Is "Divisive" Misleading?

Deafhood's new catchphrase, "divisive" term is well utilized lately. The word refers to person making statements or doing something to divide groups within a deaf community. I am not certain as to what origin this catchphrase came from but I am guessing either from the Bay Area community or Paddy Ladd's Deafhood book.

Protesters were accused of being divisive during the uprising at Gallaudet. Divided the campus into three groups: Pro-Fernandes, Anti-Fernandes and Neutral. As if this is bad? I would think that is to be expected. One couldn't expect everyone to agree with the cause. The Pro-Fernandes group geuninely believed she was the best leader for Gallaudet - possibly because they related to her...shared similar backgrounds, views and philosophy. That is perfectly all right. The Neutral group had the "Who Cares?" attitude - were only concerned about themselves and their future. Gallaudet did not mean much to them - it was just an university. They didn't have the emotional ties to Gallaudet that the two other groups did. They did not care about anything except themselves, including the future of Gallaudet and our youths. They also have the right to feel that way. Is this divisive? I don't think so. The protesters did not do anything divisive. Neither did Fernandes. She harmed ALL 3 groups by refusing to resign and prolonging the protest needlessly. She did not allow for healthy environment for anyone at Gallaudet, no matter which group.

This brings me to the controversial blog, Chris' Roar, in the Bay Area thread. Posters on this thread have been accused of being divisive for criticizing the Gala's hosts on how they handled the celebration. That got me to wonder if those posters were actually divisive? Or were the hosts of the Gala emulating Fernandes? Did they handle the Gala in an unhealthy way that did not allow for healing in the Bay Area?

One needs to ponder a few points: The cost the attendees had to pay to attend the Gala, the location of the Gala which was at a very expensive hotel, the guests of honor being limited to four, and the event being sponsored by a local organization.

Was the celebration friendly? Open for everyone? One needs to wonder why the hosts chose to hold the gala at an expensive out-of-way hotel which meant the attendees would have to be charged a hefty price to get in and pay a separate price to eat and to drink alcohol. One has to wonder why the celebration could not have been held at a reception hall elsewhere? Perhaps at CSDF? Have a potluck? Invite all the student leaders to attend, not just the four? Charge reasonable price to attend to offset costs of hosting the event...perhaps for drinks, clean up, probably pay airline tickets for some guests of honor? Reasonable price being $25, not $50. That way, more could attend and celebrate together.

I have no doubt the gala was great and everyone had a good time. That was besides the point.

Now, who was being divisive? The hosts of the gala or the local people and/or the thread posters? To be perfectly honest, if the gala is held here in my town, and the price is $50, and I couldn't afford to go but I want to celebrate too and to meet the student leaders, I'd be upset too. I'd question the motive behind the prices and the location as well, to be frank with you.

But my guess is the Bay Area was unintentional in being "elitists" when choosing the gala to be held in a fancy hotel. I think they only wanted to impress the student leaders and to lend themselves prestige. I think they unintentionally stepped on many toes.

I think they had "water splashed on their faces" upon reading all those comments on Chris' blog. Hope this is a lesson learned? Aim to be more fair and friendly to everyone in the town. They preach "Unity" and "Deafhood." They just need to learn to practice their slogans themselves. It takes time for the concept to be ingrained and incorporated.