Comments on: Jane K. Fernandes wrote about DBC and Deafhood

By: Michael K Bunjer

Michael K Bunjer — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:35:23 +0000

Hello there everyone, interesting thread; but alarming when the Deaf are still oppressed forever. All Hearing White Rule, lets say, Milan 1880, AGBell, Nazi Germany, etc in the name of AUDISM! I begin to wonder why Dr Jane K. Fernandes, and a Dr Shirley Shultz Meyers would write such a scholarly journal, and say that the Deaf oppress their own. Alarm bells would start ringing again and lights flashing for some reason behind the whole thing. Ever tried to save your face, when you try to cover things up and making yourself look good? JKF AND SSM is just doing that exactly, at the expense of core groups of Deaf People, and such it appears? Ironically Gallaudet University is still an oppressor by White Hearing rule, and still upon the Deaf Communities especially who suffers the most. JKF and SSM is just being used as pawns at the expense of the White Hearing society instead! JFK, and SSM to look good by spinning things around in a desperate attempt to shift the blame back to the Deaf Community once again, oh please! The Deaf Community knew already beforehand, and had to oust JKF at all costs! Right now, I would not even bother to spend the 22 bucks, which is a waste of money! Second thing of all, every race, every class of people, every where, yes each group would be supreme over others, even a Deaf Core group as well of any race. At least it is safe to know that in the name of DIVERSITY, based on Values held dear, Core Groups of Deaf People worldwide and even the general deaf population, and supportive hearing people were alarmed, and bells rang, lights flashed! Everyone all did their patriotic duty, in our liberty, to OUST JKF at once as soon she was selected to be the 9th President of the University, and it took a good 9 months, to break free of Oppression! A big FAIL for their scholarly Journal at the expense of Hearing people would justify, hands waving!

Michael K. Bunjer

By: kim

kim — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:42:11 +0000

Karen,
You said,
“think ASL is a fine language… but it’s not for my children who prefer SimCom, even though they have been exposed to ASL at sufficient time for them to become fluent at some degree. So from now on I am going to let them know that it’s OK for them to adopt SimCom over ASL.” I might be out of line commenting on this since I am not fluent in ASL, but it sounds to me exactly how many families in the US are. I know people who only speak Spanish at home, but they use English in public and at school. Some people, I’m thinking of black friends, switch easily between their ‘folksy’ black way of expressing themselves and formal English. I know others who can speak a perfect southern drawl or perfect English accent on cue because of their “roots” It seems the most obvious and natural solution for raising deaf children in a deaf home is to expose children to their language heritage as much as possible while also allowing them to choose how they prefer expressing themselves– whether that is through ASL or speaking with an implant in place, it will ultimately be their choice.

By: DEAF WORLD AS EYE SEE IT » Kannapell’s 1993 Paper Revisited

DEAF WORLD AS EYE SEE IT » Kannapell’s 1993 Paper Revisited — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:51:13 +0000

[...] blog entry that was posted today. Ann_C used one of the commenters’ comment from my blog discussing about the published papers by Dr. Jane K. Fernandes and Dr. Shirley Shultz Myers. Hope this isn’t getting too long, but I want to share one story. Twenty years ago almost to the [...]

By: T.G.

T.G. — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:39:03 +0000

Having read the two articles carefully, I believe this entire list of comments reflects poorly on Gallaudet University. If you cannot handle two highly scholarly treatments of Deaf Studies, you have no business being in higher education.

By: the one and only ridor

the one and only ridor — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:09:35 +0000

MM: For a long time, I resisted in dealing with your comments but today, I’ll address one thing.

The reason why the Brits did not take up on Ladd’s issues is probably attributed to the fact that the large number of Deaf Brits not being progressive nor advanced like Deaf Americans in terms of education, social and political activism.

I know because I was in London for a while not a long time ago.

R-

By: John Egbert

John Egbert — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 12:50:34 +0000

Amy and other interest readers,

There is another blog related to this issue that have interesting commenters,

http://slcresearchethics.blogspot.com/2009/08/academic-gatekeeping-who-has-power.html

Thank you for letting me post this.
John

By: MM

MM — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:03:13 +0000

Audism and a U.S. version of Deafhood are particular strategies to maintain a core Deaf culture.

Where is the difference between ‘American Deafhood’ and ‘British Deafhood’ ? which was the concept origionally. The writer was a Brit, who actually failed to get British deaf inviolved at all and couldn’t sell his concept there.. Both Audism and Deafhood are not followed in the UK at all either. Americans seem to have taken deafhood where it was never intended to go… and added their own interpretation. I’m a bit concerned racial issues are going into the articale’s interpretation, deafness, the basis of deaf culture, has no care for colour, race, or religion.

By: Karen Mayes

Karen Mayes — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:17:43 +0000

You know what?

I think ASL is a fine language… but it’s not for my children who prefer SimCom, even though they have been exposed to ASL at sufficient time for them to become fluent at some degree. So from now on I am going to let them know that it’s OK for them to adopt SimCom over ASL. If they prefer mainstreaming over the “world class” deaf school, they need to know that there’s not anything wrong with them. The spectrum of deaf community is rich, with hidden gems that are not part of ASL. A lot of us have to offer and we need to be able to contribute… there’s no need for the glass ceiling for us just cuz we are not ASL enough (or deaf enough, for that matter.)

I appreciate Ann_C, Joseph, and WG’s comments… that the journal needs to have a balanced approach at the medical and cultural opinions. I see it’s something that many of us overlook completely, hence strong reactions.

By: DRHocokan

DRHocokan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:10:08 +0000

Amy, just a short note to say that I’ve posted my thoughts on this article at deafread. Look for it there anytime now.

This blog has been very informative. I find it very helpful to know how others view this article. Thanks again for bringing this matter up. I’ll continue to follow this site.

Barry

By: Ann_C

Ann_C — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:04:35 +0000

In this economy I don’t like spending $22 on an e-journal article when I have more pressing expenses. However, I’m still pursuing the articles via a university library and this will take time.

I agree with JPR’s observations regarding your questions, Amy. Just because Fernandes had penned this article is bound to bring out opponents who were against her appointment at Gally and they will continue to oppose anything she writes anyway.

I humbly request that readers of the article read the article as though it was written ANONYMOUSLY before passing judgment.

And I can add a resounding yes to the fact that Deaf Studies rarely take into account a diverse d/Deaf population who implement a number of communication methodologies besides ASL. For example, SimCom is often looked down upon by those who use ASL only. Try putting yourself in the shoes of one who uses SimCom or who uses lipreading and spoken English. Every d/Deaf person’s background/education is different and “Deaf experts” cannot just go around slapping only one cookie-cutter standard on every d/Deaf person.

Thirdly, I’m not familiar with the two publications that JPR mentions, but for scholastic journals to ignore one part of the spectrum of the d/Deaf experience is to end up ignoring SOMEBODY deaf or Deaf.