Letter to the editor by JK's mother to the Cape Cod Times
March 19, 1988, page 12.
[Headline:] Gallaudet win could backfire
Your editorial of March 16, "Victory for the Deaf" (at Gallaudet University) contains an error: that "... all faculty must be deaf." The faculty has many hearing members, but all are required to use sign language. It is nearly impossible to find deaf educators with the proper degrees in math, English, literature and the sciences.
Most of these professors are required to take a crash course of sorts in sign language in order to obtain the position. While the deaf community is seeking its independence it still must realize that hearing people will always be a necessary part of their lives.
The uprising and the cause of the crisis in my opinion was caused by the "paternalistic" statements made by the board of directors' chairwoman when she said that deaf people aren't ready to live in a hearing world. The fact is, we are tired of people telling us what we can and cannot do.
Dr. Zinser had a proven record as a successful fund-raiser. Given the state of the federal budget cutbacks and the need for new funds at Gallaudet, this rejection could prove to be disastrous for the university.
Advancing the technology of telecommunications for the deaf--and making the costs affordable--will help us to become "mainstreamed." Insisting on a stronger education plan and qualified teachers in the public schools will help to advance the process of independence for the deaf community.
It's hard to understand why the board of directors couldn't see the benefits of a team approach to two capable and qualified people to direct Gallaudet University.
M. KATHLEEN KELLEHER
East Dennis [Massachusetts]
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
There it is in black and white: Jane's mother sees the goal of deaf education as being mainstreaming deaf kids in the public schools. That means, she, Kathleen Kelleher thought/thinks that the residential schools should be closed.
Also, she misread the original editorial, because that editorial did not say that all the professors are deaf. It merely said (erroneously) that one of the protesters' demands was that all the professors must be deaf.
I will post an image of her letter on Gallyprotest.org as soon as I can.
Brian Riley
Editorial by staff writer(s) in the Cape Cod Times, March 16, 1988, p. 10
[Headline:] Victory for the deaf
Because it is a distinguished institution--probably the foremost university in the world for the deaf--Gallaudet University's recent difficulty in seating a new president commanded unusual attention. Out of insensitivity came understanding, and in the end, almost everyone involved in the Gallaudet affair seems to have had a hand in turning trouble into triumph.
The trustees' first choice, Elizabeth Ann Zinser from Haverford College, seemed wholly compatible with Gallaudet's high standards. Yet she had scarcely taken over, and already was earnestly learning sign language, when a student-faculty protest emerged and spread swiftly among the 2,200 enrollment. It is time, after 124 years, the protest declared, that Gallaudet have a deaf president.
Moreover, the demonstrators declared, the board that elected Dr. Zinser must acquire a deaf majority of its 20-plus members instead of the present four. Further, all faculty must be deaf.
So ardent and determined was the uprising that classes had to be suspended for a week. The new president resigned forthwith, saying significantly that she "had come to understand how deeply some see the social stature of deaf persons reflected in the presidency of this university."
The trustees promptly were summoned to action. Only two days after the Zinser withdrawal, Dean I. King Jordan, deaf, head of Gallaudet's School of Arts and Sciences, was the choice. Elation immediately replaced protest.
A more expeditious, satisfactory resolution of a major crisis in a university's leadership would be hard to imagine. Protest was heated and outspoken. There were hard words. Conscientious, devoted trustees, a competent new president [sic], and possibly others who have served Gallaudet well are sacrificed to a principle perceived and driven sharply home by students sensitive to its significance. But it was accomplished without acrimony, dishonor, or defamation.
The principle is that, having become eminent in education of the deaf, Gallaudet must now demonstrate the validity of 124 years of eminence by entrusting its future to deaf leadership. That, of course, also expresses the university's secure faith that deafness does not forbid success, and that deafness of itself must not be permitted to discourage ambition or obstruct opportunity.
[End of editorial]
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
Remember what Jordan told the author of the book "Dancing Without Music" some years before DPN. He reiterated what he had told the Washington Post in 1978, saying: "I am not a member of the deaf community." Also, in the book, the author quotes him as saying that he is not a member of the deaf community, because--as HE (Jordan) said about himself--he is a "deafened hearing person."
So the end result is that Jordan was honest to the author of "Dancing Without Music." He was NOT the right person to accept the position to be Gallaudet's first deaf president, since he was actually a "deafened hearing person." That does not follow the spirit of the DPN protest, and for Jordan to accept the position of President of Gallaudet, knowing exactly what his attitude towards the deaf community was and knowing exactly what type of person the world wanted to take the job, he was committing moral fraud.
See:
http://www.gallyprotest.org/the_world_of_the_deaf_washington_post_article_february_26_1978.pdf
Brian Riley
[Headline:] Gallaudet win could backfire
Your editorial of March 16, "Victory for the Deaf" (at Gallaudet University) contains an error: that "... all faculty must be deaf." The faculty has many hearing members, but all are required to use sign language. It is nearly impossible to find deaf educators with the proper degrees in math, English, literature and the sciences.
Most of these professors are required to take a crash course of sorts in sign language in order to obtain the position. While the deaf community is seeking its independence it still must realize that hearing people will always be a necessary part of their lives.
The uprising and the cause of the crisis in my opinion was caused by the "paternalistic" statements made by the board of directors' chairwoman when she said that deaf people aren't ready to live in a hearing world. The fact is, we are tired of people telling us what we can and cannot do.
Dr. Zinser had a proven record as a successful fund-raiser. Given the state of the federal budget cutbacks and the need for new funds at Gallaudet, this rejection could prove to be disastrous for the university.
Advancing the technology of telecommunications for the deaf--and making the costs affordable--will help us to become "mainstreamed." Insisting on a stronger education plan and qualified teachers in the public schools will help to advance the process of independence for the deaf community.
It's hard to understand why the board of directors couldn't see the benefits of a team approach to two capable and qualified people to direct Gallaudet University.
M. KATHLEEN KELLEHER
East Dennis [Massachusetts]
[NOTE: Two typo corrections were made on letter above: "tellng" changed to "telling" and "disasterous" changed to "disastrous". The above version is now an accurate text version of the letter in the Cape Cod Times. Please make the corrections in your own copies. Thanks. BR]
There it is in black and white: Jane's mother sees the goal of deaf education as being mainstreaming deaf kids in the public schools. That means, she, Kathleen Kelleher thought/thinks that the residential schools should be closed.
Also, she misread the original editorial, because that editorial did not say that all the professors are deaf. It merely said (erroneously) that one of the protesters' demands was that all the professors must be deaf.
I will post an image of her letter on Gallyprotest.org as soon as I can.
Brian Riley
Editorial by staff writer(s) in the Cape Cod Times, March 16, 1988, p. 10
[Headline:] Victory for the deaf
Because it is a distinguished institution--probably the foremost university in the world for the deaf--Gallaudet University's recent difficulty in seating a new president commanded unusual attention. Out of insensitivity came understanding, and in the end, almost everyone involved in the Gallaudet affair seems to have had a hand in turning trouble into triumph.
The trustees' first choice, Elizabeth Ann Zinser from Haverford College, seemed wholly compatible with Gallaudet's high standards. Yet she had scarcely taken over, and already was earnestly learning sign language, when a student-faculty protest emerged and spread swiftly among the 2,200 enrollment. It is time, after 124 years, the protest declared, that Gallaudet have a deaf president.
Moreover, the demonstrators declared, the board that elected Dr. Zinser must acquire a deaf majority of its 20-plus members instead of the present four. Further, all faculty must be deaf.
So ardent and determined was the uprising that classes had to be suspended for a week. The new president resigned forthwith, saying significantly that she "had come to understand how deeply some see the social stature of deaf persons reflected in the presidency of this university."
The trustees promptly were summoned to action. Only two days after the Zinser withdrawal, Dean I. King Jordan, deaf, head of Gallaudet's School of Arts and Sciences, was the choice. Elation immediately replaced protest.
A more expeditious, satisfactory resolution of a major crisis in a university's leadership would be hard to imagine. Protest was heated and outspoken. There were hard words. Conscientious, devoted trustees, a competent new president [sic], and possibly others who have served Gallaudet well are sacrificed to a principle perceived and driven sharply home by students sensitive to its significance. But it was accomplished without acrimony, dishonor, or defamation.
The principle is that, having become eminent in education of the deaf, Gallaudet must now demonstrate the validity of 124 years of eminence by entrusting its future to deaf leadership. That, of course, also expresses the university's secure faith that deafness does not forbid success, and that deafness of itself must not be permitted to discourage ambition or obstruct opportunity.
[End of editorial]
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
Remember what Jordan told the author of the book "Dancing Without Music" some years before DPN. He reiterated what he had told the Washington Post in 1978, saying: "I am not a member of the deaf community." Also, in the book, the author quotes him as saying that he is not a member of the deaf community, because--as HE (Jordan) said about himself--he is a "deafened hearing person."
So the end result is that Jordan was honest to the author of "Dancing Without Music." He was NOT the right person to accept the position to be Gallaudet's first deaf president, since he was actually a "deafened hearing person." That does not follow the spirit of the DPN protest, and for Jordan to accept the position of President of Gallaudet, knowing exactly what his attitude towards the deaf community was and knowing exactly what type of person the world wanted to take the job, he was committing moral fraud.
See:
http://www.gallyprotest.org/the_world_of_the_deaf_washington_post_article_february_26_1978.pdf
Brian Riley
posted by Gallaudet Protest Legal Issues | Wednesday, August 02, 2006
2 Comments:
If you're going to consistently criticize the people of the current-soon-to-be-past administration, at least be accurate about it.
The word "mainstream" does not only refer to being mainstreamed in school. That is only ONE narrow definition of the word. It can ALSO be used to refer to the "mainstream" of LIFE. Meaning, for example, that deaf people have the right to be able to apply for jobs at any workplace, including places not specifically geared at the deaf community (e.g., restaurants, banks, a hearing university, Walt Disney, whereever), just as long as they're qualified for those jobs. And deaf people have the right to go to the same movie theaters, restaurants, social clubs, libraries, hospitals, etc etc. as hearing people--and have the right to the appropriate accommodations to enable them to access these places on the same basis as hearing people. Deaf people have the right to be in the "mainstream" of SOCIETY, period, to whatever degree they wish for as long as they wish, until they return (if that is their choice) to a more Deaf-centric environment.
THAT is what the author meant by the word "mainstream" in this letter. And, personally, I consider this a positive use of the word "mainstream." I did use to work in a very Deaf environment, but at the moment I work in a very "hearing" environment--and, although I do very much wish there were more Deaf people around, I also wouldn't want to give up the right to work at the place where I am. When most deaf people see a movie in a theater (whether with open captions or rear window captions), they're going to a "hearing" owned theater with mostly hearing patrons--that's "mainstream" too, whether you like it or not. When you order a pizza on campus, that pizza is probably made by hearing people--that's "mainstream" too. Sure, it would be great if there were more Deaf-owned pizza places. But even if we had some Deaf-owned pizza stores, you still wouldn't want to be excluded from the right to order pizza from a hearing pizza place, would you? If your answer is "no" then you do support being mainstreamed--in LIFE and SOCIETY, not necessarily in school.
Some of Brian Riley's criticisms of the Gally administration have been accurate. But some seems to be based on misinterpretations and misunderstandings, like this one. And other criticisms just don't seem to allow for diversity in background and experiences and natural variations in things like signing ability.
For example, referring to the recent letter that went out on the gally protest list: Has it really never occurred to you that maybe the reason IKJ doesn't use real ASL is simply because it genuinely IS very hard to acquire a new language in adulthood? Not everyone has a natural appitude for language. I once met a hearing immigrant from Latin America, for example, who has lived in the United States for more than 20 or 30 years and still just cannot learn English. Yes, he has tried hard. As someone living in an English speaking country, he obviously has high motivation. But he just doesn't have the appitude. It's the exact same thing for some people who come to ASL late in life. My Mom is another example: she is a very smart woman who is excellent in math, but she freely admits she is not so good with learning languages. When she was in high school, she got perfect A's in everything EXCEPT gym class and French--she just can't seem to absorb foreign languages easily. She signs fluidly enough that most deaf people can understand her, but still in very English word order--and probably never really had a chance of learning correct ASL just because of the way her brain is wired.
Some people are natural language learners and can learn a new language no matter how old they are. But others are not so lucky--and that's why we see people like IKJ and JK who continue to sign in a very "English" style. It's not neccessarily always a sign of "disrespect" or "refusal" to learn.
One of the reasons why I ended up supporting the protests (and wrote a letter asking the BOT to remove Fernandes) is because I have very much disliked some of IKJ's and FK's behavior with the media, particularly pushing the "deaf card." But the more I read from Brian Riley, the more I lose respect for protesters. It seems to me that the protesters could try to take the "high road" here and earn people's respect by avoiding all this polarizing, black and white "evilization' (okay, coining my own word here) of the supposed "enemy". Character assassination is never appealing behavior. And, no, just because "they did it first" doesn't make it any more appealing. And just because "they deserve it" and "they really ARE this bad" doesn't make it appealing either. If the "other side" is participating in polarizing character assassination (I didn't like JK's use of the word "terrorists" either, for example) then the best response is usually to rise ABOVE their behavior by NOT using the same tactics back at them. Then people will admire your high class and be more drawn to your case.
Things are more "gray" and more complex than either the protesters or the IKJ administration seems prepared to admit at this point. I don't see how the community can move forward until more people are willing to acknowledge this fact.
Can't we stay focused on the ISSUES, and not character assassination, please?
>THAT is what the author meant by the word "mainstream" in this letter.
How do you know exactly what the author meant? Are YOU Kathleen Kelleher?
Post a Comment
<< Home