf faculty or staff member or student who acted like a bastard when he or she could have acted like a human being with empathy?
This community CAN move on and heal. Gallaudet has a lot of great--truly great and wonderful people working for it. It has many students any university would be proud to have. But we all live under this cloud of sickness and blame. And I strongly suspect that if you removed white Deaf native ASL-users entirely from the picture, that blame would then simply fall on some other group of deaf people of some other color or of some other language preference. Why not? It's human nature to put on the other person the burden you aren't willing to take up yourself. It's easier, at least in the short term. In the long term it destroys everything around you.
Every action that Fernandes and Myers take henceforth, especially in the field of research, should be judged not only on the merits of how sound that research is, but also on what they as individuals are and are not willing to face. If we don't hold them to that, if we let them get away with saying whatever they want, then we're saying bias is fine because they were wronged somewhere. Some white Deaf native ASL-user or group of white Deaf ASL users hurt them so now they have the right to retaliate. They have the right to speak for everyone who has been hurt by a white Deaf native ASL user.
I'm not giving them that right. Until they can quantify and qualify, they don't deserve it. That power is TOO BROAD.
As an observer, I agreed at the time with Fernandez regarding the 'not deaf enough' thing, there was a lot of truth in that, the deaf turned very quickly on King too.
Gally was heading south academically too and a hot-bed of activism that was bordering on bullying,and anti-hearing in nature. However that is in the past now, but it seems the fall-out still continues with Fernadez over this, are you all judging the merits of the article, or just judging on her past at Gally ?
As I recall things got so personal there was no way to adjudge anything. It would be naive too, to assume racsim is not a factor in the deaf world. In the UK there is also little interactions between many ethic sectors of deaf as well, indeed they operate almost totally apart from 'white' and 'mainstream' deaf sectors.
We may not have conflicts as such, but that is because they don't live or work together... and like deaf themselves run parallel to evrything else. There are e.g. no black/asian/ethnic deaf people in my club at all...
JPR -
re: mission statement
I don't agree with your interpretation. The mission states that Gallaudet University is a bilingual institution so it makes sense that their education is conducted in ASL and English because both are languages. TC, SEE, and other modes of communication are not what linguists consider languages. GU would contradict itself if they claim that they are bilingual, yet, use, let's say, SEE, and English because SEE is not a language.
Every time an organization develops a mission statement, it would consider the best interests of its stakeholders. So, GU's largest stakeholder is ASL users and it makes sense for GU to recognize ASL in their mission statement. GU is the only university in the U.S. that recognizes and embraces ASL in their own mission statement and that's what makes GU so unique.
If some students feel that GU's mission statement is inappropriate, then nothing stops them from going to other schools that serve their interests.
I believe that many GU students who use different modes of communication find ASL valuable and have no object to it. If they do object, they would get their voices heard easily, but that's not the case, at least, from what I have observed.
Lastly, GU does recognize and respect those who use different modes of communication and they recognizes diversity like they state in their mission statement.
So, I don't see why GU's mission statement is a problem.
(From Tornado/Fire...)
MM, inasmuch as I have to allow for researcher bias, yes, I certainly do hold Fernades/Myers accountable for their past actions. Not in a way or to to an extent where I would say, for example, that they don't have the right to express their opinions (such an action would be useless anyway) or something like that. But to the extent where I would examine whether or not they as researchers are acting out of bias, yes. In fact, in good research, researchers discuss their OWN potential biases. Fernandes/Myers have done this somewhat. Just, again, not enough and not in the right areas, in my opinion. Fernandes could easily counter this by simply giving a balanced account every time she runs that "I didn't get the president's position because 'They' thought I wasn't 'Deaf Enough'" by simply adding a statement "Though others have also stated that they did not agree with my past administrative approaches."
That's all she needs to do. But she won't because that makes her look bad. But note that that doesn't stop her from making broad claims about white Deaf native ASL-users, and through association it also doesn't stop Myers. So that really puts us on the spot. Now it's not in the past anymore, because they bring it into the present. So yes, they deserve what they're getting in this blog. I sincerely do hope I haven't crossed over the line into personal attacks, and I invite the moderators of this blog to remove any of my comments that they think crosses that line. But I have challenged their ideas, in the spirit of free exchange.
Racism exists in our community. Of course it does. It always has. And if the human race makes it that far, it probably will long after Fernandes/Myers' bones have turned to dust. Deaf oppression of deaf people is also real. Hearing oppression of all deaf people and of ASL is real as well. Corruption not directly related to this type of oppression is real too.
Please do not for one second think that you will not be able to walk into Gallaudet or any state school for the deaf and find a faculty member (hearing OR deaf) there who currently cannot sign in ASL at all, who is also barely understandable even when using PSE or SEE, or a the signed language of some other country. Furthermore, please don't think that they place the importance of learning and improving their signing skills above the importance of making the 5pm train home or beating traffic. I don't mean to insult you but it would be naive of you to believe otherwise. I work with and always have worked with such people every single day.
Mr. Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: "If the researchers are to be blamed for creating a fictional hierarchy of deaf people, what is needed to be done is to gather enough scholars to write an article pointing out the great error in them in order to invalidate several decades worth of their researches and submit it to, say, Sign Language Studies for publication. Blaming them for what they did does nothing."
It is interesting to see the brand new character of MR. JOSEPH PIETRO RIOLO because he always laboriously types the full name plus the marital name of each blogger and people in question in all of his comments It feels creepoid to see him do that. Now for the very first time IN HISTORY EVER SINCE 2006 he does not spell out the names of "the researchers" (Jane K. Fernandes and Shirley Shultz Myers.
Veeeeeeerrrrrrry interesting about the brand new character of JPR!
I have to chuckle, Anonymous, at your nit-pickin' comment over JPR's affinity for formal names.
How about Dr. Jane Kelleher Fernandes?
How can a formal name creep you out?
Oh, just Fernandes' name is what creeps you out, I see.
Sheesh.
Ann_C
Ann_C: Don't defend JPR. Let's see how he defends himself without any help from people like you.
R-
R-
I wasn't defending JPR, I was actually having a laugh about the nit-picking aspect of Anonymous' comment. I mean, there's been some pretty heavy commentary under this blog, and then this comment.
Like comic relief, ya know?
Ann_C
Anonymous: 1:14 am
Joseph Pietro Riolo may seem to have a head on his shoulder but has a very subtle agenda that doesn't have the respect for ASL.
He's a deaf M.O.B. - Mask Of Benevolence.
Responding to Mr. Ricky D. Taylor's (known as Ridor) comment: His explanation for the reason of choosing ASL in the mission statement seems to be plausible. However, it is difficult to accept it as the actual reasoning behind the mission statement for two reasons: 1) The graduates of Gallaudet University before the change in the mission statement are doing fine (and in some cases, great) and they are very proud of the university. This could not be possible if the philosophy of Total Communication is total failure. 2) An unbiased research is necessary to show the direct relationship between the dismal outcomes among the college students and the philosophy of Total Communication. I don't believe that Total Communication alone is the only root cause for the failure. There could be other factors that contribute to the failure.
I have heard a lot of positive reports about California School for the Deaf at Fremont and Maryland School for the Deaf but the unbiased statistics and evidences to support their assertions are still not available for the public to read and analyze. This may change when the former school will eventually publish the statistics, according to Dr. Henry Klopping when I asked him about the statistics. Other deaf schools would learn few things from them. However, CSDF and MSD are not the only successful schools in the U.S. There exist few mainstreaming programs that are as equally successful as them. We don’t hear about them probably because they do not fit the mold of the Deaf culture.
To the Tornado/Fire commenter: We return back to letting the personality of Dr. Fernandes become the source of contention again. I can only imagine that if the articles were written by two well-known native ASL users, we would not have this intense discussion for it is a kind of taboo to criticize them. If the articles were written anonymously, we might not have this discussion as well. If the articles were written by anyone who is not a native ASL user, the articles would be dismissed as junk in no time. But, it all takes a person like Dr. Fernandes to put the entire articles under the intense criticism from the people who do not like her. In the world of logic, this is called circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. This it not as serious as abusive argumentum ad hominem but it means that Dr. Fernandes is at a serious disadvantageous position all because of her association with the past actions. I recognize that you have the freedom to express your opinions and I do enjoy reading your comments. However, I can't continue the arguments if the personality and past actions of Dr. Fernandes continue to be factored in.
Responding to the comment made by JP: I am afraid that you proved my point that the native ASL users have language power. When you stated that the mission statement included ASL because it is a true language, it shows that the ASL users have an additional privilege over the non-ASL users.
I don't think that your argument about the majority deciding the mission statement holds water. Let's say that the majority of the university happens to use PSE. Would the mission statement disregard ASL in favor of PSE? If the demographics of the people at the university change over the time that the ASL users are no longer majority, would the mission statement change to reflect the new majority?
If it is true that Gallaudet University has healthy respect for the different communication modes, it does not show in the requirements for the next president, for example. I don’t see any mention of different communication modes in many web pages of Gallaudet University. It is as if they disappeared off the face of the earth. The diversity that is mentioned in the mission statement is not about the communication modes but about the people of color and probably also the people with different backgrounds.
(Continued in next comment)
(Continued from previous comment)
It is none of my business to determine the destiny of Gallaudet University. If it wants to take the route of ASL as the only visual language for the college students, so be it. I only point out that it goes the way of being more exclusive, as opposed to inclusive.
To the anonymous commenter at 1:15am today: I admit that I had a little chuckle over your comment.
I don't know if I need to elaborate it but here goes. The researchers that I was referring to came from 1980's to 2000's and perhaps earlier than 1980's. They were the ones that informed me of a hierarchy in the Deaf culture and that there exists core members in the culture. Some of them are culturally Deaf. If the anonymous commenter at 7:14am and 7:23am two days ago (August 10th) wishes to disprove these researchers, he or she should try to get a group of scholars to write an article showing why these researchers were wrong all the way about the hierarchy in the Deaf culture.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
To JPR (Tornado/Fire here):
This will be my last comment on this blog.
You said: "We return back to letting the personality of Dr. Fernandes become the source of contention again. I can only imagine that if the articles were written by two well-known native ASL users, we would not have this intense discussion for it is a kind of taboo to criticize them. If the articles were written anonymously, we might not have this discussion as well. If the articles were written by anyone who is not a native ASL user, the articles would be dismissed as junk in no time. But, it all takes a person like Dr. Fernandes to put the entire articles under the intense criticism from the people who do not like her."
There are two extremes that do no good for anybody. One extreme is where you rip the researcher apart based solely on that researcher's personality and past actions, and the other extreme is where you don't consider that researcher's personality and past actions at all. Researcher bias is real. It was real before either Fernandes/Myers were born. They deserve no exemption from a full investigation into their own potential biases and indeed should conduct such an investigation in every paper they write.
Here's an interesting thing: The Mask of Benevolence. Talked about often in this blog and others. Written by Harlan Lane, a hearing man and not really much of a signer, if the last time I saw him present was anything to go by (he spoke and used an interpreter at the time). Makes a powerful case for many of the issues Fernandes/Myers are circumventing, somewhat. Before Fernandes/Myers came on the scene, were the hearing folks over at Alexander Graham Bell thrilled with The Mask of Benevolence? I'm thinking... "not."
One of the Fernandes/Myers articles criticizes another article by Bauman. A hearing man. Keep that in mind. A highly skilled ASL-user if probably not a native one.
Shirley Myers. A hearing woman. Highly skilled ASL-user. Nonetheless most definitely NOT in the same boat as either Lane or Bauman.
Let's say Ben Bahan or MJ had written a paper like this, not in terms of "message" but in terms of "potential to piss off one political camp or another." They would be called ASL extremists. Deaf Culture Militants. This has been going on for years... maybe not to Bahan as much as to MJ, but it most definitely has happened to her. For what reason? Among others, perceptions of her personality, and interpretations of her past actions (though she hasn't climbed up on a stage and interupted any sign-song dancers in over twenty years now, people have long memories). If Fernandes deserves to be left alone, so does MJ. Anybody ready to admit that?
(cont below)
(cont from above...)
My greater point: Who speaks for me? Even if Lane could speak for me with his ideas, so what? Do all hearing people agree with him? I should be so lucky.
How about Bauman? Does he speak for me? How about Ben Bahan or MJ? And remember I said I do recognize a few points Fernandes/Myers have here and there. But I also said they DON'T speak for me, my reasons are in my other comments.
If there isn't anybody who can speak for me who can also get everybody else to listen, what GOOD does it do me to so desparately go seeking somebody who can speak for me? Maybe the better part of my energy should be expended simply in making arguments like I'm making here, and simply telling people they DON'T speak for me (until, of course, I honestly believe they do)? Maybe THAT will do more to counter arrogance and oppression than anything else I could do.
Therefore regardless of what you say, regardless of the fact that you appear to believe that my big problem with Fernandes/Myers has more to do with who they are and what they've done and less to do with the fact that what they're saying is the equivalent of pointing out a burnt porch in the midst of the wreckage left by a massive, town-destroying tornado, that's up to you. Remember--and I mean this with the highest respect--YOU don't speak for me, either.
Maybe there's something to be said for the argument that groups only exist in our minds. To the extent that any of us are "grouped" we cease to be individuals. I'm a white "deaf" non-native user of ASL AND I don't think much of the recent articles written by Fernandes/Myers AND though I have been harassed (and been treated as someone "invisible") by many Deaf people I've also felt that way around hearing people and even other deaf people (really!) AND I don't blame all my problems on any one group AND I don't blame all of my problems on any one individual, AND I hold individuals accountable for what they do.
That's me. I'm a real person. I'm not a statistic or a case study or a protest banner held up by a nineteen year old kid for a day or two in a coflict that stretched out for months in which many other banners saying many other things were held up and ignored by both the Gallaudet propaganda machine and the media at large. I'm not here to provide paychecks for administrators and upper-level professors that range among the hundreds and thousands of dollars. I'm not here to shut my mouth, put my hands down, do what I'm told, and to make life easier for anyone who doesn't want to deal with me. Anyone who can't respect that? If so I'm sorry to say we're headed for a showdown.
Thank you for this pause in the war.
I wouldn't use "language power" in this context because if it is the case what’s another language that ASL competes with? Spoken English? Maybe but that’s it. We can’t say that ASL competes with SEE or other modes of communication because they are not languages. Nevertheless, that’s not how the Board of Trustees look at it. They feel that GU should recognize and respect ASL as a language because it is the only language that Deaf people use in the U.S. ASL is always oppressed everywhere and didn’t get much recognition except GU. GU’s largest stakeholder happens to be ASL users and that’s nothing about power or privilege but to recognize their language. I disagree with you about “privilege” because it does not exist. If you really think it is, then give me an example of how it is used against “non-ASL” users?
About mission statements - it’s very common for organizations to change their mission statements if their external environment changes. Of course, Gallaudet University will change if there’s no Deaf people or ASL is no longer the primary language. A mission statement reflects the purpose of an organization.
Diversity - of course it includes people of color and people with other backgrounds, but we do not exclude those who use other modes of communication from GU’s commitment to diversity. I do believe that GU’s diversity plan includes those who are not ASL users. I may be wrong, but I don’t see why they should be not considered that way.
JPR: No, it is not plausible. It happened. Like JP clearly stated, the mission statement can change to reflect the community and the stakeholders of the University. No "Mission Statement" is permanent.
To answer your two reasonining ...
The first one, I suggest you to engage in a civil discussion with alumni, faculty, staff and students about the mission statement (deaf, Deaf or hearing alike) and I can vouch that they support the mission statement of Gallaudet. Why? Because they already witnessed the frustrations, conflicts and negative issues surrounding the TC philosophy. Don't talk about it here -- ASK *them* in person. Yes, some students succeed under TC philosophy. But MANY failed. It was a cue to change.
As for your #2 ... MJ Bienvenu told me that there are countless of research papers that clearly stated the failures of TC philosophy and its impact upon Deaf people from all walks of life. If you want to dig up the information, contact her.
When I talked about CSDF and MSD, I'm not telling you to compare them with few mainstreaming programs. I'm telling you to compare these schools whom adopted the bilingual education with the ones that remained with the TC philosophy. The result is very *clear*.
As for few mainstreaming programs that succeeds, yes ... if you look at these programs that succeeds, it often comes with Deaf teachers being part of the programs! You really cannot argue that hearing people themselves made a good program for Deaf children.
As for you claiming that "we do not hear about these mainstreaming programs because they do not fit the mold of the Deaf culture" is not remotely true at all.
As a native ASL user, I already knew of Whitney Young HS (Chicago), University HS (Orange County, CA), Rockville HS (Rockville, MD), Lincoln HS (Philadelphia) and Lake Drive HS (Lake Drive, NJ).
These are excellent mainstreaming programs for the Deaf/HH students. How did I know of them? Because Deaf people are part of these programs.
Your repeated claims that we exclude these fellows because they do not fit in our "culture" is rubbish.
Now where were you when MJ Bienvenu, Lynn Jacobowitz, Ben Bahan, Tom Humphries, Carol Padden and others who penned the papers and were sneered, blasted and criticized by these people? You were pretty silent on that.
But when we saw something that is to be flawed with Fernandes & Shultz-Myers and respond them with facts, you were convenient to pop up and defend them at all costs.
What's up with that? When MJ was tarred and trashed savagely by hearing people and hearing apologists, where were you? Answer that.
Additional privilege?! Oh, rubbish! At Gallaudet, there are some students who can speak very well with their voice. And guess what? I consider that as a privilege. So what is your point? Many students do add other modes of communication to their main thing: English *and* ASL. To me, that is akin to smorgasbord!
As for PSE being part of Gallaudet Mission Statement, it will never happen. Why? Because it is not a language. It is just a mode of communication!!
You're correct that it is none of your business to determine the destiny of Gallaudet since you probably never went to Gallaudet as a student, supported Gallaudet in any capacity et al. People like you out there needs to refrain from meddling in affairs that has nothing to do with their lives in the first place!
Oh, yeah, I find it amusing that you knew my full name.
Cheers,
R-
Nice post and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
Post a Comment