Standing amid the rubble of the recent cultural earthquake, I think to myself, “There is so much work to do.”
Much has appeared in the media recently about deafness and the deaf community. Most of this coverage has not been good. During the recent crisis at Gallaudet University, the deaf community’s dirty laundry was tossed out of an upper story window much like a cheating wife’s clothing is strewn on the front lawn for the world to see that all is not well in that house. The media is now scavenging through these items, holding shirts and skirts up for inspection before carting them off.
An opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal that ridiculed the activists at Gallaudet. The writer said, “Like the black-power activists before them, the deaf are supposed to be an oppressed minority. And Ms. Fernandes is a sort of “Uncle Tom” figure who denies her own identity for the sake of pleasing the oppressor, that is, the hearing world.” This goes on to say, “If this sounds slightly absurd, well, it is.”
This writer, like many others writing about the recent events at Gallaudet, cherry-picked the issues that emerged during the course of this movement to create a one-dimensional representation of the deaf community. The media’s reduction of the complex issues in the deaf community has resulted in the creation of a simple paradigm of deaf people—those who assimilate and those who will not.
It is easy for people to understand essentialisms and polarity. It is more difficult to understand the various life experiences that deaf people have. The media ignores the multiple deaf identities and varied deaf experiences that comprise the deaf community in favor of a perverse representation of the protests as a dying culture fighting for its survival.
Instead of trying to better understand why this cultural earthquake happened and what needs to be done to move forward, it is easier for the media to subscribe to the party line of “identity politics,” which in reality was a cynical public relations strategy employed to win a fight.
People love the idea of dying cultures. People love being witnesses to a conflict between culture and technology. It’s an age-old infatuation that dates back to the days of armchair anthropology when Victorians would read about the “savages” of the Americas being confounded by “sticks shooting fire.”
The individuals who pushed the “not deaf enough” issue and the “identity politics” aspect of this cultural earthquake are just as guilty as the European historians who wrote about Captain Cook’s death at the hands of the people of Hawaii. Those white historians theorized that Captain Cook was deified by the natives of Hawaii as an incarnation of the god Lono, and then killed when they realized he wasn’t really Lono. Of course. Those silly natives always think white people are gods. Happens all the time!
It took a “native” anthropologist, Gananath Obeyesekere, Ph.D., the Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University, to dispute the widely accepted notion that white explorers are always deified by the people they encounter. This “fact” has been part of the story of conquest for centuries, until Obeyeskere wrote, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific in 1992.
Those myths are widely accepted and have become a part of the western cultural currency, much like the myth that the deaf community is polarized into groups—those who embrace technology that will allow them to become more like hearing people, and their detractors, the noble savages who hate all things and people hearing, especially cochlear implants.
Change is constant. All cultures are predisposed to change and resisting change at the same time. These dynamic processes happen naturally as a result of inventions and contact between cultures. The cochlear implant is just ONE invention out of many that has changed the deaf community. The deaf community has come to terms with the cochlear implant and assimilated it, as it has done for other inventions. To reduce these protests to being about a group rejecting Dr. Fernandes because it is threatened by technology, and change, is a great disservice.
This cultural earthquake is not about resisting technology, identity, or a “fringe” group demanding rights based on their victim status and hating on others who aren’t exactly like them. It’s about the broken promise of the ADA and the fact people outside the deaf community continue to speak for us—like those brilliant public relations consultants who thought that pushing the “not deaf enough” issue would help them with their cause.
Thanks. Now we have to clean up after you.
© 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.
Deaf Music Videos? E-Mail Blog Articles To Your Friends! Me versus Big Corporation
Actually, the not deaf enough argument has been propounded here and elsewhere by Deaf individuals. Of course, Noah, Chris, LaToya, GUFSSA, SBG, and all others have disavowed any connection to those individuals, but the overwhelming tide of negative comments about non-Deaf individuals gives the lie to that argument. Plausible deniability, anybody?
I think that the hearing observers have it right when they say it’s identity politics running rampant. Just look at the latest efforts by faculty members to impose ASL only requirements at Gallaudet, the effort to purge the Board of Trustees of anybody who is not Deaf (current target is Ken Levinson, who happens to be associated with AGB), and behind the scenes struggles to get a Deaf president, and, of course the virulent Deaf bloggers.
Bingo! You got it right and I am a native ASL signer of 4 generations and I am capable of maintaining a balanced perspective, many thanks to my 6 years of mainstreamed and 6 years of state school experiences. I have both and I fist smack both worlds. It is identity politics, definitely it is!
I see it, too. All the time. Blogs. The attitudes. “Deafhood” is a big one there. Etc..
It’s probably more accurate to say deaf bloggers (Gallaudet alums who are much older than the current students) were into this for cultural reasons. The students, on the other hand, are of the MTV generation and much more open-minded than their counterparts of 20 yrs ago, protested for various reasons.
I’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation from the protest’s detractors why the dissenters come from diverse communication/educational backgrounds, if they indeed thought JKF wasn’t deaf enough.
I believe some of the quotes in the media reinforcing the “not deaf enough” argument actually came from the current students. (Wasn’t there a quote from a current deaf-blind student criticizing JKF for marrying a hearing man and interpreting this as a sign of “rejecting” Deaf culture?) Whereas, I can name three alums off hand (me; and two others who I have either known or have met after the protests began, not even counting some of the letter writers on the gufssa site) who are all “not deaf enough” ourselves (in my case, I grew up with sign language but it was SEE — I now understand ASL pretty well, but I sign with a very heavy hearing accent; the other two I’m thinking of both grew up oral and became involved for reasons other than cultural ones)
(Oh, I just now thought of one more deaf person — though not a Gally alum — who also supported the protest who grew up oral too, and he’s in his 30s as well)
So I think it’s simplistic to assume a straightforward generational divide here — or at least, an absolute one. Maybe you’re right that the PROPORTION of “culturists” (for lack of a better word) is different between the generations.
But, yes, I have never seen a satisfactory explanation from protest detractors about the diversity of protesters either. I hate to perpetuate the negative kind of projections that “Curious Eyes” talks about below (and I think Curious Eyes makes some valid points as well), but sometimes I can’t help but think that some of the protest detractors themselves are projecting. They love and admire Fernandes and sincerely believe she has done some great things. They are deeply upset that anyone would try to tear down such a wonderful person. So they take some of the less admirable and impressive excuses thrown about by a few protesters (”she’s not deaf enough”) and project those sentiments onto the rest of the protesters so they can protect themselves from the need to examine the real reasons behind the protest more closely. Why? Because then they might have to realize that, although Fernandes might genuinely have done some great things, and although she might be genuinely nice to them and others they know, she does ALSO have certain real flaws as a manager. (As a side note: I’m sure she must have done some great things, and I’m sure she actually IS a nice person, at least in social situations or with friends, or with people like the Plunkett family. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have so many ardent fans. I’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation from the protesters for how Fernandes, if she is so utterly terrible as a person, was still able to garner so many strong supporters. But that gets into the projection thing that “curious eyes” talks about again. I think both sides are guilty of that here.)
Andrea, I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned remarks. I agree that projection is happening on all sides. There is nothing wrong, per se, with experiencing defense mechanisms. It’s a common phenomenon to deal with anxiety. What is wrong is when people interpret their defensive feelings as evidence of the real truth of the situation. Personal growth happens when one takes responsibility for one’s own feelings, thoughts, and motivations instead of blaming an external source of the problem.
I think it’s clear to most of us that the protest happened for a whole host of reasons, not one single reason, and that some of them were valid reasons. “Not deaf enough” isn’t cutting it any more, but to be fair, the media almost always mentions JKF’s supposedly poor leadership in the same article. (Some of the more negative pieces were editorials, not news articles.)
Just like everyone else, JKF has her strengths and weaknesses as a person and as a manager. To see accomplished, intelligent, and likeable individuals like JKF, IKJ, Brenda Jo Brueggemann, Senator McCain, and Ken Levinson demonized and trashed in the blogosphere makes me wince.
excellent points, andrea. the best i can piece things together: JKF is nice in social situations and in managerial situations where her cohorts or subordinates agreed with her. her flaws appeared to lie in conflict management.
of course i was generalizing in my first comment. i read the pro-fernandes website (9thprez.com?) which clearly explained why JKF made that “not deaf enough” claim. apparently when the protest was in rudimentary stage, a flyer was circulated (it’d be interesting to find out who made it). it listed her supposed flaws or reasons why she shouldn’t be president. it indeed mentioned her oral background and her marriage to a hearing man. that kind of bigotry angered me. however, the problem with her making that statement is that the flyer also mentioned many other reasons, but she decided to mention only the most absurd one and parroted it endlessly, without a regard to the potential destructive effect it had on deaf people. that’s my beef.
Ben, can you expand a bit on JKF’s “flaws in conflict management”? Reason I’m interested is because of my experiences as someone who’s had to handle conflicts. Any administrator is going to step on toes. It’s a feat to please everyone all the time. There are some who will not be happy no matter what is decided, whether “autocratically” or in a committee majority decision. That’s MY beef with people who criticize administrators. They should walk a mile in their shoes, see how easy it is.
Amen, CE.
I know where u’re coming from. I head a staff of 13 people and I know leadership is a balancing act. I guess the question is, although a leader has to be tough, did JKF veer too far into an extreme?
Since I never worked with or under JKF, I cannot give any firsthand accounts. The faculty knows better what it’s like to work under her than you or me. They’re old and wise to know the difference between simply making tough decisions and being autocratic and completely disregarding any input. If her opposition is simply a small group of malcontents such as Zoltan aka TestingTheTruth, I wouldn’t have supported the protest. But it’s clearly not the case.
Shane- why does the edit-your-comment feature appear and disappear? :)
Anyway, before I go for the day, it wasn’t wholly the faculty’s words that moved me, but the fact that JKF’s public conduct and statements reinforced what I heard about her. Had she shown more acumen during those difficult times, I’d have started questioning those accounts about her.
Would you please kindly reveal WHO you are, Anonymous? Smile!
You called me “tinhat on balded dome” on this very same DCDeaf forum few weeks ago.
So you would be not seen as a true coward for hiding behind the pretenious e-username. Come on and reveal yourself to the world at large. So we would know who and what you are all about. Bien?
Do you have any physical proof of what the FSSA student leaders and other deaf individuals said about Fernandes being “not deaf enough”, ex. video clips??
To my own knowledge, all the listed individuals you mentioned in your blog writings. They never said such things like that. I spent considerable time on Gally campus over years. I also was there on the first day of “Unity for Gallaudet” protest to the very end of protest on October 29th. I never seen any of those deaf individuals said “Not Deaf Enough”. Thanks.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
I think it’s a combination of both of a ‘cultural earthquake’ and identity politics actually.
It is absolutely no surprise to me that the media now is lambasting Gallaudet. I fully expected this, and I expect this to continue for a long time to come.
FSSA did not make their message clear. They also did nothing to shut up the bloggers who were shooting themselves in the foot and subsequently hurting the protest’s cause.
The thumb of rule for protests are: Don’t protest until your message is ABSOLUTELY clear, and is something that the masses can sympathize with.
FSSA didn’t do that. And all of us are also at fault, because the majority of us sat back and did nothing for years while the educational system failed us and our children.
Did we go out there and document the wrongdoings?
Did we do our research to back up our grievances?
Did we go out there and have a honest conversation with parents of deaf children and say, “Your child’s deafness does not have to be a tragedy. Please allow me to show you why it isn’t.”?
Did we sit down with the medical establishment and say, ‘Look, let’s work together. There are more than just one way to ensure deaf children are productive and successful in the world.’?
Did we set up mentoring programs that could be modeled nationally?
Did we go after the incompetent teachers immediately?
Did we learn the nuances of unions and the judical and educational systems so we can use it to our advantage?
Can we honestly say “Yes, we did!” to those questions? Can we honestly deny that we do not bear ANY responsibility for the events that led up to the Gallaudet protests?
Because I can’t. Not in good conscience. And I know I’m not the only one.
~ Deaf Pundit
Deaf Pundit,
I think you raise some excellent points here, esp. about FSSA not getting its message clear.
I only really started following the protests in around mid october so I’m not familiar with all the details dating back to May. But based on what I do understand (and someone with a more thorough understanding of the history can correct me if I have my facts wrong), it seems as if the protests were basically started by one group of students with one specific set of motivations (i.e., students of color who objected to the presidential search process, including its lack of diversity). But then many other groups of people joined them, many of whom had their own, often unrelated agendas.
One large group of supporters DOES include many people who supported the protests because they perceived Fernandes as being “not deaf enough.” This is not necessarily the only motivation even for the people who think like this. And I DO think that, at least among the supporters on campus (a few of whom I have met), they are VERY much in the minority. They might be 10 percent of the total, or maybe 20, but I would be surprised if it’s much more than that–at least since October (I can’t guess what the proportions might have been like in May). But too many of the active participants, and the closeted sympathizers, are hearing, or hard of hearing, or raised oral etc etc etc for me to be fooled into thinking that this is much more than a sub-current.
Then there were also many more supporters who simply felt that Fernandes herself was not qualified to lead for a wide range of reasons, including the perception that she was autocractic etc.
Unfortunately for FSSA’s message, even the more arguably valid reasons for this perception were largely subjective. Who defines “autocratic”? Can you measure it with a ruler? No. Can you prove that a person is “autocratic” or “manages by intimidation” via forensic science? No. Even if you had videotaped evidence, it would still come down to subjective interpretations: one person might judge the boss as being unfairly and unnecessarily intimidating, but another person might say they’re simply being tough–and fair. In my case, if I had not known so many of the protesters personally from my long years of association with the campus community, I might never had come to support them. I might have gone on assuming that this was just about being “not deaf enough’, or I might have simply assumed that this was a small group of people who disagreed with some of the tough, necessary decisions that Fernandes had made. But for people who don’t know any of the protesters personally, I can see why even the more valid concerns would come across very weakly.
Then you mix in people who object to Fernandes for what are, frankly, far more trivial reasons, like Fernandes not smiling enough, or sometimes getting too caught up in her thoughts to say “hi.” I’m rather introverted myself — I try to be friendly, but I do sometimes get caught up in my thoughts and honestly don’t always notice people right away. Then on top of that, I also happen to be moderately shy (quite a different thing from being “introverted” — google “myers-brigg” for an explanation of what I mean by “introverted”)
Then add to that a generalized paranoia about the Gally administrators that has run rampant through deaf blogs (accusations of corruption, yada yada, much of it without solid evidence).
So, yes, I’m forced to agree: FSSA kind of shot themselves in the foot when it came to forming their public image.
Andrea,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with what you said except for one part.
“Can you prove that a person is “autocratic” or “manages by intimidation” via forensic science? No. Even if you had videotaped evidence, it would still come down to subjective interpretations: one person might judge the boss as being unfairly and unnecessarily intimidating, but another person might say they’re simply being tough–and fair.”
I can see where you’re coming from on this, but to say it’s not proveable is erroneous. For instance, sexual harassment lawsuits are brought up in courts all the time. My mother as an advocate, brings cases to her attorney all the time, and those cases are chock-ful of teachers and staff harassing the poor deaf students.
It is doable, but it takes a lot of courage, knowledge, and a good support system to see the person through the troubles. Staying anonymous doesn’t cut it. People have to come forward with names, dates and incidents all in writing. They have to document it immediately after something happens… not wait until seven years later and complain anonymously.
As I’ve said in the past, I’ve been there and done that. My mother and I documented so many instances of the school staff harassing me that in the end, there were boxes and boxes full of documented complaints and instances of harassment. We buried the school system with our documentation.
~ Deaf Pundit
Granted, being “autocratic” could be “proveable” in the LEGAL sense, if there were a legal definition for it in the way that we have a legal definition for “sexual harassment.”
But I think I may have chosen the wrong phrasing here. I wasn’t thinking in terms of “proving” an “autocratic, MBI leadship style” in a legalistc sense, but more in a scientific sense.
To make an analogy: What is 4 plus 2? Easy. It’s 6. There’s only one correct answer (assuming you’re not using some base other than 10 or anything other than grade 1-level math).
What is wood? I don’t know enough about biology or physics to try to provide a scientific definition, but I assume that an expert could write a reasonably precise definition that could clearly encompass most of the materials that most of us would define as “wood” while leaving out things that aren’t.
But what is MBI? What is an “autocratic” leadership style? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different opinions and probably not one scientifically measurable definition. (You get the same with sexual harassment, actually, but with sexual harassment there is a legal definition that takes force in a court of law But a LEGAL definition is not the same as a SCIENTIFIC definition that can be tested empirically and receive the same results a thousand times over with a thousand different scientists or observers.)
MBI is, at least in part, a very subjective experience (kind of like sexual harassment) in that it is utilmately identifiable only by the person who experiences it: if it feels like harassment (or MBI) then probably it is, even if it might not pass the rigid legalistic test in a court of law. (In other words, just because it can’t be “proven” in court doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.)
But we don’t live in a world of psychic empaths where we can read each other’s feelings. All we really know is what other people SAY they feel. And there’s always going to be someone who says, “Prove you feel harassed or intimidated.” And how do you prove it? You can’t, really. And THAT’S what I was trying to get at when I said you can’t really “prove” MBI/autocraticism/etc.
Am I making any more sense here? I have a sneaking fear I only muddled things further :-)
Just clarifying one thing here- only two national organizations of color joined the small students of color’s protest, it wasn’t like it suddenly ballooned into the volatile protest we saw. There were two protests- a much smaller one which died in May with the announcement of Fernandes as President, and this more massive one.
I will let y’all know that FSSA as an organization itself is no friend of mine. Probably of no surprise to some of you. Some of them came into a COSC meeting and told the COSC leaders there, last week, that there is no COSC, they have no power, FSSA does, so “join us”. Demoralizing for them. Ready to give up. Some of us alumni, including myself, did pep talks with them, and at the end, almost at the 11th hour, they found a way to get their feet into the door to talk alongside SBG and GSA at BoT’s meeting this Saturday.
I must say, SBG and GSA are to be commended, they told BoT to listen to them. And today, their perservance and courage paid off- we now have one COSC representative and one International Student representative slotted for the interim President selection. What is more important to me is seeing them grow more in confidence and in their conviction to try to fight for what they believe is right, against all odds, in a dignified manner. You see, it’s only four of them who has been doing this hidden battle since April. Sure they have advisors and outside people like myself who gives advice, ideas, and information but really who has to do the real hands-on grunt work and the speeches- these FOUR. NAD didn’t help them. GUAA didn’t help them. They don’t have a website. They don’t have big deaf names (other than NBDA and National Asian Deaf Congress) backing them. They had no Katie Couric to talk on TV. They have no PayPal donations. They have no Ridor, no Joey Baer et al (except for Mike McConnell and DeafDC- thanks!) to speak for their cause. They have no petition to collect signatures. And ,today, they still got on this committee. Wow. All I can say is- well done, COSC. Let the work begin.
Deaf Pundit, well said! *hand waves*
The single reason I have not actively supported the protest was for the sheer lack of documented, provable, unbiased evidence for any of their claims. I don’t deny that there is some. I’m not saying that all those people were lying. Just that I have not seen or heard anything that would stand up in a court of law, so to speak. Yet finally, there was that WaPo article about altering grades to keep failing students. There were 5 occasions that we know of. Whoop-de-doo. As if this never happens anywhere else. Yes, it’s awful that it happened at Gallaudet, but I mean, come on. Let’s have a reality check, shall we?
I also agree with Deaf Pundit’s point that we all have a share in the responsibility for making sure that the educational system for deaf students from preschool through doctorate should be as good as it can be. If we don’t take responsibility, if we don’t take constructive, proactive steps to solve problems, then whatever happens is on all of us.
Amen! The message was all jumbled up, didn’t help matters any when “Deafhood” started seeping in at the same time. What should have been the central message? My opinion? See my vlog on youtube.com “Stop This Insanity- Unity for All”.
I agree we can’t lump all problems on one person like that, that’s just perpetuating a victimhood mentality.
“It’s about the broken promise of the ADA and the fact people outside the deaf community continue to speak for us—like those brilliant public relations consultants who thought that pushing the “not deaf enough” issue would help them with their cause.”
I agree. One thing I noticed at the beginning of the protest, is that people seemed to be more insulted by the fact that JKF refused to resign, than the fact that she had been chosen by the board. By refusing to resign, they felt that she was telling them, “Your concerns do not matter. I decide. I speak for you. You are powerless to change this.” She dismissed their concerns, such as if they were small children at the table asking for more dessert.
It became very clear to how we were viewed when IKJ accused us of defiling DPN, and claimed the faculty was inciting the student’s reactions. It was clear when JKF called us terrorists and claimed it was about mob rule. It was clear when they didnt’ feel remorse about lying to the media and bulldozing down protesters at the MSSD gate. After all, we were small children to them, who needed to be sent to bed without supper.
Like Leah Hager Cohen said so beautifully in her article, …”
“Gallaudet is supposed to be the one place where deaf people can expect those rights in full. What really lies at the heart of the crisis is the protesters’ refusal to relinquish these basic, hard-won rights. The message was: don’t dismiss us, and don’t obfuscate.”
Terrorist is a too strong of a word. An unnecessary one. However, “mob rule” comes closer to anything else which means “disorganized mass of people”. And it wasn’t totally organized like DPN in a lot of the people’s eyes. It wasn’t a riot either but it would have easily been had the BoT not changed their minds. If you want a more benign sounding word try ochlocracy.
That’s a good word. Only if JKF had the foresight to use such a word instead of mob rule…
Not quite mob rule, but not orderly rule, either. Call it rule of the pressure group when everybody is expected to conform to the wishes of a tiny minority. Pressured conformity?
Whenever I see people talking about what JKF’s behavior seemed to be saying, what I see is PROJECTION.
Has it ever occurred to any of you that what you interpret JKF to be thinking or feeling is entirely your own invention? And that what JKF was actually feeling or thinking in the situation might be far different? I’m really wondering why no one ever ascribes honorable reasons for JKF’s actions, only mean or unkind reasons.
What is projection? A psychological defense mechanism. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we have. … attribute to other people traits that we have but cannot accept… especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into their own impulses and traits… … perceives in others the motives we deny having ourselves.
Another concept I’m really having trouble accepting is the one about these “public relations consultants.” Honestly, the media and the whole wide world don’t depend on the so-called Gallaudet PR Machine to spoon-feed them information about what the protest is all about. It’s all right here at DeafDC, and even more at He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named’s blog. Plenty of dirty laundry, and we’ve been delivering it to their doors by the boatload.
“Honestly, the media and the whole wide world don’t depend on the so-called Gallaudet PR Machine to spoon-feed them information about what the protest is all about.”
I disagree. There are too mnay people who just read newspapers and take it all on face value. Then they decide to go over to a blog, and when the blog contrasts with what they’ve read, they take the defensive position, saying the blog is wrong.
I’ve seen a lot of that going around.
Thank you, WSS, for Exhibit A of my point.
:)
Excuse me. I’ve done a whole lot of research and I’ve read up a lot. I think I’ve earned the right to disagree.
I’m not some guy who stumbled over a post and decided to give his/her uninformed post.
Geez! That was uncalled for. Even I wouldn’t accuse you of giving an uninformed opinion. You earned the right to yours too.
WSS, I’d never say you are uninformed. Of course you’re not. I was referring to your comment about the spin machine as good example of projection, especially “I’ve seen a lot of that going around.” Couldn’t have said it better myself. :)
whoops.
Oh. Ok. I got your point. yeah, people DO project what they want to project. I’ll admit that it happens on both sides.
I absolutely agree. I have tried hard on my side, personally, not to do no such thing. :)
the challenge about projections and other defense mechanisms is that they are unconscious. That’s why it’s easier to spot them in others than in ourselves. It’s one thing I love about blogs — I can catch myself before stuff sneaks out. Usually. :)
Point well taken on the projection part. Goes hand in hand with conspiracy theories as well that have been bandied about since May. Unless we have the Vulcan power to read minds, we need to step away from doing these projections and work on being objective, not subjective.
WS, it means the same thing.
Oops. You’re right. Well. I take it back. :D
Suppose JKF did use that word “ochlocracy”, what would the reaction have been by the protesters?
they might have regarded it as a display of audism. Using fancy intellectual English words to demonstrate her superiority. Hell, even I’ve never heard of that word until you mentioned it, McConnell, and no one wants to play Trivial Pursuit with me either.
I would play Trivia Pursuit. I love that game.
No, I didn’t know what ochlocracy means, either. I mistook it for oligarchy. My bad.
Hey, it looks like many of us like to play Trivia Pursuit. How about playing the game immediately after the DPHH in December (first Friday of the month)? I think it’s cool for me to drive south to DC for this game after a few rounds of drinks. Any takers?
I’d play Trivial Pursuit with you too, wildstarryskies. Do you suppose we could do it via VP? seeing as how I’m on the Left Coast. Wonder if there’s an online version? Any BoxerJam addicts out there? :)
Hmm an intresting idea.. I don’t have the game though.. I’d have to buy it..
email me
wildstarryskies at hotmail
now I am wondering if I already know you in person? You know how it is online… hmmmm
WSS,
You have an e-mail! *notification*
WAD
For the life of me how does having “fancy words” constitute as audism? Either that would be the lamest excuse/complaint in the world or am I missing something here. Spouting off “fancy words” may constitute as an ego thing or maybe not if a person happens to do that all the time. But how does writing “fancy words” be constituted as audism? If I don’t know the word, I look it up in the dictionary.
Voila!
I learned a new word in my ever-growing vocabulary database stashed in the cranium of my head.
Now that you mentioned it. I did some digging in DeafDC with a vague memory of somebody who accused me of “fancy words” and I thought it was my blog. Nope. It turns out it was in fact in DeafDC. I (and unspecified others) was actually accused of using “fancy words” here on DeafDC by urucurn.
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/ada.....ment-15283
Ochlocracy.
Ochlocracy.
Ochlocracy.
Ochlocracy.
Say it 100 times and you’ll own it for life.
It’s projection, McConnell. Goes like this: Person A uses a big word that Person B doesn’t know. Person B thinks, “Gee, I don’t know that word. I must be stupid or something.” Person B copes with the fear of being stupid by saying, “Person A is trying to make me look stupid.” Person A had no thought whatsoever of trying to make Person B look stupid. He was just saying a word.
The story could have two (or more) different outcomes. (a) When Person A realizes that Person B feels stupid for not knowing the meaning of big words, he stops using big words any more, for fear of hurting Person B’s feelings. Or (b), Person B realizes he should not blame Person A for knowing words he does not know. So he says honestly to Person A, “What does that word mean?” Then he learns something. Person A and Person B go off to the Rathskeller for a couple of beers. Happily ever after.
Yes, and it happened once before on my blog now that I think about it. I did a blog on Readability of deaf/hh blogsites earlier this year.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.....-blog.html
With link to a neat website that determines your blogsite or website’s “readability” and gives you a score. So, I listed the blogsites and the scores. Lo and behold and get a few defensive replies.
comments on readability scores
http://www.haloscan.com/commen.....534812220/
Um, who accused you of being audisitc by using big words? I haven’t seen anyone say that.
Project much? ;)
Re, the fog index mcconnell talks about:
I’ve used that before a few times. It’s not bad if all you need is a really rough guide to what’s readable and what’s not for varying audiences. But of course, as you might already know, it has its limitations. For example, it doesn’t actually measure the sophistication of your vocabulary, it just counts the syllables in them. So a one-syllable word like “krait” (which is apparently “any of several venomous snakes of the genus bungarus, of southeastern Asia” — I just opened my American heritage dictionary at random) would be scored as an “easier” word than, say, the three-syllable word “dictionary.” But most people know what a “dictionary” is — while probably most of the people reading this have never heard of a “krait” before. I certainly didn’t, until I saw it in the dictionary.
The fog index also scores ANY long sentence as being at a high grade level regardless of how it is structured. So a sentence like: “Joseph’s multi-colored coat was blue, red, aqua, blah blah [insert 578,087 different color words here]” would get a higher score than, “Each example I could give, whether short or long, would further enlighten your understanding of the difficulty at hand, which was described in the large red book on the bookshelf above your head that your grandfather build 20 years ago; however, I shall not provide any more examples because I think what I have given should suffice.” [I just made up this silly sentence.] HOWEVER, of these two sentences, which of the two is actually easier to parse? The straightforward list of colors (even though it would have been incredibly tedious to read if I had actually completed it), or the sentence with multiple dependent clauses?
Then, I can’t resist pointing out that, of course, higher grade levels are not automatically more desireable. I come from a journalistic background (never for a fancy city paper, but used to write for On the Green, Gallaudet Today, and Preview magazine at Gallaudet), and I write speeches in my current job. In both positions, I have often been admonished to keep my sentences shorter and simpler so they can be parsed by a general audience (at Gally, maybe roughly 8th grade level; where I am now, maybe 12th grade level). If your audience doesn’t understand you, or can’t be bothered to plod through your complex writing, then you will have failed to communicate with them. Not to mention that research apparently shows that people remember material better when it is presented at a reading level BELOW what they are actually capable of reading and understanding. Apparently the brain only has so much energy to split between various tasks such as decoding (seeing the letter “s” and knowing what sound it represents; putting together “un-grate-ful” to decode the meaning of the word; yada yada); and actual comprehension (understanding that, “Stop this test” means you should now put down your pencil); and storing information in your memory (being able to summarize the contents of the essay you read a few hours ago). If you have to spend too much psychic energy just breaking down each sentence to understand it, then there’s nothing left over to remember what it was about in the first place even if you understood the meaning fine as you read it.
You might be able to tell that I have a slight difficulty with brevity.
Why are you all laughing? :-)
WS, project much? No. I asked a question how that would be the case. Secondly, I said they accused me of using “fancy words”. Nothing about them accusing me of being audistic. Just the fancy words.
Speaking of lack of brevity. I’m a chronic. Once in awhile I get emails saying that I should somehow write words so they can understand. I said “they”? My audience constitute hearing, hard of hearing and deaf. I write what I write. That is my thought process.
Which brings up another interesting observation. Deaf/hh bloggers tend to be well read on the English language. And yet those who do not have a good command of the English language feel less compelled to blog which may be attributed to lack of confidence on letting the public see your writings. Which is why the vlogosphere is growing among those prefer to sign than write.
Just an observation of mine.
McConnell, you are BUSTED! That last observation of yours smacks of audism. OK, I’m only half-kidding here, but I’d like to point out that some vloggers have good written English skills. Their ASL is even better. Not all of them, but some of them, Joey Baer and Amy Cohen-Efron as good examples. I’m just talking about the modality here, not the content. Wish they would both vlog on a regular basis about a variety of issues.
If you go on deaf chat lines or certain deaf forums, you can see the differences. Blogging gets more scrutinzed by the public because it gets archived and usually comes from one blogger. Chat lines or other forums, you have a lot more anonymity that I’ve observed over the past several years. Like I said, it’s an observation of mine, not a rigorous scientific study.
!@$ edit feature. It disappears when you need it.
CE, I’m noting the differnces between bloggers who blog and those who prefer other avenues to communicate based on the level of how publicly viewed their comments would be seen and the amount of anonymity involved.
Deaf/hh bloggers tend to be the “critical” thinking group (I’d be lying if I actually believe that this is actually and completely the case) and like to write and are confident in their English language.
YOU said it
“But how does writing “fancy words” be constituted as audism? If I don’t know the word, I look it up in the dictionary.”
Hello? To ask such a question implies that such an incident did happen in the first place. It’s a loaded question. It’s like when lawyers say, “So, how long have you been abusing your wife?”
I didn’t project anything.
No. Because, again, I am asking a question about “audism”. CE brought up the audism first as a possible reason why a few people have accused me of using fancy words, “…they might have regarded it as a display of audism” in response to my question on supposing JKF said “ochlocracy” instead of mob rule. When CE said it could be “audism”, I responded “For the life of me how does having “fancy words” constitute as audism? Either that would be the lamest excuse/complaint in the world or am I missing something here. Spouting off “fancy words” may constitute as an ego thing or maybe not if a person happens to do that all the time. But how does writing “fancy words” be constituted as audism? If I don’t know the word, I look it up in the dictionary.”
What happened was that I was accused of using “fancy words”. But so what. But then that got me thinking. Why did those few people act like that? CE said perahps it was “projection.” And then CE said “audism.” What you did was to take out a part of my paragraph and take it out of context rather than my whole paragraph within the flow of thought that explains my feeling on how does writing “fancy words” constitute as “audism.”
Your example is simply a point blank direct accusation using such a language not as to infer something but to say it as a fact. Mine is considered as challenging/asking the question regarding “audism” and “fancy words” in trying to see how does using “fancy words” be constituted as “audism.”
Aren’t you the one who may be projecting here?
Also, I am *very* curious why did you use the wife abuse example considering the fact that numerous people have thrown that around lately my way after the NAD convention when I produced some pictures of the event with me in my tank top shaking hands with Greg Gunderson?
Hmmm…?
Might be nothing but this is like the 6th or 7th time.
Honest, I had no idea those accusations were going around about you. It wasn’t even intentional. I didn’t mean to hit a nerve there. I know I tend to try to push buttons sometimes, but not on purpose this time. It’s just a common phrase I hear often that people use when they want to illustrate what a loaded question is. I think it happens to be a terrific example, seeing how you reacted to that. :D
By the way, thanks for explaining about the “audism” part. I looked all over the website and I didn’t see anything about someone complaining about you using fancy words. That was my issue - that it seemed as this idea had came out of thin air. I have a pet peeve with people using strawmen to advance their arguements. Now I can see it had not. I still don’t see the evidence, but I’ll take your word for it.
Then of course I can see how that led to the discussion about projection. How ironic.
Now, back to what CE says, yes, I agree, people do project their fear and insecurities into you. I’ve had the same thing happen to me - being rejected because I was perceived as “too smart”. That was at my local deaf school, however, not at Gallaudet. :)
Audistic? I’d agree. Audism goes both way - prejudice against those who use ASL and also against those who are fluent in English. All those isms- they go both ways, between the races, between men and women. The hated hate the haters back.
Ah, the cycle of hate. :(
WS, I supplied links in here that had the accusation of me using “fancy words) but not audism per se.
See post #34958 (DeafDC) and 35061 (read the comments in the supplied link) to see the links.
Can see why some people here would think that of deaf bloggers who don’t write well. And conversely, why some ASLers think people with lousy signing skills have nothing interesting to say.
When one struggles with language, it can get tough to contribute. Like it or not, style lets stupid people get away with oohs and aahs when they have no substance.
I’ve seen grammatically flawless comments here that are downright pointless. “Posts by RLMs with Excellent English,” I call them.
McConnell, I checked the post.
It seems the guy’s point was that you were using fancy words as what I like to call “decoration” for ideas that weren’t worth anything.
I don’t think his intention was audisitic in nature. He was just trying to take apart your arguement and win.
It’s a normal tactic. Not audisitic at all.
That said, there ARE cases where people can be audistic by by looking down on those who have good English. But I’d say that is more of a language prejudice. It’s like sometimes black people accusing people of acting “white” because they write and read well. (or in other examples, lower-class people accusing other of being “above their station” by dressing differently or doing different things)
Anyway that’s a whole other arguemetn which I really don’t want to go into right now.
Suffice to say, audism goes both ways. :(