TheDoan: er no. Read Walhalla’s post.
TheDoan: er no. Read Walhalla’s post.
Double laugh Now DT, how do I turn that song off before it devours my soul? Hilfe!
(edit: it’s been on for 28 minutes now. Spare me.)
I agree with Sin that such behavior is stupid and rampant; I just think that there’s some justification for it in this particular case.
There is always justification for the preservation of culture in itself. That I won’t disagree.
The problem is that the way people end up doing it and their motivations for doing it aren’t about the preservation of culture because its not about the culture. Its about themselves and that is what leads to the kind of reprehensible behavior we see everywhere. I don’t see a justification for that kind of grotesque over-reaction (no we’re not discussing the irony of my discussing over-reactions) and narrow mindedness.
In this case, though, there is some justification, because the “culture” they’re trying to protect does have a measurable amount of good to the members of the culture. ASL is supposed to be a universal language for the deaf, so preserving the importance of ASL in a deaf school is understandable. Many members of the school would be entirely unable to communicate any other way.
You’re making 2 unrelated points and making it sound like they’re related, which they are not.
The first point is that the culture needs to be preserved by keeping outsiders out. Here, what is being considered an outsider is someone who is not deaf “enough”, and my point is that this is ridiculous because if the person can communicate in sign and is deaf, then it shouldn’t matter that the person can communicate in other ways. The culture of sign language isn’t being threatened because its not being taken away.
The second point is that bringing outsiders in would make the deaf people incapable of communicating and would thus be put at a disadvantage. This assumes that the people coming in wouldn’t know sign language and that the people teaching wouldn’t teach in sign. This is a deaf univeristy and therefore having people teach in languages other than sign is retarded for the simple reason that the people are deaf. This is what my whole analogy about White Canadians being taught in Chinese in Toronto. It makes no sense, thus this argument is not useful.
I was never trying to argue the first point, so I’m not sure where you’re getting at. As for the second point, you’re actually agreeing with me. Yes, having people who don’t teach or speak sign is stupid - but that’s exactly what the students are worried about happening. Apparently there are already staff who work at a deaf school and don’t speak sign. That is, in fact, the entire point of their protest.
The staff mentioned being some of the security / police and I questioned the validity of that complaint against the president that was being protested.
But in reality, that wasn’t the point of the protest. The point of the protest was what I described and this is emphasized by the NYT here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/education/30gallaudet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Who I quote saying the same things I’ve been saying: “The battle over Gallaudet’s future erupted at a time of massive change in the deaf world, with technological advances like cochlear implants and more effective hearing aids being felt by many in the forefront of the deaf-rights movement as an assault on deaf culture and deaf identity” and how "many protesters want the university to ban spoken language " , which she rejected.
No - they want to ban it “in classes and official meetings” - again, because the common denominator in the school finds ASL easier to understand, and allowing spoken language would mean that these people would be unable to participate. It would be like someone speaking a foreign language in an English school - you can speak whatever language you want between yourselves, but classes and meetings had better be in English.
To ban it in classes and in meetings isn’t about making it easier for people to understand for what’s going on in the classes because the class material itself has to be taught in ASL for the reason you described. The ban in classes is to make it so people can’t speak in class if they wanted to. For example, let’s say I have a chinese girl sitting next to me, I can’t speak to her in Chinese. This isn’t about me having a conversation in Chinese with the prof. Its about the unidirectional impositon of one’s will onto someone else. This is about creating an environment where any other form of communication is banned in all contexts. This is analogous to all other languages than English being banned from Canada.
I’d just like to throw something out there: Deaf people have another way to communicate besides sign language; the written word. If they’re illiterate, they shouldn’t be in college for this to be an issue. Writing is always a useful and thorough method of communication. Therefore, they have one very easy, nigh-universal alternative to their ASL zealotry.
Second, as long as classes are taught in ASL, I don’t see a problem with the teacher speaking, too. Some people are more comfortable with lip reading or hearing vauge sounds and piecing together words if they’re hard of hearing than they are reading sign language; just as you pointed out how people are more comfortable with ASL, others will be more comfortable with another communication method. They are being excluded. Side conversations, too, should have nothing ruldes against them. If two lab parterns are capable of hearing and want to communicate that way, for instance, why should they be stopped from doing it because other people, not in their lab group and sho should not be listening, can’t understand them? Knowing ASL is probably a good idea for a requirement (since many deaf people speak it, it will be necessary for communication, largely), but it shouldn’t be the only language one is allowed to speak.
However, many Gallaudet students and other deaf people have resisted technology that could allow them to hear. They bristle at the notion of deafness as a disability. And they are intent on preserving sign language as an essential part of what they call deaf culture.
This is the problem, Cid.
This has nothing to do with teachers communicating to students. This is about the students imposing their disabilities on others because they want to protect their self-esteem. They’re trying to convince themselves that deafness isn’t a disability so they won’t have to see themselves as disabled. The same way nerds try to convince themselves they don’t want beautiful women because they can’t get them anyway. The same way feminists try to convince themselves that being attached to a penis is a sin because they’re not. They’re weak and pathetic and they’re making others suffer for it. They retreat into their shells of galvanized steel delusions because they don’t want to fight the disability they think they don’t have. This is the problem.
To ban it in classes and in meetings isn’t about making it easier for people to understand for what’s going on in the classes because the class material itself has to be taught in ASL for the reason you described. The ban in classes is to make it so people can’t speak in class if they wanted to.
Honestly, I don’t know where you’re getting this from. You’re attributing this view to the students because the other view makes no sense - but this view doesn’t make much sense either. Why would they want to ban someone else speaking in class and not to ban it outside of class? Why would they care if someone they can’t hear, who isn’t the teacher, speaks in class? I think the entire POINT is that the administration seemed to be leaning towards this other very nonsensical idea of having some parts of classes presented in speech - perhaps not immediately, but the plan of having more people who are amenable to the idea may start tilting it towards that. That’s what they’re worrying about.
Arac: The written word is fine, but not perfect. It’s harder to make out from far away, and you can’t really face your fellow discussant while you “talk”. It’s less immediate, as well.
Hades: Deafness is a disability, and the problem is that there will be people who remain completely deaf despite what can be done for them. At this moment, there is a sort of deaf culture, where people have surrounded themselves with other deaf people, and they feel comfort and a sense of community in that. I see no problem with it. The problem would come if they try to get others to “think deaf” who don’t want to - and I still don’t see any emphatic evidence that they’re actually doing that, taking the article at face value rather than reading your foregone conclusion into it.
And it’s easy to say “fight the disability”, but that’s not always possible, and if they don’t feel that they have to, why should they?
I think these people mentioned in the article are like the kind of indian that still hunts with a bow and fishes with a rod for food. They have the freedom to embrace the modern way of life, but, other matters apart, that will go against their sense of identity (as Sin’s already said).
And the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about these people’s attitude towards their sign language was a scene in Futurama in which Bender and anothe rrobot are telling robot jokes. When Fry says he hasn’t got the jokes and asks what’s so funny in them, Bender replies that Fry is inferior for being unable to communicate understanding binary code.
This is a good summary of my last post, yes. I’m glad you understand this, it’s a good first step.
They’re taking it too far. Their sense of community is based on imposing their deafness on others, just like feminists don’t allow supportive men into their organizations. They would rather pretend they don’t have problems than go out and fix them.
Allow me to direct your attention to this:
It’s stated explicitly in the article. There’s no guesswork about my conclusions. She lost her contract because she wasn’t “adequately committed” to ASL. In other words, she lost her job because she wasn’t deaf <b>ENOUGH</b>. This is pretty emphatic evidence that they’re trying to make people “think deaf.”
I say again, they’re weak and pathetic and they’re making others suffer for it. You can sit here and argue it all day, but the evidence doesn’t lie. GG.
What they’re doing by discriminating against others and being obsessed about the perceived threat to their sense of identity is something that is common to people all over the world. You’re right that it is completely illogical, but it is the end result of some of the very basic principles that drive human nature, which is the rejection of that which is different, what doesn’t conform to their norms. This is a manifestation of how people like to live in their own bubble and ignore the harsh reality of the outside world. They want to preserve what they see as an ideal despite how their preservation has no rational basis. That is what people do when they take something personally and don’t think about its real implications.
People form social groups of like minded individuals and reject those that do not match those standards. Nerds think hot girls are ugly for reasons already described. Nerds rejected FF7 not because of any criteria the game didn’t fill, but because FF7 brought in a new demographic and they felt that their niche was being invaded by outsiders and tainting their realm. It was no longer theirs alone. It belonged to other people. They were no longer unique little snowflakes. The same applied to people who weren’t black enough and were called Oreo cookies when there were more racial tensions in the United States. The same applies to people in Quebec who aren’t French enough (hell that was labeled onto me for the simple reason I lived in California for a couple years and no other reason). The same is going on here. We have a bunch of deaf people. Some are better adapted to society than others and can read lips. Others choose not to because they feel it conflicts with their identity of being deaf to do so, because to do so wold mean integrating yourself in a society of people who aren’t deaf and who don’t meet your needs, because these people don’t want to ackownledge that being deaf is a disability and the implication that this makes some of them feel like lesser persons if they do so.
This happens in all contexts, in all settings, everywhere, all the time. This is no different.
The absurdity here is that ALL these people are deaf. They can’t hear for shit! But it doens’t matter that being deaf is a condition because being deaf is an identity. It implies that being deaf is to go by specific social standards and behaviors and harboring specific beliefs and attitudes and ultimately doing that is more insulting to deaf people overall becase it makes it so a disability becomes a political tool for a group of people to use at their convenience.
Exactly. And it’s a very destructive way of thinking.
She lost her contract because she wasn’t “adequately committed” to ASL. In other words, she lost her job because she wasn’t deaf ENOUGH.
Those two statements are not logically implied. Being adequately committed to ASL means being interested in providing the “lowest common denominator” of language in classes and official functions. Someone who runs a deaf school who isn’t committed to ASL (i.e. who is open to allowing spoken words replacing it in some situations) is lining up to discriminate against those deaf students who have no choice but to speak ASL, or who feel most comfortable speaking it. It does not mean she wasn’t deaf enough.
They want to preserve what they see as an ideal despite how their preservation has no rational basis.
It DOES have a rational basis, which is what I was saying. Having comfort in people who share your problems is hardly a new idea and it isn’t a bad one. Neither, certainly, is wanting to have classes given in a language which all deaf people understand.
We can argue discrimination both ways, of course - allowing spoken language in classes would be discrimination against those who can’t understand it, whereas forcing ASL in classes would be discrimination against those who don’t want to use it. There’s going to be discrimination either way. The question is which way is more reasonable, and as more deaf people are comfortable with ASL (and there are some who have no choice but to use it), I think that sticking with ASL is the more sensical method.
You’re right that it is completely illogical, but it is the end result of some of the very basic principles that drive human nature, which is the rejection of that which is different, what doesn’t conform to their norms.
And another part of human nature is wanting to change those norms when they don’t conform to their way of life - which is what the students are accusing Ms. Fernandes of doing by toning down the importance of ASL.
We’re going in circles Cid because we already addressed your points several times and you’re not addressing our responses. You also ignored the majority of the substance of what I said.
In the opinions of some students and faculty. See, this is where the guessing begins. They fire her because in their opinion she might be “lining up” to discriminate, and that’s where our problem lies. These people are violently paranoid.
Those statements are logically implied because she lost a no-confidence vote from the faculty on the basis of complaints against her commitment to ASL, costing her her job.