Three weeks ago, I attended the Washington Post Bloggers’ Summit, along with fellow DeafDC.com bloggers David Stuckless and Oscar Ocuto. The three-hour meeting was punctuated with a nice food spread that included your garden variety selection of vegetables, cubed cheeses, chicken satays, and huge chocolate-dipped strawberries that seemed to have been injected with steroids.

The summit was an opportunity for Post executives to discuss and explore ways to collaborate, and possibly generate revenues for local bloggers. That was nice, now on to the real juicy stuff. A presentation was given by Jonathan Hart, an attorney with the Online News Association, about the possible legal ramifications of blogging.

If you think that the First Amendment gives you carte blanche to blog about anything, think again. About a year ago, a local political activist, David Millum, wrote libelous statements about a lawyer on his blog. That lawyer, Rafe Banks III, sued and the end result was a $50,000 judgment against the blogger. This was the first time a U.S. jury had found a blogger guilty of libel.

What about those sometimes colorful comments left on the blogs by third parties? The color must be green for Sue Scheff, because she won a $11.3 million defamation lawsuit against a woman who posted negative comments about her on a website that she maintained. Scheff herself is aware that the award is an unusually large amount, but she wanted to drive home the point that people should not criticize other people unfairly on the Internet. “I’m sure (Bock) doesn’t have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear,” Scheff said. “People are using the Internet to destroy people they don’t like, and you can’t do that.”

Banks and his attorney sought far more than the $50,000 awarded in damages. The suggested range was $400,000 to $2 million in punitive damages, and Banks surmised that he wasn’t awarded that amount because he was a public figure. Are public figures held to a higher standard regarding burden of proof? The answer is yes, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation FAQ page:

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a “reasonable person” would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show “actual malice” — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

In order to win cases like these, public figures must show “actual malice.” However, private citizens do not have that burden of proof, so that may be the reason why Scheff was able to obtain a higher monetary judgment.

Hart warned against scenarios outlined above. One of the bloggers at the summit asked about publishing information that may not be factual but most people are saying the same thing anyway on the Internet. “Having a lot of other people saying the same thing may get you co-defendants,” Hart retorted.

One lawsuit has even included a separate blog as a defendant because the blog linked to the story which gave it a “wide audience”. In any case, the court was troubled by the addition of the separate blogger to the case simply because the person had mentioned them. Yes, this is the Washingtonienne lawsuit that is now famous among DC area bloggers.

Back to the $50,000 verdict. That amount is chump change for traditional media companies. But for a blogger with a very slim wallet, it’s a huge pile of money. Hart strongly recommended that bloggers get liability insurance so they won’t lose their homes in a lawsuit. However, most bloggers who write out of the comfort of their homes operate under the mistaken assumption that their homeowner’s insurance would cover the risk of libel lawsuits. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, explained that a lot of insurance companies are rewriting policies to explicitly exclude losses related to blogging. He said:

Put simply, free speech isn’t free. Publishers (and you are all publishers) without the financial/legal resources to defend themselves are going to eventually find themselves unable to continue publishing. Whether you realize it or not you need to have liability insurance coverage. The future of blogging/citizen journalism depends on a workable liability insurance product.

But in an article published 13 years ago, Mike Godwin said:

So, I’m going to stick my neck out and make a prediction: in spite of the fierce invective, strong feelings, and often-defamatory statements one tends to see in net.arguments, I predict that libel lawsuits will never be a significant factor when it comes to heated online discussions. It’s far easier to hit the “reply” key.

These days, we are living in a more litigious society so Godwin’s statement may no longer be true. All of this information has been an eye-opener, and I hope that it won’t be a wallet-opener for me. After all, money talks, and mine says, “Bye!”

If you would like more information about blogger’s rights, and the different case precedents, visit the Electronic Frontier foundation at www.eff.org, the Online Association at www.journalists.org, Media Law Resource Center at www.medialaw.org, and Chilling Effects Clearinghouse at www.chillingeffects.org.

Every time someone opens their mouth, I can’t help but look away in embarrassment. They really think they’re the next star, the next American Idol. The it girl, the it guy. The one that’s meant to be a bigger star than anybody else.

Normally I don’t even watch American Idol, but there’s really nothing else on. I’m shocked that these people can be so bad and they think they’re good singers. Well, maybe I shouldn’t be shocked, after all, they just want their 15 minutes of fame. Doesn’t everyone?

I also wonder how long these people wait in line, just to get those few moments with Simon, Randy, and Paula. It has to be days, seeing thousands of people lined up for their chance to go to Hollywood. All for that one moment when the judges say, I don’t think so.

But, it’s the floor.

Sorry, I’m just a little nervous (Isn’t everyone?).

Wait, that wasn’t right, let me start again.

I swear I can sing. I just need you to train me.

Yes, I am the next American Idol, and you just don’t see it.

You guys don’t know what you’re talking about…you can’t even get away from the pop music of it all.

*ahem*

This show has brought some amazing country, pop, R&B, rock artists. Carrie Underwood is huge in the country world, Kelly Clarkson has been rocking it out for the past five seasons, Jennifer Hudson won two awards for her role as Effie in Dreamgirls and has been nominated for an Oscar (but it might be a curse), Chris Daughtry has broken out his own band, and is now rockin’ it out on the VH1 charts, singing, it’s not over, and Clay Aiken is somehow still famous. So when they say the show hasn’t produced a range of artists, check these artists out. They’ve got staying power, whether or not they’ve won the American Idol title.

And they think Simon’s the mean one. Ha, in more ways than one, I think Paula’s the mean one. Just based on the fact that she’s so freakin’ nice about it. She is almost always the one who starts laughing whenever someone starts singing. Simon’s the mean one? He’s just being honest. Paula and Randy just like making him look like the bad guy. People, if they say you suck, just leave it alone and walk away with some of your dignity intact. And when Simon says something about your appearance or that you might look like a jungle creature, it may be mean, but don’t say you didn’t think that too!

I’m tone deaf, but I can still tell when someone cannot sing to save his/her own life! I look away from the screen in awe of the fact that they’ve just spent five minutes saying how they’re the next American Idol and that they’re going to be a star, all they need is that once chance (don’t we all?). Then the second and I mean the second, they start singing, I cringe. “Oh my god, they cannot sing!” Who in their right mind would encourage them? Your friends are cruel. Your family is mean! You’ve just embarrassed yourself in front of millions of people.

Yet, it’s all the rage. Everyone can’t help but watch who’s gonna embarrass themselves on American Idol and I definitely can’t help it either.

It’s like a bad accident, you can’t look away.

Will the Colt’s Peyton Manning get the monkey off his back and lead his team to victory? Will the Bear’s Rex Grossman get a 0.0 or 100.0 passer rating and endure year-long criticism or enjoy a trip to Disneyworld? Amid the excitement about the Super Bowl this weekend, deaf and hard of hearing people were on the losing end of a new NFL initiative to allow the public to select this year’s Super Bowl advertisement for the NFL.

Of course, for most of the American public, the advertisements are a bigger draw than the game itself. We’ve heard many in the deaf and hard of hearing community complain for years about the lack of captioning of million-dollar per half-a-minute Super Bowl advertisements. Now the NFL joins in on this despicable neglect.

The NFL showed video clips of 12 pitches for a new NFL Super Bowl ad (#5 won the competition). The vote is now closed; however, none of the videos, which are still on the website, are captioned despite a pitch made by Vanessa (#12) focusing on a deaf boy. A hearing friend provided a description of what Vanessa said:

The last one (#12) is by Vanessa. She describes a child (Timmy) sitting in front of a TV in the family room watching the NFL network with closed captions and tossing a football from hand-to-hand. The family is getting ready to go to the Super Bowl. Mom taps the child on the shoulder and says, “Timmy let’s go,” and motions for him to come.

Next shot is inside the Super Bowl stadium and the teams rush out onto the field. The crowd goes wild, except for the little boy who sits quietly. The camera pans the crowd full of jumping, screaming fans, but, from the little boy’s point of view, there is no sound. The camera focuses on the child. Timmy closes his eyes and puts his hands on the bleachers.

We see the vibrations through his shaking hands. Timmy feels the crowd (ostensibly from the noise/commotion being made by the crowd). He smiles.

Then you see deaf former NFL player Kenny Walker and Tennessee Titan’s head coach Jeff Fisher. They use sign language (the woman signed “feel game”) as we read, “Feel the game.”

Not only does the NFL turn away 30 million deaf and hard of hearing Americans by not captioning its web videos, they are exploiting the emotional (and perhaps marketing) impact of the same group of people that they deny access to. In this case, they are featuring a deaf boy and former deaf NFL player who wouldn’t be able to understand the video if it was shown to them.

The NFL is guilty for more than not captioning their web videos. I watched an NFL Network show in December where NFL Films honcho, Steve Sabol, interviewed Denver Broncos wide receiver, Rod Smith, about his long and illustrious career. Unfortunately it was not captioned. During the NFC and AFC championship games I saw an advertisement for the NFL Network that was also not captioned. There is a clear lack of effort by the NFL to caption its web videos, shows, and advertisements.

Send an email to the NFL at http://www.nfl.com/help/emailtech and ask them to caption all 12 ad pitches on their website and to caption the ad that they will show during the SuperBowl (which is web video #5 and we have no idea what it is about).

Several months ago I wrote a Blog about the Washington Post’s failure to provide captioning for its online audio-only radio interviews. One commenter responded along the lines of: “What are you doing about it?”

The expected response is to send an email or letter to the offending person or company. Writing a Blog about the situation was perceived as simply complaining without taking action. That may not be the case anymore.

This morning’s Washington Post Business article titled, “Tracking Who’s Saying What About Whom: New Media Strategies’ ‘Online Analysts’ Scour the Web for Mentions of Opinion-Sensitive Clients” casts new light on the power of Blogs. Corporations are now hiring media agencies to scour the Internet, especially Blogs, for opinions and comments about their company. Some clients mentioned in the article are Coca-Cola, Burger King, AT&T, Dodge, and Ford. This list will probably grow as more companies realize the value of tapping into what one person in the article calls “the world’s largest focus group”.

Let’s compare the impact of an email/letter and a Blog entry.

An email/letter may arrive at some automated inbox/mailbox that could be rarely checked, if ever. In the case of Noelle’s complaint to Netflix, a customer service representative could respond that the issue “has been forwarded to the appropriate department”, will be “taken into consideration”, or “may be offered in the future”. Those of us who have sent emails complaining about the lack of communication access have received similar responses. The overall attitude from the company is, “we hear you, but it’s not a priority right now.”

On the other hand, a Blog reaches a wider audience, so the story could be picked up by other Bloggers or even media outlets. This could fuel the outrage about the lack of access provided by a corporation. In addition, a Blog stays on the Internet, rather than being discarded or ignored like an email or letter. Writing a Blog is tantamont to throwing a stone into a lake, the ripple effects of the action causes waves that reverberate throughout. The Blog can be picked up on search engines by like-minded people who experience the same aggravation.

Relentless criticism on a company’s decision from multiple Blogs and comments, like Netflix’s decision to leave out captioning in the development of their new online movie service, may have a better chance to create positive changes than a barage of emails/letters. Companies are more concerned about their public image than a handful of complaints. It’s time to exploit this opportunity and make our issues a priority for companies worried about their public image.

While Blogging is one method of effective advocacy, sending an email/letter to the company, contacting decision-makers and persuading them about the importance of communication access, notifying your elected representatives or even lawsuits (as a last resort) are still options that an advocate should have in their arsenal.

So next time someone asks, “What are you doing about it?”

You can safely say, “I Blogged about it.”

DeafDC is thrilled to announce its newest addition, Ben Moore, to the Blogger lineup. Ben, a professional student hailing from Seabrook, MD, is set to retire this May. He daydreams about Floridian sunrises, early bird dinners, shuffleboard games, and teeth-free women.

We were first introduced to Ben’s opinions in Julie Hochgesang’s Blog, “Everybody Has a Microphone“. Here’s an excerpt from her Blog:

Ben replies, ‘Everyone has a microphone. That’s the problem with this protest. With today’s technology, everyone can blog about whatever they want. People who remain anonymous post comments to those blogs. The media thrusts a microphone at the first person they see. Emails are forwarded again and again without thought as to who wrote it and why.’ He has a point. In the past, protests were led by a select few. Those who knew what they were fighting for and knew how to talk about it. They were the voice of their protests. They gave everybody else a reason for fighting.

Shortly afterwards Ben submitted a Guest Blog, “Play by rules, you lose”, where he explained that the most effective protests are those that engage in, “actions that directly throw a wrench into the machinery of status quo.” A week later, Ben’s popular Blog, “Crash,” argued that Dr. Jane Fernandes should not only be measured by her credentials, but rather, by her actions as provost and president-designate. “Crash” was quoted by Susan Kinzie in the Washington Post.

We look forward to more insightful and entertaining Blogs from Ben, please welcome him aboard!

I’ve been carrying around this thought with me for the past few weeks. It’s a pretty interesting thought. A bit scary though when I peek a look. It’s a bit intense. It’s a bit confusing. This thought, it whispers boldly, “maybe it wouldn’t be so bad after all if Gallaudet closed.”

When I first thought it, I blanched with fear and looked quickly over my shoulder. As if maybe people could read my thoughts. It’s a bad one! Really, Julie, how could you even think it?! Gallaudet is the hallowed hall of the Deaf community! It is at the heart of so many Deaf traditions! Home to so many! Through all this rhetoric I kept telling myself in the weak attempt to mask the bold thought, it remained, “maybe it wouldn’t be so bad after all if Gallaudet closed.”

No amount of denying it would make it go away. So, I’ve been humoring it and tossing it around a bit, letting it out now and then. Everyone’s hearing about the bad name Gallaudet has out in the world now because of the “violent” protest during which a few “extremists” took the university “hostage”. People are wondering what’ll happen if Gallaudet loses its accreditation. Gallaudet has so much to fix. Is it really up for the job? Some people are talking about transferring to other universities, about finding new jobs, about going somewhere else.

I ventured an attempt at voicing the thought to a friend, someone outspoken during the protest but also someone I knew to be level-headed and open to fair discussion. “Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad after all if Gallaudet closed.”

“No!” He stared at me, his mouth open in shock. “Gallaudet’s the heart of the Deaf community. Close? What?”

“Maybe it’s time to start anew. Maybe we should just go somewhere else and move on,” I started to reason with him.

“Oh, so that’s your answer to the problem? Just cut off a damaged part of the body and forget about it?” He retorted.

I shut up and pulled away my thought. It didn’t go away but it retreated for awhile, allowing me to try to think it over. Gallaudet… it’s clearly an important institution for the American (and even the international) Deaf community. It’s the one place where Deaf people can go and be at home. My friend’s right, how dare I be so callous and even dare suggest abandoning it? I’m a bad Deaf person. Or so that’s what I was convinced of until I heard a professor talk in class today… he tells the class, “Gallaudet is built on the assumption that Deaf people cannot function on their own, that they need to depend on hearing people to survive in the mainstream.”

That clinched it for me. There are two parts to Gallaudet. There’s the administration, which assumes that Deaf people are helpless because they got access to language late in life and as a result couldn’t succeed in school (and who’s to say that the American deaf system is qualified to teach deaf kids anyway?) and arrived to an university practically illiterate with little to contribute to society. One could argue that Gallaudet thrives on maintaining this, that the whole system is built to pander to these students. It’s why Gallaudet has English classes that would be a joke at another university. It’s why some of the staff who have been working there for over twenty years can still barely sign. It’s why Gallaudet isn’t turning out the best research it could if it truly supported its departments and faculty.

But there’s another part, the part we heard during the protest, the part made up of people who understand that there are several things wrong with the system and tried to fight for “social justice.” They believe in ASL, in the Deaf community, in all those things. These people, be them students, alumni, staff or faculty, make up the true part of Gallaudet. It seems to me that these people are more mobile than the first part, the administration, which seems to have control of Gallaudet, the physical Gallaudet. They won’t get their heads out of their offices and look at what’s really going on at Gallaudet. What would happen if the true part of Gallaudet picked up and moved elsewhere? They could go somewhere else and start all over again, or they could break up and scatter across the country and start a new page in American Deaf history. Is the American Deaf community ready for that? Could Gallaudet really close without seriously damaging the American Deaf university scene and the larger Deaf community. Are we hurting ourselves more by clinging so tightly on an institution that may not be really appropriate for our current needs?

I don’t really know. I’m still holding onto the thought. I’m still adding more body to it. But now I’m articulating it to you, an admittedly larger audience than I would usually dare, because maybe we should think about the question of what would happen if Gallaudet closed. I’m a graduate student, working to get my master’s and hopefully my PhD. I like my professors. I like my classmates. I like working there. There’s nowhere else I would get the same opportunity. I’d be really sad if Gallaudet closed, which may happen if it doesn’t respond accordingly to current pressures. But it may happen. Shouldn’t we talk about it?

As of this past Saturday, January 20, it’s exactly two years until the next President of the United States will be inaugurated. Right now, it’s less than two years and counting. For the average American (and this might include you), this is rather meaningless; after all, we just *had* an election, one that changed the composition of the political landscape. Most people aren’t going to care a whole lot until sometime in 2008.

But for political junkies (and that includes me), the 2008 season is already here– and actually, even for me, it’s here way too soon. It’s only barely a few weeks into 2007, and we’ve already got potential slates of contenders on both sides. For the donkeys, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Tom Vilsack have either thrown their hat into the ring or announced their intent to consider doing so. Add in Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, and Al Sharpton, and you’ve got quite an ensemble.

Considering it’s the first time in ages we haven’t had an incumbent or an heir apparent in the guise of a vice-president running, the elephants are stampeding toward the ring as well. On that side of the aisle, we’ve got Sam Brownback, James Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson all saying they can picture themselves in the winner’s circle come November 2008. Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, and George Pataki are also flirting with the prospect of pre-dawn stakeouts at factories in New Hampshire and evening coffee klatches in rural Iowa.

I’ve long been a political animal, and here in the blogosphere, there’s plenty of company for anyone who is so inclined. But one thing that I’ve wondered about is the lack of political interest and activism at Gallaudet. Looking back at my college days, there weren’t that many of us who actively followed politics. Oh, sure, there were people here and there, but compared with the average college campus, Gallaudet was as apolitical a place as you could find. I’m wondering why that is– why are we generally politically apathetic? This isn’t to say Gallaudet is wholly unique– college-age folks these days are quiet compared with their parents and elders from the 1960s and 1970s.

But I’ve noticed it’s also the case among people long out of college as well– my circle of politically involved friends has expanded a lot since my college days, but the average deaf person I encounter views politics and political activism with the same interest one would accord an anthill– a certain amount of respect mixed with a healthy avoidance.

Even among the political diehards, I have noticed a tendency to sit on the sidelines– we’ll rant and rave, critique the news, make predictions about what might happen or what will happen, but for the most part, we don’t do anything more. I wonder if it’s a general tendency that the average person has, or if it’s something more specific to the deaf community?

As far as the 2008 race goes, I’m not sure who I’m supporting at this point, and I certainly am not sure who I want the final nominees for the two major parties to be. But I do know of at least two rabid supporters of Hillary in Deafdom– and I wonder if they’d be willing to follow up their words with action?

This is the time, really, for anyone interested in Presidential politics to get in on the ground floor. What I wonder is, has there been a visible presence of deaf campaign workers in any campaign before? Should there be? We’ve recently come through a protest, which is a political event if ever there is one. Could we take the knowledge and expertise beyond the (sometimes) provincial concerns and issues in our community, and expand our power and influence into the general political sphere? Can a deaf campaign worker raise the consciousness of political bigwigs and thus shape policy on deaf issues and disability politics in general? Do you see the deaf community as an untapped political constituency?

Put simply, should we remain on the sidelines, or is there a place for us at the table? What do you think?

Every morning, I slowly wake up by drinking bad office coffee spiked with a snowy cascade of sugar and reading the New York Times. I’m not sure what really wakes me up, the cheap acidic coffee or what I read.

This morning, I read Dr. Jordan’s op-ed piece in the Post for the second time in two days, groused a bit and then I moved on to the more interesting articles in the Times. As I read about the Chinese baby shortage and a documentary called “Crazy Love,” on a woman who married a guy who was responsible for her being blinded by lye, I kept thinking about the op-ed article in the Post.

My initial reaction was bemusement about the timing of this article and Dr. Jordan’s rationale for dredging up what should have been bygones. Now, I’m still thinking and I am frustrated because we have a powerful advocate determined to see Rome, oops, Gallaudet burn (and unfortunately, there are some people who are making it easy for him).

This op-ed exploits the fear that is an inherent reaction to a traditionally disfranchised community that has asserted its power. This op-ed, intentionally or unintentionally, reinforces the idea of deaf people as the “other.” That is damaging but at the same time, some introspection is in order.

I don’t agree with what Dr. Jordan wrote and question his motives for writing this but there is some validity to his argument. By making this statement, I am in no way endorsing this op-ed but beliefs don’t just come out of nowhere. They are shaped by experiences and situations. For example, according to some of my peers, there is an audist lurking behind every bush, waiting to jump out and oppress me. The glib use of the word “audist” undermines the legitimacy of the movement. Immediately finding everything and everyone who doesn’t spout the Deaf Power Party rhetoric suspect makes it harder to move forward. If I see the shadow of an audist behind every tree, how will I recognize the real thing when he leans out to pinch me on the butt?

It is our responsibility as committed and thoughtful citizens of this world to examine this polarity and the reasons for its existence. That is what this op-ed failed to do. The onus is on us to do this now, in the interests of moving forward.

Instead of being reactionary and worrying about the size of the audiology department relative to the size of the deaf studies department or trying to scare Jill Q. Public by invoking the specter of “absolutists,” we need to understand the protests, place them into context and remember that history has a way of repeating itself. We just need to take a look at post-colonial regimes in Africa that exploit their lands and citizens in brutal ways comparable to or worse than the Europeans.

This op-ed saddens me because instead of trying to understand the protests as a disfranchised group’s bid to gain a measure of power, dignity and redemption, Dr. Jordan used a polarized paradigm to try to shame his opponents for refusing to conform to his vision of what Gallaudet should be. People in power are convinced that their policies, beliefs and way of doing things are the right way and this is how they rationalize forcing them upon a resistant group. It’s for your own good.

It is our job to critically examine why the protests took place. Where does the resistance come from? Was there a failure to get buy-in for this vision? Is this vision really at all different than the reality of what Gallaudet already is? What abuses of power (real or imagined) contributed to the pressures that built up inside the volcano that exploded on the hapless President-Designate, Dr. Fernandes? What external forces are at play in shaping this movement? Above all, we must be mindful that the “other” has its own other too. We are the other, and they are us.

Protests don’t just happen in a vacuum. Absolutist is another word for extremist, and be cautioned…it goes both ways. Here’s looking at ya, kiddo.

President Emeritus I. King Jordan’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post has sparked a multitude of comments from all directions.

In the op-ed, Jordan states that he is wary the future of Gallaudet is not so bright anymore. In citing the exit report from the Middle States Association this month, Jordan warns that any more divisive action from the University community may result in Gallaudet losing its accrediation. Nowhere in the op-ed does Jordan mention that the current administrators at Gallaudet, especially Interim Provost Dr. Michael Moore who was chosen by Dr. Jordan last fall, have been working hard on preparing a report that is due to the MSA by March first.

And, nowhere in the op-ed does Dr. Jordan identify by name the current Interim President, Dr. Robert Davila. Instead, Dr. Jordan says “…Gallaudet has had an interim president.” Dr. Jordan does not express confidence in Dr. Davila’s leadership and the fact that he was one of the vice presidents of the Rochester Institute of Technology and an assistant secretary in the Department of Education in the early 1990s.

There have been argumentative comments on DeafDC.com and elsewhere, either in support or in disagreement of the Board’s decision to terminate Dr. Jane Fernandes’ contract. Dr. Jordan again used the “deaf card.” While it is my personal opinion (after post-protest discussion with my friends and colleagues) that the “not deaf enough” argument was a factor in the protest (due to claims by protesters that she did not embrace Deaf culture, did not sign ASL fluently, and in essence, the issue of deaf identity was raised); Dr. Jordan had no right to bring up these statements. Especially this:

Frankly, what is happening at Gallaudet is a struggle between defining the deaf community in narrow, exclusive terms or in broad, inclusive terms. There is a very small but vocal group of deaf people who define the community narrowly. I call this group the “absolutists.” They believe you are either deaf or you are not. You are either a supporter of ASL or you are not deaf. You either refuse to consider cochlear implants or you are not deaf. Many of our students, faculty and alumni who consider themselves deaf (including some born deaf to deaf families) would not be considered deaf by the absolutists.

Gallaudet has always been inclusive. But, yet, Gallaudet has always recognized and supported the traditional elite. This is a dialogue that Gallaudet needs to begin, and perhaps, during the protest, did begin. Maybe that is what Dr. Jordan is referring to. He is still wrong. People who joined the protest came from all walks of life. Over four thousand people marched to the Capitol on one bright Saturday morning last October. That group again consisted of people of different races, genders, communication modes, and levels of deafness.

If these people are absolutists, and what they marched for is a narrow definition of deafness, then their composition would imply that they are lying to themselves and supporting an ideal to which they themselves can never aspire.

After Dr. Jordan’s failed attempt to reconcile the community at Tent City on May 2, 2006, he has become increasingly hostile towards the people who embodied the intent behind the protest: creating an inclusive community at Gallaudet. What really disappointed me was the lame duck period in between the termination of Dr. Fernandes’ contract and the resignation of Dr. Jordan on December 31. Dr. Jordan made no attempt to reconcile the community and engage in coalition-building. The day after Dr. Fernandes’ termination, Dr. Jordan issued this statement:

Now we must all come together for the sake of Gallaudet, particularly for the sake of Gallaudet’s students–those who are our students now and those who will be students in the future.

Instead, by remaining largely silent except for statements of criticism or warning like the one he issued today, Dr. Jordan chose to shoot down the very institution he served for thirty-six years.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Dell, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, et. al, move over. I’m not talking about THAT kind of P.C. Personally, the Macintosh is the apple of my eye that I love to take a bite out of.

There’s a strange dance craze going on right now. It’s more prevalent than the Electric Slide, Mashed Potatoes, and the Macarena. This dance requires moves such as tip-toe’ing, walking on eggshells, and using neutral euphemisms to the best of one’s ability. I’m speaking about the Politically Correctness movement. But like any dance, a few missteps can mess up the concept and the flow of the P.C. dance.

Case in point: A customer at a coffee shop in Glasglow ordered a black coffee. The staff there refused to service him until he changed his order to “coffee without milk,” because they considered “black coffee” a racist phrase. According to the Global Language Monitor, they have received “reports of the word ‘black’ becoming emotionally charged and politically correct or incorrect depending upon one’s point of view.”

What the–? This is P.C. abuse at its finest (or worst, depending on YOUR view). Lest we forget, black is a COLOR…actually, it’s the ABSENCE of color. But if people want to start becoming snippy about “black coffee,” I can think of other phrasings we should reconsider. Blackmail, black market, black sheep, blacklist, black magic, blackhearted…the list goes on.

Most terminology beginning with the word “black” has been largely considered in a negative fashion. The one phrase that can come remotely close to racism in any shape, way, or form would be “blackball.” African Americans have experienced exclusion and ostracization from the general (white) society, and it still goes on today…even this minute.

Let’s take this P.C. dance to another level! How about defecate? That should be considered an audist term. After all, the sound of the word “deaf” is in the first syllable, and it may imply that all deaf people are bunch of s***. Oh wait…here’s another similar-sounding word: deficit. Let’s label that one audistic, because not all deaf people are living beyond their means.

I think that some measures of P.C. are good, such as job interviews, equal opportunities, etc. But when the real issues start to be whitewashed beyond recognizance, then P.C. isn’t going to be a good bandaid for society’s ills. But please, do not take the definition of a word so literally!

Now, having said all that, I would DEFinitely take my black coffee to go, and please be niggardly with the cream.