The other day, I picked up a great local newspaper called the Washington City Paper and started reading an article called “The Office” that focuses on DC Public School Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s efforts to revive, improve, and reform the DC public school system (DCPS).
As I read it, I found myself drawing many parallels between what the DC public schools are going through and what Gallaudet is experiencing. From the administrivia issues at the DCPS Central Office to Gallaudet’s College Hall, upset teachers at high schools to upset professors in HMB, you name it — there was something for everyone.
I worked at Gallaudet from August 2006 to June 2007, and I will be drawing on some of my experiences working there.
(Italicized quotes are from the City article.)
“…the central office has become a metaphor for all that has gone wrong with the D.C. Public Schools—all the stalled reform plans, all the forgotten, expensive consultant studies, all the revolving-door superintendents…”
When I worked at Gallaudet, I saw a lot of plans that had been put in motion over the years, forming a palimpsest of plans on top of plans that ultimately choked all possible innovation. Many of these plans were excellent ones, with excellent intentions.
Consultants had also been involved at many points, with expensive contributions, and their time and expenses were not used to their fullest potential. For example, a consultant was called during the King Jordan administration that reviewed the necessity for centralized communication and made excellent recommendations that were not followed.
The high turnover of the end of the King Jordan and duration of the Davila administration has been seen for everyone. Many good people have left Gallaudet, to search for greener pastures elsewhere. And somewhat ominously, the good people that remain are also looking.
Sometimes you can only extract so much thankless work out of people for so long before they leave, no matter how good things get.
“At the DCPS central office, people have not been held accountable for their work, and I am determined to change this. People who do not do their jobs well should not be working for a school system.”
I can say that accountability is something that is improving at Gallaudet, however, during my time there accountability could be expressed in one phrase: pass the buck. Whenever something happened, nobody stepped up and said, “This is my fault, I’ll take care of it!”
No, it was always “It was that department’s fault. It was that OTHER department’s fault.”
I also got the runaround: endless loops of “Not my responsibility.”
Nobody took full responsibility to ensure that the client, be it the student, faculty, or staff person, was fully satisfied or served. President Davila has taken great strides to improve this, but there is still a long way to go before uncompromising excellence is a byword of the campus.
One tenet that I’ve learned in my corporate travels is that you must treat your employees the same way you treat your customers; specifically, you must treat them both excellently. For if you treat your employees badly, eventually, you will also treat your customers badly. Therefore, there must be a culture in which the most junior staff member feels valued and supported 100%.
“If you’re a teacher, anytime something goes wrong with a paycheck—and things will go wrong with your paycheck—don’t even bother with a phone call.”
I hear stories from student and teacher friends at Gallaudet. They are full of anecdotes of the “Gallaudet Way.”
A friend never got loan money until mid-semester, thereby making it extremely difficult to pay for books, which caused serious delays in her studies. This happened every year.
Another friend applied for a job a few months ago, and Gallaudet reported to the background check of the employer that he was never a student, even though he plainly was and was in possession of a Gallaudet degree. This person had been previously celebrated in Gallaudet publications. How ironic.
Each of us have our stories of Gallaudet inefficiency, screwups, or other kinds of things that we say, “Oh, that’s Gallaudet!” I don’t point them out maliciously here, but as a way of illustrating how much we’ve come to accept that there is a Gallaudet way of doing things, and that it’s far from fast, efficient, and in the best interest of students, faculty, and staff.
“The fix? Henderson says the plan is to move all of the DCPS records to a system called PeopleSoft, which is what the rest of the D.C. government uses”
Gallaudet does already use PeopleSoft, but yet there are a whopping 10+ forms on paper to fill out when you become a new employee at Gallaudet. Yes, this is an artifact of the fact that Gallaudet is a Federal facility, and has Federal health insurance, life insurance, and retirement plans.
In comparison, when I got a job at my current company, I had one form to fill out — the W2 form. All the rest was automatically handled for me, and I just had to log into one centralized website for health care elections, Metro transit deductions, 401k allocations, etc.
In the time I spent at Gallaudet, I noticed that they do have a smooth running but extremely expensive implementation of PeopleSoft that is underutilized. The PeopleSoft system that they had could do much more, if it was given the attention and support from all sectors of the campus.
“Today, Ackerman’s on the faculty at Columbia University, and she speaks surprisingly fondly of her time at DCPS. “D.C. was the hardest district I ever encountered. It was also the most rewarding, because I found incredible people doing things with incredibly limited resources.” She talks about the central-office workers who spent nights in their offices in sleeping bags.”
While I worked at Gallaudet, I met many people who were trying their utmost to make Gallaudet a better place. But like the City paper continues to say, “A broken system will make brilliant people look incompetent.”
This is exactly the problem that Gallaudet faces, and like the DC Public Schools Michelle Rhee, President Robert Davila’s path is clear — keep moving forward and making improvements. Infrastructure, systems, and centralization are hard and unsexy problems to work on. But above all, each and every employee and customer should be treated with the utmost appreciation and respect.
Things to Try
- Think about the experience from a representative staff, faculty and student member. Twice a year, go through the paces. Request transcripts, request a name change, ask about common personnel, accounting, and administration questions. Track how long it takes to complete these tasks. Improve them
- Once a quarter, send a “undercover” person to eat at the eateries on campus, buy from the bookstore, use the health facilities, ask for help from the tech folks, track customer experience, etc.
- Learn more about the Office of Assessment and how they are assessing and collecting metrics about the Gallaudet experience.
- You a student, staff, or faculty member? Tell the administration about things that have always bothered you.
Source for quotes:
The Office, Washington City Paper (a must-read)
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
50 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bobby:
Fantastic and well-written article! I liked the analogy between DC public school system and Gallaudet.
And I agree: test, test, and test again the system you’re trying to improve.
It reminds me of the old proverb, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
I second Vikki’s comment! Excellent article and it needed to be said.
“Welcome to Gallaudet” is a common derisive statement whenever a problem is encountered (don’t forget to do the eye roll while saying it).
Centralized communication is a major, major problem at Gallaudet and I feel that when this is resolved, a lot of other problems will resolve itself as a result.
It’s interesting you bring up the consultant issue. A consulting firm was brought in about 3 or 4 years ago to review (and I’m paraphrasing badly here) the “effectiveness” of Gallaudet’s academics. This firm found that Gallaudet was focusing far too much on the undergraduate program and not enough on the graduate program. They recommended that Gallaudet needed to focus on the graduate program because the graduate program is not only the moneymaker, but also listed in the Top 25 of US News & World Report for a few years running.
So… my point? There’s a whole lot of untapped potential at Gallaudet and very little of it is being taken advantage of.
If you skipped past reading the Washington City Paper article, please DO read it. It’s a brilliant article and Bobby has really hit the nail on the head in comparing Gallaudet’s administrative challenges with DCPS’.
Washington City Paper: The Office.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the dearth or responses as yet. Bobby’s article was simultaneously incisive and interesting. I’m guessing that there will be more of a response once the Thanksgiving hols are done.
A dysfunctional system, by the way, will always continue until the people involved get a stake in the change. Change cannot be unilaterally imposed on from above, it has to be both top down and bottom up. This is true for the D.C. public school system as well as Gallaudet University.
Bobby, did you send all of your recommendations to that survey that is currently being done about the Gally Prez search process? I know your recommendations don’t touch the subject of Gally Prez search process, but I figure it can’t hurt to get some “upper-level” eyes looking at your recommendations.
No, but great idea!
Bobby, you were there less than a year. It is easy to point fingers of blame after you leave. While you were there, you had the potential to makes change from within PR. Did you? No. You were just part of the problem. Another buck passer who wouldn’t take responsibility.
I hate to feed trolls, but I’ll bite. I am amused at your own finger pointing, eleanor.
I don’t think I was singling out anybody other than the institutional culture or system. Like the article says at the end, a broken system makes brilliant people look incompetent. And I met many brilliant people who were doing wonderful jobs in their domains, but their efforts did not spread far beyond their offices due to the system.
So yes, even people who are trying to help look like, as you said, “part of the problem.”
While I worked there, I had my own share of concerns, problems, successes, and disappointments. I learned a lot from the experience. I don’t know if you work at Gallaudet, eleanor, but silence will not fix a problem.
Bobby:
Are you willing to share the circumstances of your departure from Gallaudet with us? Knowing will certainly help us put your comments into a context of understanding.
My comments above stand on their own.
Somehow, I don’t think that someone who was there for one year has the responsibility of repairing a dysfunctional system that was there before he started and there after he departed.
As opposed to people who have been working here for eight years, or fifteen, twenty-five, thirty-five, etc? I’m not saying Bobby’s more or less responsible for things than anyone else. Just pointing out that “the length of time a person worked at Gallaudet” might not be the best indicator for deciding how responsible that person is.
No, it’s not just the length of time, but, in Bobby’s case, it is de minimis. One year is just barely enough time to learn the procedures and the functions of your job. I think you can safely give Bobby a pass on the dysfunctional system at Gallaudet, Chris.
You, on the other hand, are a faculty member and have been there longer than he has so I’m not surprised at the defensiveness visible in your comments.
Hahaha! Do you notice that everyone seems to have a criticism for every category? If you don’t stand up and try to change things, you’re part of the apathy and lethargy. If you DO stand up to try and change things, you’re a radical or at the very least a professional agitator. If you’ve only worked there for a year, you aren’t qualified to criticize the place, because you didn’t put enough effort into trying to change the system from within. If you worked there for a longer period of time, you still aren’t qualified to criticize the place, because you’ve been there for so long trying to change the system from within, you obviously must be a part of the problem, because how much has that system actually changed?
Ah well. For what it’s worth I agree with you about Bobby’s case (minimal length of time, etc).
As to the rest of it, pardon me now while I go prepare the next year’s worth of opinions that I’m going to boldly share during the next year’s worth of meetings, in hope of repairing the all of the dysfunctionality. That’s quite a job, you know… delicately wording each of them so as to avoid being placed in any of the polar opposite categories listed above (which isn’t to imply, of course, that any of those categories might be dysfunctional in and of themselves).
(Oh, also, I don’t mean any of this defensively or sarcastically or offensively in any size, shape, or form whatsoever, because that would be dysfunctional.)
(I also don’t mean to imply through my reassurance above that it might also be dysfunctional to be reassuring someone who just criticized me.)
(I also don’t mean to imply that one’s taking offense, no matter how slight, to an anonymous internet criticism is “functional”–or even dysfunctional, if you happen to think it is indeed dysfunctional for a person to do this and are enraged by my refusal to acknoweldge this dysfunctionality…)
PS, are you beginning to see now why “changing the system from within” takes a long, long, LONG time?
Please share with us your efforts to change Gallaudet from within. What did you do over your time at Gallaudet to foster change?
Hey Mimi, did you ever see the movie War Games? That 1983 flick about the computer that took over America’s missile defense system, thinking it just a game?
If not, go watch it and pay particular attention to Joshua’s final insight about playing Global Thermonuclear War.
Consider that insight my reason for refusing to answer your question.
The answer seems to be this: “The only winning move is not to play.” I am not sure how it can be applied to the discussion on hand because silence can mean different things.
Anyway…
The full script but without names of characters can be found at http://www.script-o-rama.com/m.....cript.html
Some memorable quotes with characters identified can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/quotes
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Sure it does, especially when on the one hand you have a person using his real name and on the other hand you have an anonymous commenter who can simply fire away and criticize and harass with impunity. If Mimi wants an answer, these are my conditions: I want this person’s real, full, verifiable name, I want to know whether or not this person has ever worked at Gallaudet and for how long, and I want him to list all the things HE has done over the course of his career to improve things at the university (note: I’m using “he” in the universal sense… for all I know Mimi could be a white woman in her fifties).
When I have those things, I will answer whatever questions I see fit. If Mimi isn’t comfortable providing that information, Mimi is going to have to learn to live with my silence and respect it, just as I’m going to have to learn to live with Mimi’s anonymity.
And ironically enough, if Mimi responds to these entirely respectful conditions with hostility and attacks, that answers your question regarding why the only winning move is not to play.
This seems to be the issue about the rules of discourse, rather than the content of the discussion. I am not going into this for now.
On a separate topic, there is an error in my previous comment (#92405). The script at the web address that I provided is not complete. The script covers only the last portion of the movie.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Chris — hilarious.
Another Anonymous Dude:
Accusing Chris of being defensive is an excellent way to shut him up, eh?
Like he said, he can’t win no matter what he says or does.
Let him say what he wants to say…he’s got good stuff to contribute, and you’d do well to back him up instead of making him feel that he has to cover all bases all the time, so to speak.
And you, dear Michele, need to practice what you just preached or squawked… because you have made people here feel they have to cover all bases all the time, lest they are accused of not supporting the Deaf cause!
Aside from Michelle’s scolding tone, I think she has a good point. My snarkiness over Chris’ position at Gallaudet is not and was not intended to discourage him from posting. I frequently enjoy his articles even though I disagree with them on occasion.
And, yes, Chris, I understand that you are extremely busy with all the academic meetings, gradings, and classes you have to give. But the question is — do you understand that you’re a prisoner of a dysfunctional system?
Whether change (or reform) can be done internally as you maintain is a question that only time will tell. One thing that discourages me from any optimism on that score is that Gallaudet seems to place a high premium into hiring people that are retreads on one level or another, and, thus, have a stake in maintaining the system albeit giving lip service to “change”. At this point, Davila’s the only one that I have faith in in terms of change and change can’t be done by only one person.
Retreads? Or Firestone tires?
All I can tell you is that Davila isn’t driving the SUV.
Anonymous (not the first two):
This is a new one to me. I’ve MADE people feel they have to cover bases??? Please. That has NEVER happened in deafdc.com…usually when I say something in here, I get jumped on, because the majority of posters here are clearly HOH, oral deaf, and late deafened. There are very *few* culturally Deaf people like me posting here. So where do you get the idea that I’ve caused people to cover their bases? Sounds like you’re trying to divert attention where it doesn’t belong.
Random Stranger: where do you get the “scolding tone”?? This is a serious question, by the way, because I don’t see it at all. I was just speaking plainly the way I always do. Mind showing me how I “scolded” you when I was simply objecting to how people immediately assume that Chris was being defensive (when he clearly wasn’t).
Random Stranger:
I agree that much in Deaf Ed, including the system at Gallaudet, is dysfunctional. And I’ll even go so far as to agree that in past moments of depression and negativity I felt “trapped” in it. But honestly, that changed for me after the protest. I think I forgot who I was for a while there, in those pre-protest days, and that was my biggest problem. But during the protest (and after it) a lot of anger and hate was released. And believe it or not, THAT’S what shook me awake and made me remember that I’ve seen and survived a hell of a lot worse than anything “Gallaudet” has to generated thus far. Once I remembered that I was okay again.
I put “Gallaudet” in quotation marks above because I want to make the point here that I’m being sarcastic when I say that–I don’t really believe it’s Gallaudet generating the hostility we saw before, during, and after the protest. One thing in Bobby’s article above really rings true for me… This part:
“…the central office has become a metaphor for all that has gone wrong with the D.C. Public Schools—all the stalled reform plans, all the forgotten, expensive consultant studies, all the revolving-door superintendents…”
Gallaudet has become a similar kind of metaphor for deaf people, and I think it’s high time we start realizing what a bullshit deal that is, not just for ourselves (because in a way if we buy into this metaphor we’re really lying to ourselves) but also for the institution. It isn’t *Gallaudet* that’s going out there and scaring the hell out of hearing parents or not giving them all of the info and causing them not to learn to sign, which is one very big part of the reason so many of us grow up feeling so deprived and left out. And it’s not *Gallaudet* that’s ignoring our interpreting needs on the job or not hiring us in the first place or creating that glass ceiling so many of us can’t break through. Maybe Gallaudet has its own part in some of these things, but the bulk of them are to be found out there in the rest of the world. And what’s more, they’ve ALWAYS been out there in the rest of the world.
But who’s taking the fight THERE? Not that many people. And why not? Because the rest of the world is too big, it’s too overwhelming, we’re too outnumbered, it’s too frightening, too hopeless. Thus Gallaudet gets the crap kicked out of it almost daily, simply because its our *metaphor.* And also because it’s a much smaller target than the rest of the world!
You tell me how that’s fair. You can’t because it’s not. Cowardice is what it is. I’m not saying Gallaudet is perfect. And I agree that one person can’t do the job alone. On the other hand, yes you DO have to do that job alone. At least until you can get enough people working with you to start up some sort of group effort. Because if it doesn’t start with you then why should it start with anyone else?
That’s why I’m still at Gallaudet. I don’t know what other reasons there might be, but trust me friend, being “trapped” is not one of them.
I’m there because I want to do what I CAN.
I wonder how many other Gallaudet employees feel the same way?
Let’s not forget that the majority of Deaf Ed is run by *hearing people*, and that generally, Deaf people have very little say in that arena.
It may not be fair to pick on Gallaudet, but I don’t think it’s just cowardice. I think it’s easier to act out (or talk about or raise) issues there because that’s where Deaf people are.
It’s no accident that action is generated whenever Deaf people get together: i.e., NAD conferences or at Gallaudet.
In Deaf Ed, not only are you fighting the hearing people, you’re also fighting the state, which is hell a lot harder.
That’s what state associations of the Deaf are for, Michele. People need to get off their rears. Yes, we’re outnumbered. Yes, we’re broke compared to the opponents.
So what?
If we fight hard enough and long enough, we can do it. I do think it’s a bit cowardly that people are going around saying, ‘Oh, but there’s not enough people. Only at Gallaudet.’
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
And that quote is true. I’ve seen it happen on a personal basis. By no means am I saying it’s easy. But it can be done, if people have the will to make it happen. People will be pissed off at you, but consider the source. People who are honest and who have a solid understanding of the law and what is right will come around and support you.
Keep telling the shameful facts until someone listens and does something. But don’t shoot yourself in the foot by attacking individuals. Attack the system itself. Much less collateral damage and hard feelings in the end.
I’m not sure where you are coming from by bringing up state associations, Deaf Pundit.
I wasn’t attacking anyone. I was simply stating a fact that there are a lot of unnecessary barriers thrown in our way and it gets tiresome to have to deal with them constantly.
State associations can be a great tool in removing some of these barriers, but not always. It all depends on the quality/commitment of its officers and members.
You wrote: In Deaf Ed, not only are you fighting the hearing people, you’re also fighting the state, which is hell a lot harder.
That’s where my comment of state associations came from. And you’re right. It depends on the quality and commitment of its officers and members.
Ah! Okay, the “state” is a system…and “hearing people” sometimes functions like a system in certain cases (like in Deaf Ed).
There are no “individuals” in both cases…I was criticizing the system in both cases when it comes to Deaf Ed. At no time did I name an individual in either system.
Yeah. It can be both a state and a system. But often the state dept of Ed. is the system. So you do have to work with the state to overcome things.
The individuals I was referring to wasn’t directed to you … it was from Chris’ comment about targeting certain individuals within the system.
DP, don’t get me wrong here, I understand what you’re saying. But I don’t see HOW you can attack “the system” without taking the fight to specific individuals within the system. As soon as you write a letter protesting something or demanding a change, you’re “targeting” as soon as you address the envelope. Targeting and attacking are not the same thing. Attacking can certainly FOLLOW targeting, but it doesn’t have to. Simply by seeking out the person who can help you, you’re targeting.
All I’m saying here and elsewhere is that you’ll waste an enormous amount of energy going after an abstraction. For example, in this article Bobby is talking about “Gallaudet University.” Well, I’M a part of Gallaudet University. Will it do you any good to come to me if you have a problem with how we spend our money on outreach? No, because I have no say in that, just as the secretary who runs the front desk at “The Alexander Graham Bell Assocation for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing” has no say in whether or not they’ll agree to more actively promote ASL as an option for deaf children. It’d be utterly useless to approach the vast majority of all of the employees at A.G. Bell or Gallaudet or at the ______ State Education Department. If they can’t–by virtue of their job description–actually DO whatever it is you want them to do, why bother with them? Unless it’s a question of gaining allies within that system? Eventually you’ll have to go to the person who can do whatever it is you’re asking of him (though he may very well refuse, but that’s another topic).
And that’s “targeting.”
If I’m wrong here, someone’ll have to explain, but please make sure we don’t end up talking about the same exact thing while calling it two different names. Remember I’m not talking about “attacking” here in this specific post. I’m talking about targeting only.
Eleanor,
While you are entitled to your opinion, I can not say I agree with your approach. I do not believe Bobby was “pointing the finger” but pointing out some issues that are going on. I have been here for three semesters, and I am ready to get the hell out of here. The tendency is, if you do not conform, you will most likely not survive. Some voices are never heard even though they are announced with great volume.
I want to comment on Chris’ recent post, and a little to Michelle. My feeling during and after the protest was that hearing people are not wanted or “needed” at the New Gallaudet, and that we had better get the hell out of Dodge. This made me angry and sad, having devoted my professional career to the success of Deaf people, but I’m over it.
I’m more worried about the future of Gallaudet. What hearing parent would want to send their kid to a place that does not appreciate hearing people? I wouldn’t. I would want my deaf son or daughter to be part of deaf culture, but also appreciate my hearing world. I wouldn’t want my kid to learn hostility to hearing people, and me, at Gallaudet.
As Chris pointed out, the folks at Gallaudet are not to blame for all the ills of deaf people in this world, and that includes the hearing people here. We are not the enemy, but have been treated as such.
As I said, I’ve dealt with this. But what about the hearing parents of future students? This is of deep concern to me.
P.S. I have been working at Gallaudet since 1981 and been involved in a lot of changes, primarily supporting diversity and GLBT acceptance, both in and out of the classroom.
Thanks for contributing your perspective. It’s my perspective that hearing vs deaf issues (power, audism, etc) is a greater problem on Gallaudet’s campus than some other social ills that get a lot of lip service.
I lost count of the number of things that pissed me off during my FIRST WEEK there, and most were related to hearing and deaf issues. Part of this is my own expectation that I would be a fully respected and valued member of the community and given equal access to my environment. This was not true by any means, and it was easily remediable by strong policies and clear directives from “above.”
So, after a few months at Gallaudet, I started to develop a visceral response to ANY hearing person that I met. I found this fascinating, and studied that within myself. I think that this is a VASTLY underrated issue at Gallaudet, and if it can happen to me, someone who’s already aware of the issue and took pains to self-introspect, it’s happened to many other deaf and hard of hearing faculty, staff, and students at Gallaudet.
It’s not that hearing people are bad, far from it. Or the boogeymen. I think among the deaf and hard of hearing faculty and staff, there is a great untapped reservoir of anger, resentment, and outrage. This reservoir came about from the many small incidents that happen during the day that make them feel smaller or forcibly remind them that they are deaf.
I’ll finish this lengthy comment with one example from my own experience at Gallaudet: I had a meeting with a hearing senior person and went to their door. It was locked, so I went back to my office. Later, I was reprimanded for not knocking. Think about it.
Jane, you’re right. A blanket condemnation of hearing people isn’t desirable.
However, when a cultural group (i.e., Deaf culture) is working on trying to establish its identity, its rights, etc, the group may go overboard in terms of seeing their oppressors as “all bad” for a while until its cultural identity is firmly established AND respected by the larger society.
A good comparision would be to look at the African American cultural group…they were the same way about whites for a very long time (and in some cases, are still like this now).
I am sure if you were to work at Howard University, the black students would look at you in the much same way the Deaf students look at their hearing faculty/staff.
Of course I am not saying that this thing is totally OK. I’m just saying it’s human nature to reject anything to do with their oppressors during the phase of cultural development process.
One more thing I wanted to bring up with you, Jane, before I close this post…I do remember you, and some of my friends were pretty chummy with you. Some of them were hard of hearing and you talked about music with them and took them to concerts.
So if you experienced hostility, this probably didn’t help your case. I know music is part of the hearing world, but as I said, in process of cultural development, the oppressed will have a tendency to eschew anything that is much-loved or well supported by its oppressors.
Dear Michele,
The approach in being straight forward and clear can take two turns: professional or offensive. It is unfortunate that some view your tact as “scolding.” It is not an issue of Deaf vs hearing or culturally Deaf vs oral Deaf. I think what some are trying to express is tactfulness in general. “Fighting the hearing people” is not always necessary. Some hearing people are more than willing to learn, but it is not fair to automatically assume they should know about Deaf culture. Teaching and informing are good ways to represent the culture. Maybe working and teaching with hearing, oral Deaf, or non-culturally Deaf people will give a more friendly representation.
Anonymous:
To use my example (just to be consistent), at no time did I talk about Deaf culture to the key people at Kennedy Center, nor did I indicate to them that I expected them to *know* Deaf culture.
What I focused on during my fight (and believe me, it WAS a fight. Any other term would make *light* or diminish the severity of the barriers they enacted) was the importance of giving Deaf performers a CHANCE to perform at Kennedy Center.
I saw no reason why Deaf performers should be shut out of the Kennedy Center…indeed, Kennedy Center has a theatre within its walls called “Millennium Stage” in which its mission clearly states that 1) it is intended to be a stage/forum for NEW or UNKNOWN performers, and 2) it is intended to be a stage/forum for performers with DISABILITIES.
So knowing their mission, I focused on getting Deaf performers on the Millennium Stage.
I didn’t bother to deal with Theater Lab, Concert Hall, Opera House, Eisenhower Theater and Terrace Theater–I knew their standards would be way too high (and indeed, while I was employed there, a certain Deaf theater group tried their hardest to get in Theater Lab, and the Theater Lab folks told me in no uncertain terms to tell the poor group a big fat NO! Even though I didn’t work for Theater Lab!).
Like I already said in previous posts, the Millennium Stage key people did their best to literally throw every possible barriers they could think of…and I have to say that all the barriers they threw was pathetic, really. I.e., they claimed that Deaf performers couldn’t attract enough audience to guarantee healthy ticket sales (even though Millennium Stage performances are always FREE all year long!); Deaf performers aren’t that good (they actually said that, and in response, I showed them one of their clips where they had allowed a group of mentally impaired singers to sing on Millennium Stage, and I had it on good authority that their voices sucked: these singers wouldn’t have gotten past Simon Cowell or even Randy. Paula probably would have given them a pity vote!); the list of excuses just went on and on.
In the end, like I said, I finally wore them down and “won”, after a *year* of endless meetings (which I always set up…they never voluntarily set up one on their own accord!).
I’m sorry, but hearing people need to hear this. I really think that they’ve gotten away with too much for far too long. I’m not about to contribute to their illusions or fantasies that the barriers they throw out are totally OK or normal or whatever.
I’m fine with teaching and informing in most cases, but this was a time when normal approach would not have worked with Kennedy–they were far, far too resistant to the idea of having Deaf performers there at all.
Dear Michele,
The fight is against the individual(s) that are beyond the title of “butthead,” or other words that I’m sure have been thought or said, is reflecting a stereotype. I still think it is extreme of saying that it is a fight with hearinng people. If that were the case, than it would be valid for me to “fight” the Deaf community for the Deaf people who think sexual harassment is ok because it is Deaf culture (yes, true story). The hostility in your messages sends out the wrong message. I believe you have all the intentions of Deaf advocacy in a possitive way, but reading your articles does not give a sense of empowerment of Deaf culture, but more like you are angry about the situation (as you should be). Hearing people can’t continually apologize for the rude or insensitive actions of others any more than the Deaf can constantly apologize for those who are rude or insensitive.
You’re assuming that I’m hostile when I’m not.
If I sounded “angry” about my experiences at Kennedy…hell yeah, my feelings are justified. Kennedy was a great experience, but at the same time, it was a draining experience for me.
And sorry, I get pissed when I see unnecessary barriers being thrown around by some hearing people or some systems.
Why? Because I *care* about Deaf people. I want to see all Deaf people do well. I want to see all Deaf people succeed. I’m Deaf myself, and it’s personal for me. I cannot be neutral. I’m not a robot. Maybe you can be neutral, but unfortunately I cannot, because it’s too close to home for me.
If you don’t want to call it a “fight”…that’s your choice (although one wonders what you would call my experience with Kennedy–a spat? a disagreement? a struggle?).
I know better, because I went through it, and it was a very intense, draining experience for me. I was just fortunate that it had a happy ending.
And for the record, I’m not asking for blanket apology from hearing people or hearing society.
What I want is for them to…for once, stop throwing out unnecessary barriers AND start bending A LITTLE…give Deaf people a fair CHANCE.
All the constant barriers are a very effective way of keeping Deaf people down, and prevents them from ever finding out what they can do. In short, these barriers literally prevent Deaf people from fully extending their wings.
Would someone step forward to explain the raison d’etre for this exercise in self-absorption? Where is the logic in this incoherent, rambling conversation? This train of thought among proponents of ASL with a grudge against the hearing world? Does this give-and-take reflect delusions of grandeur? The answers may offer a refreshing perspective.
People never take kindly to strong hints that *they* may be self absorbed and that their pet causes are not automatically important to others. In my experience, using statements like “delusions of grandeur,” and “incoherent, rambling conversation,” usually results in reflexive hostility by the target and fails to generate a productive result.
I asked the questions. Does anyone want to answer them?
Does anyone want to answer my questions?
If I actually understood what you were asking, I would (not trying to be sarcastic, I really honestly don’t understand your blurb)
Bert, one wonders why you even spend time in http://www.deafdc.com at all and why you even bother posting.
Obviously you missed the point Bobby is making with his article…he raises some very serious, valid points, and we are actually discussing these points in a logical, intelligent way.
It’s unfortunate that you see all of this as “rambling” and “incoherent”, because that is far, far, far from the case.
Bert, wanna lay off the thesaurus a bit? No point in dressing up and gift wrapping “I think you’re full of yourself and full of sh**.” Stand proud and just say it.
And if I read your comment correctly (pardon me while I use the thesaurus to translate your “question”), you are asking is Bobby’s point of writing the blog and why does he seem anti-hearing?
How about you read the blog again and try to read it without bias. Then you will see that Bobby is offering a perspective of the issues that are happening at Gallaudet and the potential solution to the problems. I, for one, wish more people would present problems with their suggestion for a solution rather than bitching and doing nothing about it.
Just to be sure I’m being all-inclusive and everything, I have used my thesaurus and translated the sentence “Then you will see that Bobby is offering a perspective of the issues that are happening at Gallaudet and the potential solution to the problems” for you: …you will glimpse that Bobby is offering an angle of the areas of dialogue that’s happening at Gallaudet and the budding elucidation to the tribulations at hand.
‘Kay?