You have an e-mail! *notification*

WAD

wildstarryskies at hotmail

now I am wondering if I already know you in person? You know how it is online… hmmmm

And, yes, he was trying to pick apart my argument, unsuccessfully so.

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 :-)

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.

I agree we can’t lump all problems on one person like that, that’s just perpetuating a victimhood mentality.