Jamie VS Ridor II

Jamie of Berke Outspoken and Ridor are at it again. I did an entry on them here way back in the beginning of this month.

This time, it is about LA Times' article on Shawn McDonald, a football player at CSDR. Jamie was of opinion that the article put the Deaf in the bad light and that the message the author wrote is being conveyed across to millions of readers who have absolutely no inkling of what deaf is all about while Ridor, quote, "I think it is cool and good," and "Stop whining, Jamie," unquote."

This time I am siding with Jamie. This is parallel to my previous entry on "IKJ's Most Recent Backlash." I shared that we shouldn't dismiss IKJ's "childish attempt at calling attention upon himself" because his words carry a lot of weight with Washington Post readers. This is also true with LA Times readers.

The author of that article wrote in a manner that made Shawn McDonald appear incompetent and severely disadvantaged. He also described ASL as "contorted arm and hand movements." Contorted means "unnatural."

This is also another instance of "Not Deaf Enough" issue. Shawn is not fluent in ASL, is dependent on oralism to communicate, and was frustrated in communicating with his fellow team mates. The author made it to appear that the other players rejected him based on his level of ASL skills just as Washington Post had with Jane Fernandes.

Jamie is right in saying the author presented a serious misinformation and misinterpretation of what he observed and understood. This is something we all must be on the alert about and be on the watch for irresponsible and/or biased journalism. I am not sure which the author was - irresponsible or ignorant.

Now CSDR looks bad. People all over Southern California now views CSDR as an institution where they take in failures. Dumping ground for the products of failure from other educational programs. The students are there as last resorts because "they are hopeless," to quote one of the football COACH!! Now, if I were Mal Grossinger, I'd pink slip that coach, pronto. I'd not want any faculty/staff in my employ who view the students as "hopeless," much less say that to a reporter.

How to remedy the situation? Send a school PR to supervise the interview and to go over the reporter's notes to make sure the reporter receive information correctly and present them appropriately. To prevent misquotes and bad quotes such as the one made by the coach. Any educational institution need to be on red alert any time a reporter comes to do an interview. Due to serious ignorance on deafness, we are all too often misquoted and misunderstood, even with an interpreter. We also need to be on red alert because we never know if the reporter has a bias towards the deaf. Dimmed views on the deaf. Paternalistic attitudes. Audistic tendencies.

Do not assume reporters come with good intentions, that they want to make the school or the students look good, to put them in positive light. Watch out and find what their motive is to interview and what agenda they have. This LA Times author apparently had a motive. I wonder why he targeted Shawn? He was new to CSDR. One would think there were more qualified CSDR student to interview - one who has been at CSDR for a while, knows the school, has strong self-image and ambitions, of which Shawn had none. Now, does anyone wonder why?

Thus why we all have to be on the alert about the individual reporter. What brought this reporter to our institution? What did this reporter hear about our institution that he/she decided to come and do an interview? We need to ask those questions.

IJK's Most Recent Backlash

Here am I, reading the entries on IKJ's scandalous statements in Washington Post and knee-jerk reactions by some bloggers and commenters.

What I am thinking: What did you expect? For IKJ to go quietly? It will be a snowy day in July before he'd do that.

After all, the protest destroyed his 19-year legacy at Gallaudet as its president. He rose to fame in DPN 1988, was well respected, and a celebrity among the deaf. He was hailed as a hero by some, although I've never "got it" with this one.

Naturally, he is bitter and angry. How dare the students turn against him? He believed he was a hero and a messiah. How dare they question his decisions? How dare they say Jane was not the right choice? He served Gallaudet and he wanted and expected something in return: submission by the students. Appreciation from students for what he had done for Gallaudet.

None of which he had received. Instead, he got a huge protest, worldwide attention upon him associated with the protest, lost confidence from faculty and the students, and unwavering determination of the students to see Jane gone. He felt betrayed. His legacy was destroyed. He did not get to leave with a bang.

Of course, he would not go quietly. He will make sure everyone doesn't forget him, and focus upon him, and not upon, quote "the interim president", unquote. His disdain and snobbery toward Dr Davila was glaringly obvious in his Washington Post interview - refusal to call him by his name.

His snobbery towards Dr Davila is indicative of professional jealousy. He knows Davila is well liked and well received by the very same students and faculty that destroyed his legacy. It does not sit well with the King.

He wants to make sure the world listens to him and not "the interim president." He is trying to downplay Davila's position and role in the post-protest Gallaudet. He is trying to make sure the world understands that Davila is insignificant.

The larger concern is that Washington Post has large readership. They have a huge circulation. We shouldn't dismiss IKJ as "the silly old ex-president who is being pathetically childish in wanting attention." His words carry weigh with Washington Post readers.

The Davila camp ought form their own PR and develop a relationship with a nationally known circulation to dispel IKJ's attempts to keep spotlight upon him.

Anyway, back to the point - why the knee-jerk reaction? We all should have expected him to rise and speak again sooner or later. He ain't gonna go down quietly. It happened sooner than later, regretfully.

Nice Surprise!

I was surprised my blog was nominated for the 2006 Best Essayist Award. It was a nice surprise. Thanks everyone for the nomination! :) Now let the best essayist win!

"Fail Once, Try Again!": ODE Versus OSB & OSD

Banjo entered a post on this. It is the truth. The Salem paper, Statesman Journal, did several stories on the battle at OSB. ODE tried to shut down OSB and move the students into public schools. OSB won the battle by pointing out that the students know the layout of the campus, where all the buildings were, and moving them would be traumatic for the students.

This happened while I was working at OSD that one year. I had read articles about OSB but did not know where the school was at. All I knew was it was not at OSD.

One day, I made a wrong turn in downtown Salem trying to reach the large hospital near Capitol. My son had poison ivy and was itching real bad on his legs and I needed to take him to the ER. His legs were swelling up and becoming mucous. I drove through what looked like a beautiful, landscaped, historical campus. I thought it was some kind of a private school. There were many old shade trees and beautiful old buildings from early 1900s or late 1800s. It was fitting for a postcard. I wondered what school that was just before I spotted the hospital.

Glad that my son was going to keep his legs, I drove back home, and again, I made the same wrong turn on that same street. This time I saw the school gate with the name: Oregon School for the Blind.

I went, "Eh?? THAT is OSB?? What an irony! Such a gorgeous campus full of blind students who couldn't see to appreciate their surroundings! While OSD's students have to see such a dreary and ugly campus located near railroad tracks in a semi-industrial area! " OSB is right across from the legendary Bush Park - heart of Salem - an extension of the beautiful grounds of OSB with huge shade trees and a smorgasbord of beautiful flowers.

Absolutely. Land developers would LOVE to grab OSB. It is a prime piece of land. It happened back then when ODE tried to move OSB to OSD. Someone in ODE were in cahoots with land developers. Now it is happening AGAIN. I would not be surprised if Ed Dennis made a back-alley deal with some land developers to move OSB to OSD and receive monetary reward or promised a political position for his work.

It happened to CSD-B - CSD-F sacrificed Berkeley upon being told it was on a fault which might be unsafe for the students to reside on. Of course it was false. University of Berkeley had been eyeing that huge beautiful campus, much similar to that at OSB, for themselves. UB is right next door to CSD-B and you guessed it - they bought the land. Now the formerly CSD-B has since been absorbed into UB.

Money and corruption. Ed Dennis, it appears, may be motivated by money and political gain. I can imagine Jane refusing to agree to absorb OSB students.

ODE waited for controversy to die down and is now trying again to move OSB to OSD. There is a lot to gain for ODE to gain financially - they could cut down on faculty, staff, the cafeteria, maintenance, utilities, and administration jobs.

Ed Dennis may have dismissed Jane without notice or cause because it may be he already knew from the first time years ago that Jane would never agree to moving OSB to OSD. He wanted her out of the way. He needs a puppet.

Know what I think? Why not move OSD to OSB?? That way the OSD students would have access to everything! Safeway a few blocks away. Mall a few blocks to the north. Bush Park right across the street. City Bus main station a few blocks to the south. VR office a few minutes walk. Hospital around the corner. Willamette River a short bus ride - another nice park there. Many fast food restaurants within walking distances - and nice ones, too. Much better than where OSD is now - in older, decrepit neighborhood with some industrial buildings to the southeast. Fred Meyer - grocery store - is across a very busy street - a thoroughfare to the north parts of the city. Only one fast food - McDonald's. If ODE wants to cut down on costs, move OSD to OSB, the better campus of the two!

But, no. Because no land developer in their right mind would want OSD land. The neighborhood is not desirable. At the most, they might build an economical lower-middle class apartment complex on OSD's land. Not much of a pot of gold. OSB land offers so much more. The location is highly desirable as well as the grounds. Downtown location. Prime piece of real estate. You can building almost anything in downtown and hit a jackpot.

Land developers and ODE may be bedfellows in this. Learn from the political corruption of
CSD-B/CSD-F and don't let it happen again!

To get an idea of what OSB campus looks like, view here:




View the vast greenery and trees.

To view more, click here: OSB Photo Gallery.

Tried to find a shot at the gate of OSB where the best part of the campus is, but no luck in finding it.

I could not find any good picture of general area of OSD. There are greenery and trees at OSD but not as picturesque and the buildings are dreary.

First Evaluation of Dr Davila

Upon reading report to the Gallaudet community by Dr Davila, I felt warm and secure about him. As predicted in my previous entry titled, "What Can We Realistically Expect From Dr Davila?" that he would be mostly focused upon Middle States Accreditation, MSA, which was validated since it was the main topic of Dr Davila's report.

Dr Davila is reaching out to Gallaudet Community and implementing what he set out to do. He is a man of his words. He emits confidence and I, although not physically present at Gallaudet, absorbed his energy, integrity, confidence and sincerity through his letter. I believe it is also true for the Gallaudet community as well.

So far, Dr Davila is batting high. He will be a tough act to follow for the new president. I hope BoT is tracking Davila, making observations, and making a list of traits, qualifications, and requirements closely to those of Dr Davila that they should be looking for when interviewing for the new president. Davila is the model BoT needs to be following and be looking for.

Ultimately, it is great that Davila has disproved JKF's claims that her termination had all to do with the "Not Deaf Enough" card. Dr Davila is quite a proficient user of Total Communication approach - a product of his generation. Heck, he uses more "oralism" than JKF does, but that doesn't matter any to most of us. Davila proved to the world that it was always about leadership style with JKF as well as her visions of future for Gallaudet which collides with what defines Gallaudet. Davila has no intentions of "moving Gallaudet in a new direction." He, although not a strong user, supports usage of ASL and respects that ASL is one part of what defines Gallaudet. He has no plans to move that part in a different direction. His only concern is the declining quality of education of which is absolutely the priority at this time - and was not the case with JKF.

Davila had stated in his video interview, "I want to bring Gallaudet back to what it used to be."

Perfect. Well said. AMEN!!!

Jane Mulholland, My Former English Teacher

When I read announcements that Jane Mulholland was dismissed from her directorship job at OSD, I was shell-shocked! It just couldn't be. I worked one year at OSD and she was doing great. Nobody had one single negative thing to say about Jane. The kids loved her. She was very approachable and she mingled with the students. She was not one of those administrators who sat in her/his office with the door closed all day and emerged only to speak with faculty or students to address issues or to make announcements. That was not Jane. She came to watch plays presented by the middle school kids at the library. She came to the book fair and spoke with students about the books. She never used interpreters when she spoke to the audience. That was why I was so shocked! On what grounds was she dismissed?? Short of embezzlement, sexual misconduct or breaking a law none of which she would commit!

I want to talk about my experience with Jane as my English teacher during my junior and senior years at ASDB. I must and have always credited her for my writing skills. She was meticulous with correcting my grammar and had an excellent way of explaining how to compose and the grammatical rules. I doubt I'd have arrived at this level of writing if not for Jane. Sure, I wrote well, but quite basically and simply. She nurtured creativity, increased word usage, variety, and expositions. She instilled the composition rule: Introduction of the topic, 3 sub-paragraphs to address the introduced topic, and close. She taught a wide range of writing methods, techniques and materials. My English classmates all wrote well, and all of us passed Gallaudet entrance exam during our junior year. That was back when Gallaudet was still a college and had higher academic standards. I loved English class. I still have the notebook that Jane gave us to compose short stories, poems, haiku and daily journals.

She cared about her students and nurtured us. You don't see that kind of teacher anymore these days. She cared enough to propose to two sets of parents to send a classmate and myself to a community college to acquire more challenging writing skills. My classmate and I brought our assignments to her and we worked through them.

She is a natural leader. She has all the right stuff to be a leader. ODE does not know what a big loss they sustained when they dismissed her. They won't find a better replacement.

After reading her open letter, I kind of already figured that the dismissal was politically motivated. The politics of Department of Education. They have different interests/agendas that perhaps collide with those at school for the deaf. The ASL contract is just a smoke screen. There is something else they are covering up. We have to persist and find out just what they are not telling us. Find their real motive in dismissing Jane.

Faculty, staff, students and parents of OSD, persist and protest! Use the Gallaudet Protest as your model!

Social Context and Anonymous Bashing

I viewed David Eberwein's video on anonymous commentors that he feels is violating his ideology of what Deafhood is supposed to be about. I feel he did make some valid points that personal attacks by anonymous commenters upset the social context within the deaf community since deaf communities are tight knitted and small to the point that we all know each other one way or another which is why we are heavily indoctrinated in giving background information about ourselves upon introductions/meeting a deaf person. That part is pretty much the truth.

This is also why there are so many anonymous bashing. Living in a tight knitted deaf communities prompt many deaf people to remain silent on those they have issues with because if they publicly speak out, their words would get carried over to the person being spoken against. Anonymous comments give many deaf people the opportunity to speak what they want to say about certain individuals. There are festering wounds that they want to unburden themselves with and they see anonymous commenting as a way to heal their festering wounds.

The truth is anonymously commenting to bash individuals do not heal festering wounds. It may feel a little better for a brief time but the wounds remain untreated and unhealed. DE is right in saying that it is better for the two parties to face each other and resolve their issues. However, it is not always possible which is yet another reason people bash others anonymously.

The truth is anonymous bashing existed long before blogs were created. Within deaf communities, it often happens that a deaf person began bashing someone and the word gets around and spreads so far and wide that nobody could backtrack the bashing to its origin, the instigator - thus anonymous bashing. Anonymous bashing is not a new thing in deaf culture. The technology of Internet and blogging only makes bashing much easier, and spread words against the individuals much faster and wider.

And it seems oftentimes the instigators are the internalized oppressed individuals. They view themselves as the victims and desire to take it out on their oppressors. It seems to be pretty much a natural reactive action. Slaves led mutinies on sea voyages against the boat crew and captains. Victims of abuse turn on their abusers and wound or kill them. Children turn against their parents for perceived abuse such as taking their privilege or ban them from seeing a girlfriend/boyfriend and wound or kill them. Some deaf people bash their oppressors because they feel like victims of abuse.

The festering wounds of the oppressed need an outlet and for many of them, bashing the oppressors is their outlet. Not the best avenue, but they view it as the only way.

So, how to stop all the bashing? Stop the internalized oppression. Internalized oppression is often initiated by deaf individuals within the community. The internalized oppressors need to recognize themselves as the root of the problem.

Whether the oppression is not intentional or an action of elitism, paternalism, or egoism, (the ongoing reason for bashing tend to be jealousy, but jealousy tend to root out from one of the above mentioned "isms") they all need to recognize themselves as the oppressors and remove themselves as the cause of the problem. They all need to modify their behavior as a member of a deaf community.

Be a team player, not be the problem. Not to leave themselves vulnerable to bashing attacks. Otherwise they have to expect to "sow what they reap." That does not necessarily right a wrong but that is the usual reactive action.

David, thanks for bring a new word to the community - social context, and how that impact upon the internalized anonymous bashings.

Who Is Right, Ridor or Jamie?

Jamie Berke, a relatively new blogger like myself, entered a post discussing Ridor's frequent requests for donations on his blog in which she found improper.

Ridor wishes to become a professional blogger with an income from donations to travel and blog about his experiences and whose paths he's crossed. He claims there are actual professional bloggers out there with such a career. That's news to me. Like Jamie, I wonder if such career comes with benefits such as medical plan, retirement plan, etc?

Jamie's take was that it is tacky to ask for donations and for Ridor to "just go get a real job." Other people have come to Ridor's defense saying they also ask for donations on their blogs or had seen such requests on other blogs therefore Ridor was not being tacky or improper.

My take is that it was all in how donation is requested. If the request is polite, subtle, and discreet as well as the blog being entertaining filled with quality and professional reading materials, people are doubly likely to donate without much prompting. Simply having a PayPal icon/link on the sidebar would be prompt enough for loyal and satisfied readers to donate. Ridor has that on his blog.

I assume the amount of donations he receives would not meet his goal in becoming a professional blogger and he is getting frustrated. He has resorted to peddling and begging. That is what irks Jamie. It is all in how he asks for donations. It's been said Deafread also requested donations before Hawk Relay stepped in to offer their sponsorship. My guess is Deafread owners were savvy enough to realize they could not depend on donations to support their blog and sought another avenue.

It's been suggested to Ridor for him to seek a sponsor, and I concur. If he truly aims to become a professional blogger, he ought to consider doing it. Yes, with sponsorship, you would be bound to certain strings attached to the sponsorship - of which I suspect Ridor is not interested in. I suspect Ridor much rather have full freedom of doing what he wants to do without any strings attached. I think Ridor will have to decide which he wants more - money to become a professional blogger, to travel, to interview people, to stay in hotels, to write, or the freedom with a starving bank account. It is a tough decision. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Jamie mentioned the improved employment climate in her post in regards as to why Ridor has been unable to land a job. I must agree with many posters in Jamie's blog comment section as well as Ridor himself that it is tough to find a job. I have been applying for jobs for the past 3 years. I had to resort to subbing for the time being. No, it does not include any benefits. Jamie is obviously relating the employment climate to the general American Public, not to the Deaf Community.

It IS a challenge being deaf trying to get employed these days. Interpreter costs scare away many employers. Ignorant employers contribute to low employment rate among the Deaf. All we can do is try and try. To give up is to give up living. Ridor is trying to become employed in his own way. If he is OK with having a job without benefits, so be it. Surely he knows if he ever becomes one. Jamie much rather have the security of a job with benefits, it is also her prerogative.

So, I would say the feud about donations between Jamie and Ridor has no right or wrong. It makes us think and examine our own values.

Cochlear Implants, Parents, And Insurance

I've made an interesting observation about today's deaf students lately. It seems half of the school's student population have CIs. Quite a bit different from my time when these gigantic FM boxes were strapped on our chests with tuners on them. How I hated them especially when I had recess and they were always hitting my chin and falling out of the pouches that held them. The today's version is the CIs fall off and get lost.

What was interesting about CIs was many of these CI students haven't developed the speech skills expected by medical professionals when recommended to the parents. They hear environmental sounds fine but do not have speech comprehension or ability. That intrigued me. Not just that...they also haven't performed as well academically as expected. That may correlate closely to their lack of speech comprehension but I don't think so.

I made inquires with the teachers and other people involved with students as well as inquiring with my own insurance. I even asked one mother of a CI student who happened to sign well. She represented many other parents of CI students.

It seems insurance markets aggressively for CI to uneducated parents. Why would I label them "uneducated"? As that CI student's mother said, "When the doctor recommended CI, the way he explained how it worked, I was excited thinking CI replaces the lost hearing. I thought once CI was transplanted, my son would pick up language the same way a hearing child would. "

I was bewildered as to why would she think that? I asked, "Didn't insurance inform you that your son would require years of speech therapy to acquire speaking and speech comprehension skills?" The mother confirmed the insurance did advise her son would require that and they did not cover the speech therapies as is true for most insurance companies. She sighed, "Yes, she did tell me, but I thought he would not need all that. He now had hearing, so he will pick up language like my other children. But when he got older, I realized he could only hear things around him but not spoken language. I was confused. I was angry. He lagged behind. I thought, ok, once he is in school, he will go to speech therapy and pick up what he missed. Did not happen. He still lagged behind so I had no choice but to send him here. I never thought I'd have to send him to school for the deaf. He can hear!"

This mother was amazed how fast his son picked up ASL and thrived in deaf-school environment. This mother, like many other parents, thought CI replaces lost hearing and their children would automatically acquire language the same way a infant born with hearing would. That is what the medical professionals failed to clarify. CI does not replace the lost hearing. It only re-connects the lost pathway to the brain for speech, and only through speech therapy that the pathway could be maintained. The child still needs speech therapy to develop the skills to speak and to hear language. The CI child is not the same as a hearing baby.

The tragic part is insurance does not pay for speech therapy and I find that ironic. They sell hard for CI and fail to follow through with speech therapy. They expect parents to pay thousands of dollars on speech therapy throughout their children's childhood? Perhaps well-t0-do parents could afford but I would think majority of the parents couldn't.

Not just that - they were still ignorant. Even having been told their child would need speech therapy to maximize the benefits of the CI in which most of them could not afford, they still elected for CI surgery that would ultimately fail due to their ignorance in thinking CI replaces lost hearing.

So whose fault was it? I put the fault upon the medical professionals who failed to explain every step including that without speech therapy, CI would not benefit their children. Their children as well wear hearing aids - those digital hearing aids are almost as good as CI. Insurance have the incentive to market CI and often withhold information that CI would not be successful if there is no speech therapy. They are for-profit business and CI surgery is a pot of gold to them.

So we have schools for the deaf all over full of students with CIs who do not speak but hear well. Many of them are also academically delayed because many parents did not sign thinking they would acquire language, so by the time they got into school systems, they did not have early language access just like other children without CIs whose parents also do not sign. These two groups are not any different.