Reductio ad Fernandesum
Per the posts at the other weblogs and my comments at the DeafDC.com, I have some thoughts on the speculation and discussion of "ism" and "Fernandes isn't Deaf enough".
The truth is, before I came here in America, the concept of racism was thoroughly foreign to me. To construe what I mean, there were racists and racism movement in Europe without any doubt, but racism wasn't a hot button or a cowboy-like quick draw modus operandi in Europe as in it is here in America. It wasn't my intention to offend everyone but I had observed that some politically-enthusiastic people from both sides used racism or maybe, "audism", as a effective weapon to neutralize the opponents' argument before they can turn to their real issues. I'm not arguing that racism or "audism" is a non-issue, it's a real issue and all that, but sometimes, it was just a cowboy-like quick draw modus operandi for them to neutralize the opponents, to silence them. For me, sexism and anti-semitism (I'm a Jew) is more perceptually sensitive than others but I rarely exploited it as a hot button unless someone else tried to use "ism" to invalidate their opponents' arguments. My argument doesn't apply to Kristi Merriweather's exceptional counter-argument but in general. I'll admit that, like some Jews, I have a flaw: the transparent abhorrence of Nazis and pro-Nazism fellows.
Coincidentally, recently Stefanie, my best friend -- unlike me, she reads all Deaf weblogs and comments -- formed a new argument word, "Reductio ad Fernandesum" as to refer to some anti-Gallaudet protest group. The definition of that argument word is: "whoever attempts to initiate the real issues in the argument in reference to Fernandes' paradoxical [or ineffectual as others may say] leadership unhesitatingly would be neutralized or silenced by some opponents by commenting, 'You told us that she isn't Deaf enough! You told us that she didn't learn ASL until her twenties!'". Lately, Reductio ad Fernandesum is a patterned argument or, I daresay, their favorite hot button.
Thank to some webloggers, I've read the old articles on the May and October protest. I understand that there were only a few non-leader bystanders who commented that Fernandes wasn't Deaf enough or she didn't learn ASL until her twenties. Out of nowhere, anti-Gallaudet protest people and media carried on like it was Jesus's holy sermons everywhere. FSSA and various people repeated themselves like a broken record that it wasn't the "Fernandes isn't Deaf enough" issue but some anti-Gallaudet protest groups feverishly chanted on anyway to disperse their opponents' argument.
Can't people from the both sides just sit down, cross-legged, drink some hot coffee or tea and discuss without turning to the "ism" and "Reductio ad Fernandesum" argument for one day or one week?
As Chris, my Deaf friend and ASL tutor from my university, told me today in ASL and on PnP [pen and paper]- "Do you know what's sadder about the anti-Gallaudet protest people? You're a hearing woman and you get it why protesters are fighting for Gallaudet and its fate while some deaf people don't. You're hearing. Hearing without deaf background and yet you get it while other deaf people don't. Please tell me that we're in the Bizarro world." It took him a while to clarify what "Bizarro world" meant and for me to understand what he meant. It was a superman comic reference.
While I enthusiastically care about Deaf culture and Gallaudet for various reasons, I'm aware and realized that I'm a hearing outsider. Thus it's presumptively the best thing for me to leave this discussion whether or not Fernandes is a right or amoral leader for Gallaudet and leave it to d/Deaf to ponder it.
Unity for Gallaudet. Protesters, luv you all.
This post predictably might generate some vilifying comments so the moderation is on. Suitable criticism or acknowledgments will be validated. Other than that, don't bother to leave vicious attacks.
I cannot wait for the lecture to start. It's only a few hours to go (at 8:00pm PST). I'm doing some homework, once I'm done and still have some extra time, I will respond to emails.
7 comments:
Where was you from ? France ?
Rick
Hmm, I could be construed as one of those you are tagging as using the "Reducto ad Ferd." argument, so I'd like to explain where I am coming from and see if that sheds further light.
To begin with, I am a born deaf but mainstreamed person. I am profoundly deaf and in all likelihood *should* have learned ASL but never did due to the oralism prevalent in the 70's.
In my 20's I did try to learn ASL but wound up harassed out of the class for being "too good" to have learned ASL until now.
20 years later, I'm looking further into deaf issues for a variety of reasons. As it happens, this protest at G. is going on. Well, my sympathies are more or less with the students. I know that ASL is a real language, I do believe that all deaf children should be taught ASL (although I also believe they shoudl be taught oral speech to the extent any individual child can; the key is maximum communication ability; I am spanish bilingual so I very much appreciate multilingualism).
But blog after blog after blog did contain anti-oral commentary. This is not my imagination nor my trope. I didn't even bother reading any of the pro-Administration blogs or press releases or comments and yet I still came away with this bewildering, and truthfully, very hurtful array of commentary about people who can't sign, people who are not a part of ASL.
This is me that's being attacked. Intellectually I do see the larger point, intellectually I do see the consistency of the larger comments, I do see the faculty and staff bolstering the other claims made about JKF, so intellectually I do support the protest.
But emotionally? I feel like I've been kicked to the curb like some sort of mongrel cur. It hurts. I want to lash out. Many of the folks I do see lashing out over this, I think hurt like this too.
I could create an entry pages long of nothing but links to statements made by Deaf protester after Deaf protester making it clear it IS about her not being deaf enough. Many people. Many comments.
It hurts, a lot. I don't belong in the hearing world even though I can function in it. I've always known that and long since accepted that. But it seems I don't belong in your world either. And I'm having a hard time accepting that, on top of everything else.
Maybe that helps make sense of some of this.
--Deaf Gadfly
Hi Rick. While I'm half-French [my mother is French], I wasn't raised in France. I was born and raised in a non-English European country. For two reasons, [1] the Facebook's disastrous incident, from that day on I couldn't afford to divulge my homeland's location because that sick lad managed to contact my parents through the letters with the limited information at Facebook before it took down. Needless to say, it freaked my parents out. [2] I always indulges in the mysterious surrounding myself to keep people guessing my homeland for fun's sake. I hope it wouldn't offend you, my mysterious character. Beside my best friend [she grew up with me] and my ex-boyfriend, I haven't revealed it to the rest.
Hi Gadfly, may I have your permission to make a new post in reference to your experience that you unveiled with us? While I'm still pro-ASL/pro-Deaf culture, you abruptly opened my eyes. So may I?
I don't know what happened to my weblog or my pictures. Not a while ago, I found out that someone gummed up my photobucket account while I left it logged in when I was away for the lecture. I was pissed off for my carelessness but I have to sack out. Tomorrow is a long day for me. Buonanotte (good night).
Oh. I forget to add that I hadn't added my homeland's location at Facebook but carelessly, I had revealed my father's last name. With my email and profile accounts, I commonly used my mother's maiden name.
Gadfly,
Last night I was incredibly exhausted and I hadn't thought so well.
You said: "I could create an entry pages long of nothing but links to statements made by Deaf protester after Deaf protester making it clear it IS about her not being deaf enough. Many people. Many comments."
O.K., I'd like to know if were they leaders? If they hadn't said that and then we shouldn't acknowledge their [Deaf protesters as you asserted above] "ASL" or "she isn't Deaf enough" comments as an offical statement.
For instance, some anti-Gallaudet protest people execrated pro-Gallaudet protest people or FSSA at various weblogs with vicious remarks. Given that they were JKF supporters, should I acknowledge them as an offical statement by Jane K. Fernandes? I'm not sure if you had noticed that but lately, accumulating amounts of weblogs had to be closed or the comments moderated. That's how bad it is.
But of course, it doesn't mean that you had to bear with them. What they did to you is doubtlessly unprincipled. I had been lambasted indirectly by some Deaf with attacks on hearing comments at a few weblogs in the past. I made a post about it several weeks ago. Given my support for the Deaf community, I was hurt by their vilification and had considered abandoning my support for the Deaf community (beside Chris and a few Deaf people like Joseph) altogether but non-extremists convinced me otherwise. I could easily join the other webloggers to hammer them but I chose the different path by distinguishing differences between extremists and non-extremists. Notwithstanding, I had been ignored by some Deaf webloggers but considering my status [hearing], it's understandable.
Just a thought.
Sure, use it for a post if you like.
(Did you mean excoriated? Execrated seems closer to excrete -- which could be equally appropriate, I suppose (!))
I understand the distinction you're drawing with leadership vs rank and file, although I have to counter it with something like this: A company has an "official" policy against harassment. IE, the leaders have a particular stance on it. But, harrasment is endemic amongst the employees, and can still be very much of a problem, despite the official stance.
And some of these people figure fairly large in the general world. But I'm not interested in pointing specific fingers (tho I can give you a list privately if you wish) because I'm not interested in creating futher wedges. It's plenty wide and deep rooted (remember I saw it 20 years ago tho I didn't understand it for what it was then) as it is.
But emotionally it still has a large negative effect on me. I've always thought I'd learn ASL someday -- I love languages and know one well & two others fairly well, and I've always thought it would be cool to finally learn a language I didn't have to strain to comprehend when others spoke. But these last two weeks, I've been questioning whether or not that would be worth it. It's very disenheartening. And I can't really repudiate deafness. I can't walk away. I am as much a member of the deaf community as anyone else, whether they like it or not. I get discriminated against, shut out, isolated, disregarded, considered "stupid" and so on by hearing people just like anyone else.
Now I didn't figure we'd all be singing kumbaya under a tree, but I really didn't expect this. What it adds up to is an attack on every accomplishment I've made in my life.
The "not deaf enough" card has been abused by those who do not support the protest. On the other hand, as you indicate in the beginning of your Blog, several protesters have called those who are ambivalent or against the protest, "audists" to neutralize the opponent's arguments. Until they both move past the chaff, both sides cannot have constructive dialogue.
It may not have been a good idea to share your friend's claim that you "get it" while some anti-protesters do not. Being an objective person, you probably understand both sides more than you realize. You may be doing a disservice to yourself by taking sides and accepting your friend's dismissal of the opinions deaf people who may not support the protest (just as it is wrong for the anti-protesters to dismiss the protester's valid grievances. After all you are on a quest for the "truth" according to your Blog and both sides have some truths. No doubt changes need to be implemented at Galladuet. The community need unbiased discourse from people like you to identify the "truths", find a way to reconcile them, and then change the University.
You understand that "audism" cannot be used as a weapon in order to have constructive dialogue. You also understand in your recent Blog that protesters may be too obsessed with Gallaudet to realize that the problems in deaf education are larger than the University and these problems are not unique to the deaf community. We need to continue to raise difficult questions and prompt in-depth dialogue. This may be the best way to re-unify the community.
Post a Comment