This is hilarious and disgusting at the same time.

[Sinistral]

Those two statements are not logically implied.

You’re being obtuse. The 2 are linked because commitment to ASL = being deaf enough and the commitment to ASL is about what we mentionned. You have no basis for saying people are being discriminated against because ASL isn’t present.

Neither, certainly, is wanting to have classes given in a language which all deaf people understand.

Except that that’s not the problem.

We can argue discrimination both ways, of course - allowing spoken language in classes would be discrimination against those who can’t understand it

Except that we don’t make a point of it when 2 Chinese people are speaking Chinese with one another in class.

whereas forcing ASL in classes would be discrimination against those who don’t want to use it.

So instead of allowing for freedom of speech, you remove it. The world doesn’t work that way.

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.

Now this is an unrelated point because there are people that are only comfortable with ASL force themselves to remain that way and there are people who don’t and can do many things at once. This isn’t about sticking to ASL because ASL isn’t going anywhere.

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.

People resist change. That’s not about wanting to change norms, its about resisting changes of norms. That’s human nature and that’s what’s happening.

Fernandes didn’t want to tone down the importance of ASL, Fernandes wanted to bring a greater diversity of deaf people to the University.Fernandes wasn’t commited to the deaf identity because of everything I mentioned in my last paragraph in the last long post. However, these people weren’t deaf enough and neither was Fernandes for reasons already described and for wanting to bring in and tolerate these people that weren’t deaf enough. Doing this is interpreted as toning down the importance of ASL, which is completely unrelated because the use of ASL in the University doesn’t change. Its like saying you’re toning down the importance of English because Chinese people are coming to your University. It is unrelated.

[Cidolfas]

Sin: I tried to address your points but I’m not sure you looked at my addressing them. I just don’t see the logical consistency in either your or Hades’ arguments.
In any case, yeah, this is a pretty moot argument since none of us are deaf and it doesn’t really have that big an impact in any case. 8p And I’m not disagreeing with you that, if you are right and they’re just spouting off like this for no real reason, it’s a stupid attitude. I just haven’t been convinced that this attitude is necessarily the case, or is completely unjustified here.

[Sinistral]

I quoted almost every sentence in your last post , so I think addressed your argument. My argument is logical and has consistently been the same in this entire thread. We also consistently quote our source material of what’s been going on to support our claims, which you don’t. You make an assumption of what you think is a justified reason for doing something and you stick to that when there is no factual support for your claim. You want to believe that their actions aren’t illogical and unjustified and give them the benefit of the doubt when there is a logical argument otherwise and factual support for that logical argument.

[Cidolfas]

I’m not bringing proofs because I’m trying to deconstruct your proofs. You’re the ones who are trying to say that these people have this agenda and I’m trying to tell you that the proofs you’re bringing are flawed.

I missed your last post when I did my last post, so I’ll reiterate my points again.

You’re being obtuse. The 2 are linked because commitment to ASL = being deaf enough and the commitment to ASL is about what we mentionned.

No it’s not. I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Let me make clear my understanding of this. ASL is a language that all deaf people learn. I.e. those who cannot hear at all, learn this language. This is a deaf school. Commitment to ASL simply means that you want ASL to be the official spoken language of the school. Weakening of this commitment does not mean that you’re “not deaf enough” but that you are trying to say that perhaps some parts of the school shouldn’t be speaking ASL - which means that some students may not understand the things that they’re participating in.

You have no basis for saying people are being discriminated against because ASL isn’t present.

There are people who cannot speak any language but ASL. In a deaf school, not speaking ASL means these people cannot learn. I’d call that discrimination.

Except that we don’t make a point of it when 2 Chinese people are speaking Chinese with one another in class.

You have failed to prove that this is what the students were trying to do. None of the statements from either article claims that this is the case. All it said was that they wanted ASL to be solely spoken “in classes and meetings”, which implies that the teachers and participants of the class would use ASL while presenting material. Why would they care if someone in the class spoke to someone else in the class? And if they would care, why would they specify “classes and meetings” instead of anywhere on campus?

So instead of allowing for freedom of speech, you remove it. The world doesn’t work that way.

By that argument, if I wanted to give a class in Chinese at York U., and they didn’t let me, that would infringe on my freedom of speech. There’s speech and then there’s language.

Now this is an unrelated point because there are people that are only comfortable with ASL force themselves to remain that way and there are people who don’t and can do many things at once. This isn’t about sticking to ASL because ASL isn’t going anywhere.

I could very well learn Chinese - but I’m comfortable in English, the official language of my university is English, and I see no reason to change that just because there’s a sudden influx of Chinese students.

People resist change. That’s not about wanting to change norms, its about resisting changes of norms. That’s human nature and that’s what’s happening.

And, as I said, if a person comes into a place whose norms aren’t their own, they have a desire to change those norms to conform to their own. That drive is the same as the one you mentioned but from a different vantage point.

Doing this is interpreted as toning down the importance of ASL, which is completely unrelated because the use of ASL in the University doesn’t change. Its like saying you’re toning down the importance of English because Chinese people are coming to your University. It is unrelated.

This is a separate point, and if true, I’ll concede it. But from my understanding of the article, she wasn’t ousted for the simple and only reason that she wanted “less deaf” people coming in. It sounded like she was already playing down the use of ASL on campus - for example, the line where students had to deal with staff and officers who didn’t speak ASL.

[Hypharse]

Am I wrong in thinking that you guys are just interpreting the article differently and given the same base interpretation you all would agree? The way that article starts out seems like the students do just want to preserve their culture like the students that reject possible cures because they don’t think they are impaired. However, the way it ends states that there are objective reasons for wanting to keep ASL a priority like hiring key university staff like police officers that the students can not communicate with. All students certainly should have access to emergency help.

I am sure in reality both of those are correct and the importance will change depending on which student you ask. The students that want to preserve culture probably don’t want the feeling of jealousy, paranoia and exclusion when they see those talking with cochlear implants. Those students that just want legitimate access to important staff probably feel that it may become harder and harder to communicate with those they need to.

In my opinion, if they enrolled at the university with the expectations that they would be able to communicate with everyone using ASL then the university should make every effort they can to accomplish that. I see no problem with them saying to new students that the university will be heading in a new direction and then slowly making the changes until all current students have graduated at which point most students will have voluntarily enrolled knowing the new policies.

[Trillian]

Funny and pathetic.

[Walhalla]

I should have read this NYT article sooner (and I thought this debate was almost over >.>). I find it particularly funny that they (the protesters) want to ban spoken language in class and meetings considering the way they reacted to Fernandes’ drop

Joshua Toz, a student who attended the campus protest, said in an e-mail message that “students burst into tears of happiness” upon hearing of their victory. “Hands went up and mouths opened and screamed,” he said.

At a ceremony at the football field, Mr. Toz wrote, students burned an effigy of Dr. Fernandes, known on campus as J.K. “We worked hard and finally broke the hold J.K. had on the president-designate’s position. Gallaudet University is now ours,” he wrote.

Tears of happiness? Broke the hold? It pretty much sounds as if they felt like they were under some kind of dictatorship (especially from the second quote). And now they want to apply a ban? It’s not important how the ban is applied (to teaching only, through the class or not), it just seems a bit extreme. Fernandes saying “that she could never envision banning spoken language at Gallaudet” shows just how much this ban could have an impact on some students, especially those who feel more comfortable to communicate that way (and who happen to be part of this wider deaf community).

But anyway, I’d only be repeating exactly what Sin and Hades have been saying for the past 10 posts about this whole “imposition on others” thing:

It’s about the unidirectional imposition of one’s will onto someone else.

…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.

People form social groups of like minded individuals and reject those that do not match those standards.

and

This is about the students imposing their disabilities on others because they want to protect their self-esteem.

They retreat into their shells of galvanized steel delusions because they don’t want to fight the disability they think they don’t have.

Their sense of community is based on imposing their deafness on others […]. They would rather pretend they don’t have problems than go out and fix them.

if I went on.

On an unrelated note:

The same way nerds try to convince themselves they don’t want beautiful women because they can’t get them anyway.

This is so true and hilarious.

(Damn I’m slow. It took me 3 hours to write this. I suck. How can you guys write so much all the time!? -_-)

[Cidolfas]

I have a typing speed of about 90 wpm. 8p

I agree that a full ban on spoken language would be ridiculous, but I’m not sure that that’s what they were trying to accomplish.
You’re calling it a “ban”, but if it’s as I interpreted it before (i.e. that teaching classes and participating in meetings would be done only in ASL) it’s no more a “ban” than would be a ban on Chinese in English universities. There’s an official language and that’s what these things are done in.

[Hades_Vulvuhzela]

This is so true and hilarious.

Haha, don’t give me any credit. Sin was the genius behind that line. I completely ripped him off.

[Sinistral]

ASL is a language that all deaf people learn. I.e. those who cannot hear at all, learn this language. This is a deaf school.

This is exactly why this whole protest is so ridiculous.

Weakening of this commitment does not mean that you’re “not deaf enough”

The only thing interpreted as weakened commitment is the desire to bring in people that the culture-obsessed deaf people consider as not deaf enough despite the fact they’re dearf.

but that you are trying to say that perhaps some parts of the school shouldn’t be speaking ASL - which means that some students may not understand the things that they’re participating in.

Never have I said or even remotely implied that. In fact, I’ve repeatedly stated that all classes should be taught in ASL as the students are deaf. All classes should be in English at a Canadian University and not Chinese. That’s the point of the analogies.

There are people who cannot speak any language but ASL. In a deaf school, not speaking ASL means these people cannot learn. I’d call that discrimination.

I never disputed that if such a thing were to occur it would be discrimination. What I’ve said is that you have no reason or proof to believe that they aren’t being taught that way because it makes no sense that they wouldn’t be.

You have failed to prove that this is what the students were trying to do. None of the statements from either article claims that this is the case. All it said was that they wanted ASL to be solely spoken “in classes and meetings”, which implies that the teachers and participants of the class would use ASL while presenting material. Why would they care if someone in the class spoke to someone else in the class? And if they would care, why would they specify “classes and meetings” instead of anywhere on campus?

It is the only potentially logical conclusion because the teachers aren’t going to teach and the students aren’t going to present in any other way than ASL anyway. Why they would care about what other people do has to do with what I was talking about: imposing themselves on others. Classes and meetings would be specified because its easier to enforce. You’re not going to have a gestapo with plain clothed officers and microphones everywhere to make sure people aren’t speaking.

By that argument, if I wanted to give a class in Chinese at York U., and they didn’t let me, that would infringe on my freedom of speech. There’s speech and then there’s language.

1- You took the sentence out of context purposefully to avoid what it meant. 2- In no way did that have anything to do with what I said. I have no idea where you’re pulling this out of if only to piss me off. The whole thing with the freedom of speech restriction isn’t about teaching in Chinese because I never made any comments on teaching in Chinese. My entire point was about letting people talk in Chinese if they wanted.

I could very well learn Chinese - but I’m comfortable in English, the official language of my university is English, and I see no reason to change that just because there’s a sudden influx of Chinese students.

Neither do you have to and that’s not the point. People who only speak in ASL aren’t discriminated against because other people around them can communicate in languages other than ASL. They’re only discriminated against if it is used against them, like if a class isn’t being taught in ASL. The fact of the matter is , this is not the case therefore it is not a problem.

And, as I said, if a person comes into a place whose norms aren’t their own, they have a desire to change those norms to conform to their own. That drive is the same as the one you mentioned but from a different vantage point.

So here you’re speculating about things that neither have or will happen.

This is a separate point, and if true, I’ll concede it.

Its not a separate point. It is my ENTIRE point.

But from my understanding of the article, she wasn’t ousted for the simple and only reason that she wanted “less deaf” people coming in.

This in itself is considered by these people as weakening ASL.

It sounded like she was already playing down the use of ASL on campus - for example, the line where students had to deal with staff and officers who didn’t speak ASL.

The only potentially valid point about the problem with not enough ASL is the police/security and I brought up questions about that. This is the only thing that can in any way _potentially_be held against her, which may not even be within her power or even have been brought to her knowledge. As I said before, this is so vague and there is so little information on this issue, that is impossible to discuss to any length. At worst, it is unfortunate and at worst, it did not merit nor elicit the kinds of demonstrations, nor the kinds of statements brought forward against her.

[Cidolfas]

OK, so I’ve pinpointed why we’re having this whole discussion. 8p End of story, neither you nor me know all the details about what the students are demanding or what she had done in office. Other than that, it sounds like we’re pretty much agreeing on everything.

[Hades_Vulvuhzela]

OK, so I’ve pinpointed why we’re having this whole discussion. 8p End of story, neither you nor me know all the details about what the students are demanding or what she had done in office. Other than that, it sounds like we’re pretty much agreeing on everything.

She didn’t do anything in office. She was never in office. The students and other faculty kicked her out because they were skeptical of her commitment to deaf education. This was stated in the article, which I’m beginning to think more and more that you didn’t even read. The students wanted her gone, and this was reflected in their reaction to her removal.

There is nothing complex about this. The details are all there.

[Cidolfas]

Perhaps you didn’t read it, Hades - she’s the incoming president, but she’s the incumbent provost. She did have office already, just not as much power as the president’s position would give her.

[Sinistral]

Which goes back to the question of how the power was used or misused, which wasn’t brought up ever except with a single brief reference to police taking away protesters and being unable to speak sign.

[Cidolfas]

Right. Like I said, without more info this whole discussion is a bit moot.

[Hades_Vulvuhzela]

Perhaps you didn’t read it, Hades - she’s the incoming president, but she’s the incumbent provost. She did have office already, just not as much power as the president’s position would give her.

Haha, my mistake. There’s still very little doubt what the students are thinking though.

[Sinistral]

Right. Like I said, without more info this whole discussion is a bit moot.

Not really. There’s plenty information to go on about their motivations through what they said. As I said before, the only thing you’ve done up to now is not provide proof for your claim while throwing around hypotheses that would make you feel their actions were justified.

[Cidolfas]

You’re forgetting that I’m not trying to provide proof that what I’m saying is true - only that it might be true and that your hypotheses might be false.

[Sinistral]

And George Bush might not be an idiot and his administration might not have bungled the Iraq invasion and follow up.

[Cidolfas]

Well, we were discussing one particular (or rather two particular) articles, and I was trying to demonstrate that your point of view on it wasn’t necessarily correct. I personally like to try and give people the benefit of the doubt if at all possible, so that’s what I was trying to do.