![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brdgtTurmoil at College for Deaf Reflects Broader Debate
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO, The New York Times, October 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 — Ask Joshua Walker, a sophomore at Gallaudet University here, about technology like cochlear implants that helps many deaf people hear, and he is dismissive.
“In some way, you’re saying deaf people are not good enough, they need to be fixed,” signed Mr. Walker, 20. “I don’t need to be fixed. My brain works fine.”
Protests over the selection of a new president, Jane K. Fernandes, have thrown Gallaudet, the nation’s only liberal arts university for the deaf, into turmoil. But the clash is also illuminating differences over the future of deaf culture writ large, and focusing attention on a politically charged debate about what it means to be deaf in the 21st century.
Should Gallaudet be the standard bearer for the view that sees deafness not as a disability, but as an identity, and that looks warily on technology like cochlear implants, questioning how well they work and arguing that they undermine a strong deaf identity and pride? Or should Gallaudet embrace the possibilities of connecting with the hearing world that technology can offer?
Should it demand that students and teachers communicate exclusively in American Sign Language, as some professors and students insist, or should it permit deaf and hard of hearing students to learn in whatever way suits them? Should it require professors to be fluent signers, and provide interpreters for those who are not proficient? Or should it let students struggle to catch their meaning, as many say they now do?
These questions are not limited to Gallaudet. They are reflected in debates across the country as technology creates new possibilities for deaf people through cochlear implants and increasingly sophisticated hearing aids. With genetic testing, the day may come when parents can choose medical intervention for a child who is likely to be born deaf, or even choose not to have that child.
With 96 percent of deaf children born to hearing parents, according to research by Gallaudet, many parents choose cochlear implants for their children at an early age, and 81 percent choose to mainstream their children into hearing classrooms.
Joseph Fischgrund, headmaster for the last 20 years at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf in Philadelphia, noted that advances like closed captioning and text pagers make it easier than ever for deaf people to have the same access to information as hearing people.
“It’s a culture in transition,” said Robert Kretschmer, coordinator of the program in the education of the deaf and hard of hearing at Columbia University Teachers College. “What Gallaudet represents is clearly one very strong faction and identity of deaf culture, with a capital D.”
Lawrence Fleischer, chairman of the deaf studies department at California State University, Northridge, signed through an interpreter his skepticism toward some of the new options.
“More parents are choosing cochlear implants for their children,” Mr. Fleischer said. “We call it the false hope. We call it the magical consciousness, meaning that their consciousness is way below average, but they’re pretending to have consciousness they don’t really have.”
The implants are devices surgically placed in the inner ear, connected to a receiver around the ear which picks up sound, and transmits it as electrical impulses to the brain. They are not sounds as they are heard, unimpeded, but signals that deaf people must learn to interpret into words. About 100,000 people around the world wear cochlear implants, including 22,000 adults and 15,000 children in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration says.
At the American School for the Deaf, in West Hartford, Conn., the director, Edward Peltier, said about 12 percent of students had cochlear implants, up from about 3 percent a decade ago. The school is the birthplace of American Sign Language.
Many Gallaudet students say they felt misunderstood and marginalized within their families, until they attended schools for the deaf and learned sign language. They say Gallaudet should play a strong advocacy role, lobbying to keep such schools open and remaining a forceful proponent of American Sign Language.
Students at Gallaudet have complained that Dr. Fernandes, who learned to sign only when she was 23, does not communicate well in A.S.L. — a point the university disputes — and that she has permitted professors who do not sign well to continue teaching, putting students at a disadvantage at the one institution where, they say, they should not suffer for being deaf. These students, forced to lip read or make do with poor signing, may not catch every word.
One protester, Ronald Ferris, who is blind and deaf, said he believed that Dr. Fernandes did not connect with deaf people. In a measure of how personal the dispute has become, Mr. Ferris pointed to her choice of a husband as proof. “She doesn’t really feel us,” he signed through interpreters. “She’s very critical of deaf culture, because she married somebody who hears.”
Her supporters say she has taken a forceful stand on issues, like a racial divide, looming in the deaf community. Frances E. Kendall, author of “Understanding White Privilege” and a consultant at Gallaudet on diversity issues, said Dr. Fernandes had made enemies in integrating the lower school on campus, where minority children had been concentrated in special education classes.
“She’s a visionary,” Ms. Kendall said. “She is a change maker when changes need to occur, and she has incredible backbone.”
In an interview with I. King Jordan, who is stepping down after 18 years as president, Dr. Fernandes, the former provost, said that she was committed “100, 150 percent” to signing and deaf culture, and that signing would always be the preferred method of communication at Gallaudet.
Bobby White, who leads a student group that opposes shutting down the campus, said, “Communication is the primary and top issue here,” adding, “There’s no reason for me, as a deaf person, to use my voice on campus.”
In an interview with I. King Jordan, who is stepping down after 18 years as president, Dr. Fernandes, the former provost, said that she was committed “100, 150 percent” to signing and deaf culture, and that signing would always be the preferred method of communication at Gallaudet.
But Dr. Fernandes said Gallaudet’s future lay in welcoming and valuing deaf and hard of hearing students from all avenues and educational backgrounds, rather than in promoting a specific deaf political orthodoxy. She would never ban spoken language in classes and meetings, as some on campus propose, she said. “This is a time of great change in deaf culture,” she said.
The passions and issues simmering beneath the discontent over Dr. Fernandes’s appointment help explain the persistence of a protest that some expected would have calmed after last weekend’s arrests of 134 demonstrators. Classes have resumed, but protesters are still camping out in tents by the main entrance.
This week, three in four faculty members called on Dr. Fernandes to resign, and the faculty voted no confidence in the board and Dr. Jordan. Until now, Dr. Jordan, Gallaudet’s first deaf president, has been a treasured symbol in the deaf community.
In the interview, Dr. Fernandes said that despite the opposition, she had no intention of resigning.
Not all those opposed to Dr. Fernandes differ with her views about the technology or using spoken language. Nicole Moran, a sophomore from York, Pa., said she did not hesitate to choose a cochlear implant for her 3-year-old daughter, who was profoundly deaf at birth.
“Her primary identity is as a deaf person,” Ms. Moran said. “But it’s a hearing world.”
Nevertheless, she said she did not support Dr. Fernandes. “She’s not an effective leader,” Ms. Moran said.
Others share this view. Thomas K. Holcomb, a professor of deaf studies whose two daughters were arrested at Gallaudet last weekend, said of Dr. Fernandes, “She says that her leadership style is to act behind the scenes, but what we really need is someone who can lead us out front, who can be our ambassador and inspire the larger public with issues regarding deaf people.”
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO, The New York Times, October 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 — Ask Joshua Walker, a sophomore at Gallaudet University here, about technology like cochlear implants that helps many deaf people hear, and he is dismissive.
“In some way, you’re saying deaf people are not good enough, they need to be fixed,” signed Mr. Walker, 20. “I don’t need to be fixed. My brain works fine.”
Protests over the selection of a new president, Jane K. Fernandes, have thrown Gallaudet, the nation’s only liberal arts university for the deaf, into turmoil. But the clash is also illuminating differences over the future of deaf culture writ large, and focusing attention on a politically charged debate about what it means to be deaf in the 21st century.
Should Gallaudet be the standard bearer for the view that sees deafness not as a disability, but as an identity, and that looks warily on technology like cochlear implants, questioning how well they work and arguing that they undermine a strong deaf identity and pride? Or should Gallaudet embrace the possibilities of connecting with the hearing world that technology can offer?
Should it demand that students and teachers communicate exclusively in American Sign Language, as some professors and students insist, or should it permit deaf and hard of hearing students to learn in whatever way suits them? Should it require professors to be fluent signers, and provide interpreters for those who are not proficient? Or should it let students struggle to catch their meaning, as many say they now do?
These questions are not limited to Gallaudet. They are reflected in debates across the country as technology creates new possibilities for deaf people through cochlear implants and increasingly sophisticated hearing aids. With genetic testing, the day may come when parents can choose medical intervention for a child who is likely to be born deaf, or even choose not to have that child.
With 96 percent of deaf children born to hearing parents, according to research by Gallaudet, many parents choose cochlear implants for their children at an early age, and 81 percent choose to mainstream their children into hearing classrooms.
Joseph Fischgrund, headmaster for the last 20 years at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf in Philadelphia, noted that advances like closed captioning and text pagers make it easier than ever for deaf people to have the same access to information as hearing people.
“It’s a culture in transition,” said Robert Kretschmer, coordinator of the program in the education of the deaf and hard of hearing at Columbia University Teachers College. “What Gallaudet represents is clearly one very strong faction and identity of deaf culture, with a capital D.”
Lawrence Fleischer, chairman of the deaf studies department at California State University, Northridge, signed through an interpreter his skepticism toward some of the new options.
“More parents are choosing cochlear implants for their children,” Mr. Fleischer said. “We call it the false hope. We call it the magical consciousness, meaning that their consciousness is way below average, but they’re pretending to have consciousness they don’t really have.”
The implants are devices surgically placed in the inner ear, connected to a receiver around the ear which picks up sound, and transmits it as electrical impulses to the brain. They are not sounds as they are heard, unimpeded, but signals that deaf people must learn to interpret into words. About 100,000 people around the world wear cochlear implants, including 22,000 adults and 15,000 children in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration says.
At the American School for the Deaf, in West Hartford, Conn., the director, Edward Peltier, said about 12 percent of students had cochlear implants, up from about 3 percent a decade ago. The school is the birthplace of American Sign Language.
Many Gallaudet students say they felt misunderstood and marginalized within their families, until they attended schools for the deaf and learned sign language. They say Gallaudet should play a strong advocacy role, lobbying to keep such schools open and remaining a forceful proponent of American Sign Language.
Students at Gallaudet have complained that Dr. Fernandes, who learned to sign only when she was 23, does not communicate well in A.S.L. — a point the university disputes — and that she has permitted professors who do not sign well to continue teaching, putting students at a disadvantage at the one institution where, they say, they should not suffer for being deaf. These students, forced to lip read or make do with poor signing, may not catch every word.
One protester, Ronald Ferris, who is blind and deaf, said he believed that Dr. Fernandes did not connect with deaf people. In a measure of how personal the dispute has become, Mr. Ferris pointed to her choice of a husband as proof. “She doesn’t really feel us,” he signed through interpreters. “She’s very critical of deaf culture, because she married somebody who hears.”
Her supporters say she has taken a forceful stand on issues, like a racial divide, looming in the deaf community. Frances E. Kendall, author of “Understanding White Privilege” and a consultant at Gallaudet on diversity issues, said Dr. Fernandes had made enemies in integrating the lower school on campus, where minority children had been concentrated in special education classes.
“She’s a visionary,” Ms. Kendall said. “She is a change maker when changes need to occur, and she has incredible backbone.”
In an interview with I. King Jordan, who is stepping down after 18 years as president, Dr. Fernandes, the former provost, said that she was committed “100, 150 percent” to signing and deaf culture, and that signing would always be the preferred method of communication at Gallaudet.
Bobby White, who leads a student group that opposes shutting down the campus, said, “Communication is the primary and top issue here,” adding, “There’s no reason for me, as a deaf person, to use my voice on campus.”
In an interview with I. King Jordan, who is stepping down after 18 years as president, Dr. Fernandes, the former provost, said that she was committed “100, 150 percent” to signing and deaf culture, and that signing would always be the preferred method of communication at Gallaudet.
But Dr. Fernandes said Gallaudet’s future lay in welcoming and valuing deaf and hard of hearing students from all avenues and educational backgrounds, rather than in promoting a specific deaf political orthodoxy. She would never ban spoken language in classes and meetings, as some on campus propose, she said. “This is a time of great change in deaf culture,” she said.
The passions and issues simmering beneath the discontent over Dr. Fernandes’s appointment help explain the persistence of a protest that some expected would have calmed after last weekend’s arrests of 134 demonstrators. Classes have resumed, but protesters are still camping out in tents by the main entrance.
This week, three in four faculty members called on Dr. Fernandes to resign, and the faculty voted no confidence in the board and Dr. Jordan. Until now, Dr. Jordan, Gallaudet’s first deaf president, has been a treasured symbol in the deaf community.
In the interview, Dr. Fernandes said that despite the opposition, she had no intention of resigning.
Not all those opposed to Dr. Fernandes differ with her views about the technology or using spoken language. Nicole Moran, a sophomore from York, Pa., said she did not hesitate to choose a cochlear implant for her 3-year-old daughter, who was profoundly deaf at birth.
“Her primary identity is as a deaf person,” Ms. Moran said. “But it’s a hearing world.”
Nevertheless, she said she did not support Dr. Fernandes. “She’s not an effective leader,” Ms. Moran said.
Others share this view. Thomas K. Holcomb, a professor of deaf studies whose two daughters were arrested at Gallaudet last weekend, said of Dr. Fernandes, “She says that her leadership style is to act behind the scenes, but what we really need is someone who can lead us out front, who can be our ambassador and inspire the larger public with issues regarding deaf people.”
