Susan Chevallier has kindly provided DeafDC with a picture of her original painting to be analyzed and discussed by our audience. Her thoughts on this painting will be posted next week on this Blog entry.

Susan Chevallier graduated from Gallaudet University (’63) attended Gallaudet University for two semesters in 1963.

Update:

Susan Chevallier’s thoughts on her painting:

Susan Chevallier says that her painting is the combination of abstract and realism. “Chevalier,” means horseman or knight. Susan was upset when she read rude deaf V/Blogs that made derogatory comments about Dr. Jane Fernandes (JKF). She felt that the protesters made JKF a scapegoat for Gallaudet’s problems so she tried to defend JKF in other deaf Blogs but some of her comments were deleted. Undeterred, Susan painted her opinion because “a picture can defeat a thousand words”. She also wanted to restore JKF’s dignity and show deaf children that JKF is not a villain.

The green face with the shattered female symbol on his head signifies a rude sexist who mocked JKF body. When JKF talked about how she mingled with deaf people as Miss Deaf Iowa many years ago, a deaf Blog mocked her body via illustrated cartoons portraying a chubby woman in a bathing suit and a cap. The face at bottom without ear is a totally deaf person with helmet engaging in an act of senseless barbarism against JKF.

The horse signifies JKF’s supporter breaking a rope held by the protesters who tried to use the word audism as a tool against JKF. Gallaudet’s beloved Bison jumps from the clock tower shocked by the senseless atrocities by the protesters. JKF signing, “Gallaudet,” signifies her love for the school even after she was terminated. The signs “Sign Combines English” describes how important English (grammar) is to deaf education yet ASL is a wonderful way to express one’s feelings through entertainment, drama, etc.

Susan Chevallier is a totally deaf woman who can sign ASL fluently, can speak, and has three deaf siblings. She went to the Louisiana State School for the Deaf, and has been interested in art since she was little under the guidance of Betty Taylor, who is deaf. At Gallaudet she saw some students’ artwork which inspired her to become an artist. Then she met Dr. Kelly Stevens, a deaf oil painter, who taught her painting rules. Susan loves to paint with charcoal and oil pastels, India Ink, watercolor, and oil, but oil is her favorite.

In my recent Blog, “FSSA Threatens Gallaudet Board” a commenter, accused me of being audist and not culturally or mentally deaf. It began with an inquiry responding to his criticism that the Blog hurt the efforts of those fighting against audism, by asking how that was so. The commenter took the time to explain his accusation and linked to his article on audism.

While reading his response, I was immediately reminded of Wafa Sultan’s response to Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli during a disagreement on the comparison of Western and Eastern civilizations in which Al-Khouli accused Sultan of being a heretic:

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people’s beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

Sultan’s message is that one person’s beliefs are not superior to another person’s. Simply because she is a Muslim, she is not bound to the beliefs of Islamic Fundamentalists. Likewise, simply because I am a deaf person, I am not obligated to fall in line with the opinions and attitudes of a group who may abhor any symptom of hearing society in a deaf individual. Just as those people can have their beliefs, I can have mine.

With that established, lets investigate the use of “audism” and the potential dangers associated with its misuse and abuse. The Gallaudet protests have revived the use of the word, audism, along with the new concept of “deafhood” but I will focus on the former in this Blog.

Audism is a genuine phenomenon that has unfortunately been liberally bandied about to ostracize anyone who does not conform to a set of beliefs and practices or who may disagree with a group’s beliefs. According to the commenter and his referenced website, we learn that audism applies to parents who do not know sign language, deaf people who do not know how to sign, proponents of oralism or members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, every single audiologist and speech teacher, the act of clumping deaf people with other people with disabilities, those who value their hearing and speech, deaf people who wear their hearing aids or cochlear implants, and more. In other words, audists are “evil and vile”. No doubt these arbitrary thoughts are fueled by anger towards a predominantly hearing environment and society where communication barriers are rampant in every part of a deaf person’s life.

Putting aside the rhetoric of light versus darkness, let’s examine the problems inherent in this definition. First, in Wikipedia, audism is appropriately defined:

Audism is a term used to describe discrimination or stereotypes against deaf or hard of hearing people, for example by assuming that the cultural ways of hearing people are preferable or superior to those of deaf or signing culture, or that deaf people are somehow less capable than hearing people.

It is important to recognize that no specific mode of communication or choice of assistive technology is included in this definition, and for a good reason. If an oral deaf person with little hearing loss assumes that they are superior over another oral deaf person with profound hearing loss, that is audism. If a deaf person who uses a cochlear implant gets up on stage to help lead the Gallaudet protest in fluent American Sign Language, that is not audism. If a deaf person who does not use sign language patronizes a deaf person who uses sign language, that is audism. If a deaf woman who can sign, decides to use her voice when making an order at Pizza Hut, that is not audism.

Lately, audism has also been used to describe people who questioned, criticized or were against the Gallaudet protests. Some who supported the protests found themselves doubting the decisions of the protest leaders and other actions associated with the movement. Does this make them audists? No. Yet in the minds of many protest supporters, simply labeling those who were not “with them” as audists may have been a sufficient defense to ward off persistent inquiries into the protest leadership and decisions.

Audism has also been used to describe those who may not be a part of or considered a part of Deaf Culture. For example, the commenter explains:

This whole fight is about audism and about non-culturally Deaf people learning to accept their culture & language.

Unfortunately this statement is a philosophy rather than a category of discrimination. A deaf person who goes about their lives without interacting with another deaf person or sign language is not an audist. Perhaps they may or may not exhibit audist attitudes, but simply because they refuse to learn sign language and become a part of Deaf Culture is not in itself an act of audism. In fact, forcing the person to learn sign language and become a part of deaf culture could be a form of oppression.

As we learned from the Deafhood workshops and presentations, the deaf vs. deaf battle only continues to hurt the deaf community. The deaf community suffers every time the word “audism” is used inappropriately. If the intention is to help people embrace their deaf identity, then hostility and casting the conflict as a good versus evil clash will turn away likely converts than attract them. It could also add to the stigma of Deaf Culture as an exclusive, insular entity that wishes to close itself off from the rest of the world.

Before we get carried away with criticism of the commenter’s ideas, let’s understand, and more importantly, accept, that there are really people who hold these beliefs, no doubt steeled by hard and difficult experiences being a deaf person in a hearing society. These painful aggravations, many which we all have had at one point or another can drive some to extreme reactions. As a result, the word “audism” is an outlet for them to express their frustrations and a means to justify their actions. Yet just as we must educate hearing and deaf people about the negative consequences of audism, we need to educate each other on the actual definition and appropriate use of the word. We should endeavor to make this label a positive catalyst and inspiration for constructive change.

Note: We will not tolerate personal attacks on the commenter. Please keep the discussion limited to ideas and concepts.

Not everyone has the holiday spirit this year. Granted, it’s hard to really grasp the true meaning of Christmas when you’re constantly assaulted with countless display of “must-have” items, or the latest bargain sale. If you don’t have such-a-such, your Christmas (or whatever holiday you celebrate) will be incomplete!

Nowhere for me is this more evident than a homemade sign scribbled with black marker posted on the back of someone’s car on the highway:

“Contact XXX-XXX-XXXX to get the latest TMX Elmo. Don’t break your little ones’ hearts on Christmas day by not having this toy!

Ummm…ok. I did feel a twinge of guilt… I had better come up with some crazy dollars before the little ones check into the heartbreak hotel. So is this what Christmas is resorted to? Where’s the goodwill among fellow men (and women)? It sure isn’t at the parking lots on the last day of shopping before Christmas. I can see why a lot of people aren’t crazy about this time of year.

But recently, I came across another sobering reason why some people just aren’t in the mood to celebrate. What if someone you loved recently died? Maybe this year, two years ago, or even 20 years ago…but the grief and the sense of loss is still prevalent? When the holiday spirit is constantly shoved down your throat like a bitter pill, where can you go or who can you turn to? There are services out there called Blue Christmas Services.

So like I said, Christmas isn’t all red and green. It can be very blue without the loved ones around. Instead of counting your worth by how many presents you received, how about cherishing the time with the folks that you love and those that love you back? You can always replace items, but not people. The next time I see a sign that says don’t break your little ones’ hearts by not getting this toy, I will remember that my little ones are happy anyway because I’m around.

By Allen Neece

A few months ago, freshly hobbled by a blown Achilles’ tendon and relegated to virtual house arrest/recuperation, I was perusing DeafDC.com when I came across a reference to the “Society of ASL Guardians”. Intrigued, I clicked the link to the web site of the ASL Guardians and within minutes I was promptly horrified. This is what I saw:

The Society has spiritual, educational, lexicongraphic, and lingustic components. We recognize that ASL, like all other true sign languages, is a God-given gift to Deaf people, and is the cherished inheritance of the Deaf community. (italics mine)

My question: What, may I ask, does organized religion have anything to do with American Sign Language? Is ASL Christian in and of itself? Do Matthew S. Moore and the so-called “Society of ASL Guardians” have the right (or temerity, as I see it) to perpetuate the claim that ASL is/was a gift from God?

Moore also wrote, “George W. Veditz, who called sign language ‘the noblest gift God has given to deaf people.’” While I certainly respect Veditz’s opinion, I couldn’t disagree more. Sign language came about as a result of rational human thought and discourse. Whether it was a deaf person or a hearing person who invented sign language is immaterial. As we all know, sign language was literally the first modality of communication used by early human beings millennia ago; spoken and written language inevitably developed as a result of human evolution throughout the rise of civilization. For someone to allege that sign language/ASL appeared as a “divine gift” is not only absurd but insulting as well. This position simply negates all the positive contributions deaf people have made towards their own language over the years.

Again, I ask, what does organized religion have to do with ASL? I never went to Bible school nor am I a practicing Christian. Heck, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m a flaming atheist. But having said that, I do know enough of the Bible and Christianity to know that ASL doesn’t have squat to do with organized religion.

As a bilingual deaf person proudly fluent in both English and ASL, not only am I deeply disturbed by Moore’s contention, I’m also frightened by the specter of these so-called “Guardians” (vigilantes?) taking it upon themselves to formulate some sort of process in which they’ll assume responsibility for ascertaining and defining what is ASL and what isn’t. Huh? Whoa, wait, where’s the fire? Last I checked, those sickly yellow SEE books are pretty much non-existent. ASL is now like the third or fourth most commonly used language here in the States. To be succinct: ASL is tres chic, yo. ASL in trouble? Oh, please.

In the Guardians web site, terms like “High Council”, “Round Table Alliance”, and “Order of ASL Guardians” abound. If I didn’t know better, I’d think I was reading an excerpt from the Fellowship of the Ring or a description of the Jedi Council. While I recognize what appears to be an ostensible effort on Moore’s part to do something constructive to “preserve, protect, and elucidate American Sign Language“, I firmly disagree that ASL is under siege from whatever malignant dark forces lurking out there beyond the keep and furthermore, I strongly object to any sort of linkage between religion and ASL. Moore’s entitled to his opinion as to the current status of ASL, whether it’s endangered or not, but I, for one, will not allow this assumption to go unchallenged.

Please don’t tell me I’m the only one who feels this way.

Allen Neece was born deaf in Washington, DC to a hearing family and grew up mainstreamed across the river in Arlington, VA. He holds a B.A. in English and an M.A. in Deaf Education from CSUN. He has had a slew of jobs over the years: five summers of life guarding, forest fire fighter in Idaho, fish packer in Alaska, caption writer for the Caption Center, touring member of the National Theatre of the Deaf, among others. He currently teaches English to deaf secondary students in Los Angeles (Echo Park in the house, y’all!). He still nurses a lifelong passion for punk rock, hip-hop, politics, and adventures in the great outdoors. He has only four tattoos.

Sophie Vouzelaud, a deaf woman, was a competitor for the Miss France title as Miss Limousin. As we can see from this video, her interpreter made numerous blunders (thanks to Jared Evans for bringing this to the attention of the deaf Blogsphere). The winner of Miss France goes on to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. This will undoubtedly have everyone remembering Heather Whitestone, a former Miss America. I do not remember if she used an interpreter during her competition.

As shown in this video, Sophie needed to repeat herself more than three times during the interview. When she realized that the interpreter was not able to translate what she was signing, she began speaking for herself. This resulted in a round of applause as if she “performed” for an audience. One deaf person reacts to the outcome of the pageant in LSF.

Providing an interpreter was prudent. I have seen many deaf people, fluent and confident in their ASL, dragged down by interpreters. In a competition like this, the interpreter is integral to conveying the contestant’s confidence, intelligence and poise which are factors considered when the judges score each contestant.

I’m not certain, but it seems that Sophie was one of the two finalists. If she scored lower because of the poor performance of her interpreter, then tant pis!

The recent protests at Gallaudet have opened up a Pandora’s box of emotions and attitudes about what it means to be deaf in America. Comments left on this blogsite have generally veered towards disgust and dismay at the protesters, and often commenters did not understand (or agree with) the reasons why the protest was happening. While I’m not here to repeat the whole story, it’s time to look back at what we have learned. We need to see what went right, what went wrong, and, ultimately, what we can learn from it.

As the days turn into weeks, and weeks into months since the Board of Trustees terminated Dr. Fernandes’ contract, I have seen a multitude of explanations from people on all sides. One thing everyone seems to agree on: this has changed what it means to be deaf.

Where we differ in is our views and attitudes. For one, I call myself Deaf. I have a cochlear implant. I teach at a residential school for the deaf. I am a member of the National Association for the Deaf. My wife and daughter are deaf. My daughter uses cued language at school and ASL at home. I am part of the Deaf community. And, no one can tell me differently. If you do, then you are risking creating a schism in the Deaf community.

One thing I’ve learned from the protests is that there are deaf individuals who think the only way if you identify yourself as “D”eaf is to shun all forms of assistive listening devices, and all forms of communication not called “American Sign Language.” Is it fair to call them radicals? Or even fair to label Deaf people who protest Deaf militants? (Check out Joseph Rainmound’s vlog.)

As MJ Bienvenu said fifteen years ago: “…it is time to recognize and respect us as full citizens, not as some non-human entity called ‘deafness.’” I must add that we must accept that there are different kinds of deaf people with different approaches, different perspectives, and different attitudes today.

This opposition to hearing ideologies probably can be traced back to one significant event: the Milan Conference of 1880, a gathering of educators of the deaf, where a single recommendation sent shock-waves through the deaf education community: a recommendation to strongly support speaking and listening at the expense of using signed language in instructing deaf children. Even though up to that point using signed languages as the primary mode of instruction had proved effective in residential schools across the United States, this led to a rise in the use of speech as the mode of communication in deaf education.

During the protests, the word “Deafhood” emerged as the triumphant force in pushing for change in the Deaf community. On page 270 in Paddy Ladd’s book, he defines Deafhood: “Deafhood is not a state, but an ongoing process containing different readings of what it might consist.” In other words, Ladd was explaining that Deafhood does not consist of one entity, but several.

Deaf scholars such as Carol Padden, Top Humphries, Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan have identified prerequisites for admission into this community – fluency in ASL, “attitudinal deafness” or self-identification.

Ladd goes on in his Deafhood book to explain the need for collectivism. There is no need for deaf individuals to create a single deaf identity to represent all but rather, a collective identification of who we are, both as individuals and in groups.

Ernest Hairston and Linwood Smith, in their book, Black and Deaf in America, stated that deaf people of color identify themselves by race first, then deafness. Has a Deaf and gay identity been developed? A Deaf and Hispanic identity? I know they exist, but they have not been academically proven to my knowledge. A Deaf identity that represents these people as well is needed.

Again and again, what we are seeing here is not wrong. It is not a crime. Nor is it an example of audism. It is an effort by people who have varying degrees of hearing loss to open dialogue on what it means to be deaf in America.

That is why our understanding of identity politics was one of the main influences of the Gallaudet protests. Our changing identity. MJ Bienvenu said “I am not saying we should forget that there are other groups of people with hearing losses. They have organizations such as SHHH, Alexander Graham Bell Association, [that] are clear about which group they serve.” Bienvenu goes on to clarify that the National Association for the Deaf and institutions for the deaf (Gallaudet and NTID, for example) send confusing messages to the public about what being deaf means. “This fosters in-group fighting among D/deaf people that ultimately hurts everyone.”

This is what happened. This is what IS happening. If we remain silent, we risk missing an opportunity to avoid compartmentalization of identities.

Information from this blog was aided by Allison Kaftan’s unpublished manuscript “From Box-Ear to Deafhood and Beyond: Constructing Theory,” December, 2006.