After Viewing The Gala on Joey Baer's Blog...

Folks, I need to recant some words I said on my previous post regarding the Bay Area Gala...After viewing the clips that Joey Baer posted on his blog, I was thrilled to see some people that many would view as "oralists" or non-native signers appear in front of the camera to give their comments about the gala. There WERE diverse people there.

I still feel the gala was unnecessarily expensive and inaccessible to many because of the costs...but I changed my mind about the gala being limited to professional people because there is evidence on Joey Baer's clips that there were diverse people and I am thrilled about that.

I still feel the gala could have invited more guests of honor, but so far the explanation is that these four are recognized and appointed leaders by FSSA. That seems like acceptable and appropriate decision to invite just these four. I think I ought back down on this one....

Based on the comments made by the non-native signers that were selected to be on Joey's clips, they all were so inspired and thrilled to be part of the celebration and that is enough for me. They were there and part of it all.

I only wish Joey had posted the clips of the gala before Chris Leon posted his comments about the gala that led, as of now, to 209 comments. The clips would answer many of questions the posters asked on Chris' Bay Area thread. If Chris had seen the clips, he, like me, probably would not have even brought up the issue at all. All in the timing, I guess. We jumped the gun.

As always, Joey, excellent job.

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.

What Can We Realistically Expect from Dr Davila?

It seems most of us are happy with the selection of Dr Davila as interim president of Gallaudet. The operative word being "interim." He will not be at Gallaudet long. Now, what can we expect from him as an interim? How much can he do? Will he have full authority as a tenured president would have to make changes or to make policies and codes. Would he be able to fire teachers who do not sign? Would he be able to remove Jordan administrators?

These are the biggest concerns on campus - old-school Jordan-loyal administrators and the quality of education. What can Dr Davila do about these? How much will BoT allow him do?

Common sense and experience tells me Dr Davila is not in position to change things at Gallaudet but rather to unify, to repair damages to Gallaudet's reputation, and possibly to interject life and quality into Gallaudet's damaged academic programs by rising to meet the standards of the Middle States Accreditation. He has loads of experience in working with operative organizations having worked for U.S. Department of Education and as Director of NTID where he rose the academic standards. I believe that is the reason BoT selected him over Weiner and Marshall. Davila has experience outside of Gallaudet with many organizations, agencies, and a Rolodex of networking. More political clout.

I believe his selection and expectation of accomplishments are focused upon repairing Gallaudet's reputation and to rise Gallaudet's academic standards rather than on the inside which would be administration, faculty, staff and the current students.

I believe he will work closely with Middle States Accreditation. I support that. Gallaudet's biggest blemish is the academic standards. They seem to admit just anyone to keep up with the required enrollment number to maintain the university status. This truly harms the quality of education at Gallaudet in name of keeping "University" next to Gallaudet. I'd like to see Gallaudet to be resurrected to it's old days when they accepted students who could perform college-level work and wrote good English - mind you, not perfect, but at least 7th grade or higher level.

So, Gallaudet is left with two choices: Keep the university status and continue to admit 3rd- 4th grade level students or to go back to their former standards, and stand to lose perhaps a thousand students and big chunk of the budget. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. Almost impossible to choose.

I believe Middle States Accreditation along with Davila's collorabation will be the determining factor in whether Gallaudet will go with rising the academic standards or to continue the current standards. This may be Davila's most significant job and accomplishment during his tenure as the interim president.

I believe the inside job would be left to the new permanent president. So, I think that is even more critical than Davila's selection. We are happy about Davila because we know he can do what he can do for Gallaudet but we need to leave Davila be and train our eyes on BoT once again and watch them to communicate about what we want in our new permanent president which would be at Gallaudet for the next 10-20 years. He would have bigger impact and influence upon Gallaudet than Davila.

Let Davila be - let him do his job for the time being. It is time to talk about the next president, folks. Frankly, I am afraid for Gallaudet given BoT's history for blunders.

HDTV Requirement as of 2008??

At my Think Tank meeting, we were talking about relay service, HOVRS vs. Sorenson and quality of reception that relay service works best with which type of TV...One member brought up HDTV - High Definition TV. Some TVs are "HD ready" meaning it has components and are ready for hook up/connection and some have HDTV already built in. Anyway, this member stated that Congress recently passed into law that all TVs must have HD. None of us could figure why would Congress pass such a law? What is significant about HD that it necessinates consumers to have them in their TVs? What technological invention or aspect relating to HD that is in the planning in the next 2 years that will impact our TV experience?

Anyone knows?? Please share! Because HDTV is expensive! A 13 inch HDTV-ready averages at $200. A built in HDTV is around $300. And they are available in LCD or plasma models. It seems the lovable and bulky tube TVs will become obsolete and be displayed in museums as antiques in near future! That is, if HDTV is in fact a requirement in every household in 2008??!!

Come to think of it...Sort of like cable. In the old days, people had the option of choosing network/local channels only, and paying for cable as a "luxury." Nowadays, cable is a requirement to have any reception on your TV, that being local/network channels or cable channels. You can opt out of having cable channels to get the lowest monthly tier - but you still have to pay for TV reception for local/network channels. It used to be free. Indeed, you might want the challenge of manipulating a pair of antennas to attempt to find reception for free or get a black-market cable box.

Wondering if this is a deja vu of the cable TV takeover? Well, that's what you get for living in capitalistic/entrepreneural America. Powerful companies have Congress in their pockets. What next? Pay for breathing air? We're already paying for drinking water, folks.

My Rant About Relay Service

Don't get me wrong. Relay service is a lifesaver for us Deafies. It bridges us to the mainstream society. I could not imagine being in the pre-relay service era....My parents used to ask a neighbor or a relative to make appointments for them or drove to the offices to speak about problems or to resolves issues. When they had a potential job interview, they had to leave phone number of a neighbor so she could run over and let them know when the potential employer called and gave interview date and time. Talk about utter lack of privacy and dependence on hearing people. So, my rant is not about the existence of relay service. It is how they operate.

It being IP, VRS or direct TTY relay, they all operate in the similar way; they introduce calls like a telemarketer. I've been told by those who I approached to address the issue that I got hung upon by them because of a relay call that the relay operators present themselves in the similar manner that a telemarketer does. We all hate telemarketers, don't we? I sure do. I get calls from them on my caller ID all the time and I even signed on the national no-call list for telemarketers - to no avail. I relate to the mainstream society's dislike for telemarketers and do not blame them for immediately hanging up.

It is not their fault. It is HOW the relay operators present themselves that cause problems for us. They say, " This is AZRS, operator (number and sex). Have you ever used relay service before?" Oy! I would hang up IMMEDIATELY!

What I don't get is....Why can't they simply say, "This is (your name) and I am a client, patient, or whatever, using relay service that has an operator who translates calls between a deaf consumer and the person using voice." The operator can close the call with her/his ID number. Why does using relay service have to be so complicated and such a turn off?? Why do the relay operators have to introduce themselves FIRST? They are not the caller. The deaf consumers should introduce themselves FIRST and then introduce the relay operators. I believe this would simplify the process and make the experience much more pleasant and smooth. Eliminate the telemarketing feel.

Me thinks the relay service system needs some tweaking to finetune the introduction process to make the experience pleasant for both parties. After all, the consumer is always right, aren't we??

GallyProtest's 9-Demand Letter to BoT

Sorry. No link. Received this in original format via email. Guess I am on their email list. I wrote down my email address on a poster for FSSA last October 15th (look up the post by scrolling down) in Phoenix, AZ which was sent to FSSA along with the money collected at the Tent City. I believe that is where the organization had access to my email address. Wonder if the Letter of Demands to BoT is too much? When you ask too much, there is high likelihood of it being ignored. You know the saying, "Pick your battles." What do you think, folks?

Without further ado, here is the copied'n'pasted copy of the letter I received in my email:

To: The People of the United States of America, including the Gallaudet University Community, Gallaudet alumni members and all interested parties

From: http://www.gallyprotest.orgDat

Date: December 8, 2006FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The following open letter to Jane Fernandes, the disgraced, former President-elect of Gallaudet, is also intended to be read by all members of the Gallaudet Community, including alumni members and members of the general public.

As the open letter demonstrates, Fernandes put Gallaudet students' lives at risk. Indeed, two were murdered as a result of her failure to make proper administrative decisions. Irving King Jordan, Jr. shares an equal amount of moral guilt for the two murders, due to his failure to properly supervise Fernandes and also due to his moral culpability in appointing her to university positions in the first place. Following the open letter below, we bring additional information to the attention of the Gallaudet community and the public at large, involving the failure of the Gallaudet Board of Trustees to recognize the Gallaudet protesters as true heroes to whom the concept of reprisals should be inapplicable, and also pertinent information regarding other outrages involving the behavior of Irving King Jordan and certain members of his administration.

Readers are asked to send e-mails, faxes or make phone calls to members of the Board of Trustees to demand that they take immediate actions to resolve these pressing issues. Please see the contact information for the Board members at the end of this press release.

Open Letter to Jane Kelleher Fernandes:

(I tried posting the Nine Points of Grievance Letter in its entirety, but seems Deadread is not able to accept such a long post as I repeatedly tried to submit and failed, so I am providing a link that Gallaudet Protest Legal Issues poster provided me in my post comment section. Thanks!) Here is the link to read the entire letter:



"Nine Points of Grievance"

If this link doesn't work, scroll down to the comment link, and you will see the same url with highlight which indicates direct url to the letter.