Commentary: Parallels in Power – Successes and Missteps among Gallaudet University presidents

It can be roughly said that the Gallaudet Presidents from Elstad to Cordano parallel, in vague terms, the characteristics of the US presidents from Eisenhower to Clinton. Gallaudet President Elstad can be compared to US President Eisenhower. Neither of them really had the corresponding background necessary for their jobs. Eisenhower was not a politician and it wasn’t even clear at first whether he would go with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Analogously, Elstad’s administrative service was ambiguous. He was a K-12 educator with some more expansive administrative experience as a regional leader in Rotary International. By moving into higher education administration he was entering uncharted waters.

A rough comparison can be made between Gallaudet President Merrill and US President Johnson. Both excelled in their jobs, however each incorporated a major defect within their administrative philosophies. For President Johnson his major downfall was the escalation and support of the war in Vietnam. President Merrill was the enthusiastic about cued speech and he did much to promote its escalation and promulgation. He was fortunate to have avoided the judgment of history on this point while he was alive.

Gallaudet President I. King Jordan can clearly be compared to US President Richard Nixon. Although Jordan was close allies with Senator Tom Harkin, he was actually conservative in his values. Jordan was a “law and order” guy who actually never did support DPN in his heart. After dozens of people in the community chastised him via TDD during the first few days of DPN week, including former President Merrill, he decided to go with the flow and adopt a pro-DPN persona. Eventually such a false persona could not hold and it broke down. Similarly, although Nixon was aligned with conservatives, he was one of the most progressive Republican US presidents in modern times. Little recognition is given to Nixon on these points, but he actually did a great deal to continue LBJ’s “Great Society” programs (even including the federal program that allocated funding to improve teacher training in the field of Deaf education). Nixon was dishonest and experienced a great political fall. Jordan was also dishonest and recklessly took his cues from Andrew Imparato for his major policy decisions, leading to his spectacular downfall in 2006.

Gallaudet President Davila compares roughly with US President Gerald Ford – both of them swooping in to re-establish stability and common sense. Both Nixon and Jordan had nearly wrecked the idea of the US presidency and the Gallaudet presidency, respectively. President Davila faced the near-impossible task of picking up the broken Humpty Dumpty metaphorical eggshell pieces that Jordan left behind in order to reconstruct the Gallaudet presidency and stave off institutional disaster. It was a miraculous feat that only someone of Davila’s administrative and political experience could pull off, since he had served previously as Assistant Secretary at the US Department of Education. His maneuvering there to convince Secretary Alexander to approve last-minute additions to the Federal Register, pertaining to issuing guidance on how to implement the IDEA law, plus his dual saving of the institution of and the presidency of Gallaudet University makes him the most important educational administrator in Deaf history in the United States, even more important than EMG.

Gallaudet President Hurwitz roughly compares to US President Jimmy Carter. Both were masters in their domain, but both came onto the scene at the wrong time, politically. President Hurwitz would have been more successful in place of President Merrill for that era. Jimmy Carter tried to extend Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, but simply suffered a “shortfall” of talents – which is not a negative assessment. He was very good at what he did, but simply not quite good enough to achieve what he needed to achieve.

Now we see Gallaudet President Cordano roughly being comparable to US President Clinton. Both seem great and are/were policy wonks, but both lack the primary characteristics necessary to do their respective jobs. Bill Clinton was actually only successful because of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She added the extra knowledge and capabilities that Bill Clinton lacked. Without that, he would have never functioned successfully as US president. Cordano, similarly, is missing certain required skills. She would never have made it this far without her chief of staff’s experience and know-how. This raises the question, will Cordano survive, politically? If she doesn’t, will Harker apply to be the next Gallaudet president? Will there be an Interim Gallaudet President in the meantime?

Stay tuned...

Amendment (July 18, 2024): Former Gallaudet Provost Roslyn G. Rosen appears to have had some influence so far with the Cordano administration. 

Speaker Pelosi's Choices for Gallaudet University Board of Trustees Public Members Fall Short of Ideal

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently announced the selection of two Members of Congress to be seated on the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees as public (Congressional) members. The choices follow a medical-pathological approach to deafness and are less than ideal on that basis. As part of its new educational integrity campaign, Student Unity Movement calls on Speaker Pelosi to monitor the appointments closely.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently announced the selection of two Members of Congress to be seated on the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees as public (Congressional) members: Donna E. Shalala of Florida and Larry D. Bucshon, M.D. of Indiana.

During the Clinton administration, Ms. Shalala served as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees and administers the work of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). At the time of the creation of the NIDCD in 1988, Deaf people requested that the word "Other" not be used in the title of the new institute (https://bit.ly/2SRlnVH), but their request was disregarded. The NIDCD was, to a large extent, simply a continuation of the work that had been going on for many years under the "communicative disorders" program of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), but it served as a showcase vehicle for Sen. Tom Harkin, who had an ambitious political agenda. Over the years since the creation of the NIDCD, tens of millions of federal dollars have been spent on research relating to cochlear implants (https://bit.ly/2SVFP85). As a US Senator, Hillary Clinton had been a member of the Congressional Hearing Health Caucus (https://bit.ly/39LxKt5), which strongly promoted the development and use of cochlear implants (https://bit.ly/2P09ZWz). It was expected that Ms. Clinton would have also strongly promoted their use, had she become US President. From 2015 to 2017, Ms. Shalala served as President and CEO of the Clinton Foundation.

Sen. Harkin also spearheaded the funding and establishment of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the early 1990s and has been accused of promoting pseudoscience (https://bit.ly/2V5yJAB). Prior to the eruption of the Deaf President Now protest in March 1988, then-Senator Harkin had been looking for a way to get a "disability rights" bill passed in Congress. The Deaf President Now (DPN) movement was demonstrably not part of the disability rights movement (https://bit.ly/2vCSC7p), and did not grow out of such, yet after the DPN protest victory, and after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the newly appointed deaf president, I. King Jordan, developed a friendly relationship with Senator Harkin (https://bit.ly/2SPzkUd). Jordan's rhetoric then shifted gradually over the ensuing years to a disability frame. This led to the creation of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) in 1995, with him (the new deaf president of Gallaudet University) being a co-founder (https://bit.ly/2PkDmTt).

In 1988, the new (Eighth) Jordan Administration had begun with the assistance of an advisor to the president who previously worked together with the president as "assistant dean" when he was dean (https://bit.ly/2SQ5TRN). That assistant dean possessed a doctoral degree from Union Institute & University – a doctoral degree for which no dissertation was required – arguably indicating unfitness to serve as advisor in a doctoral-degree-granting university. In April 2000, the Eighth president unilaterally appointed a (later, very controversial) provost who then misrepresented the Deaf education research literature in an article in the New York Times, in reference to signing vs. oral methods, claiming: "No studies exist showing that one method works better than another" (https://bit.ly/2HtGrMD). Another professor was appointed by Jordan to a high profile position within the Administration, purportedly working on improvements in equity, and that professor also possessed a degree from Union Institute & University with no dissertation being required (https://bit.ly/37y9WaO) – all this demonstrating a clear trend toward overall administrative incompetence – leading inexorably to political debacle when the Eighth president supported that provost in becoming his successor, and that provost making pseudoscientific claims, misunderstanding the nature of American Sign Language and not understanding why it is a bona fide, autonomous language (https://bit.ly/2Pl1iGe).

While current Gallaudet president Bobbi Cordano chose to complete a JD degree (with no dissertation required), instead of an SJD, which requires a dissertation and is research-oriented, and while there were governance irregularities (http://bit.ly/2SSRLZn) at the beginning of a seven-year chain of events that eventually led to her appointment, suggesting the hidden hand of Senator Harkin being in play (http://bit.ly/3bVCZbE), it is often the case in life that "the exception proves the rule." With the exception of the president of the board of the alumni association (http://bit.ly/395DWMA), which is an elected office and falls outside of her purview, Cordano, in the opinion of Student Unity Movement, has been engaged in an extensive process of "cleaning house" and surrounding herself with thoroughly qualified people (http://bit.ly/2w2F3Os).

Student Unity Movement applauds the forward progress being demonstrated by the Cordano Administration, and looks forward to a long and productive tenure for the current Gallaudet president. Further, Student Unity Movement calls on Speaker Pelosi to keep close tabs on the new trustee appointees, while keeping in mind that Gallaudet is an institution of higher learning, not a medical rehabilitation agency, and therefore trustee appointments done with a pro-cochlear-implant (i.e., pro-Auditory Industrial Complex-backed Congressional campaign funding) mentality are not only wholly inappropriate, but are reckless, risking the well being of the students involved.

Former Gallaudet President Jordan's ghost writer revealed for the first time

PRESS RELEASE: Saturday, February 8, 2020, 9:00 pm Eastern Time, including important new material in the Revised Second Addendum

Originally issued: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 1:22 pm ET

Former Gallaudet President Jordan's ghost writer revealed for the first time

David Armstrong has retired from Gallaudet

Long-time Gallaudet staff member David Armstrong has retired from Gallaudet.

This transcript of a radio interview with Armstrong mentions that he retired recently from Gallaudet:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129155123

This information has been verified with the administration. Currently, the position of Executive Director of Gallaudet University Press is open and a replacement is not being sought.

Armstrong, as the “Executive Director of the Gallaudet University Press and External Affairs,” had been serving in an expanded capacity, including acting as editor of Sign Language Studies and as Executive Director of Gallaudet University Press, and having a supervisory role over Public Relations department. Armstrong stepped down from his role as editor of Sign Language Studies toward the end of 2009, but was continuing to act until recently as Executive Director of GUPress and Executive Director of External Affairs.

The editorship of Sign Language Studies was then passed to Linguistics professor Ceil Lucas, who is internationally known and respected for her work on the sociolinguistic aspects of ASL and also for working with the Fulbright students at Gallaudet and helping students to obtain Fulbright scholarships, a program with which Gallaudet has recently had great success.

In a Fall 2008 article, which appeared in Sign Language Studies, under David Armstrong’s editorship, author James M. McPherson wrote the following passage:

“Edward soon began lobbying Congress to grant his institution a college charter. He succeeded in 1864, when, even though the Civil War was raging, Congress took time to incorporate the Columbia Institution as a college and to authorize it to grant degrees.” (SLS, Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2008, page 37.)

The claim that, in 1864, “Congress took time to incorporate the Columbia Institution as a college” is disputed and is probably not accurate. There is no language in the 1864 law mentioning incorporation. The 1864 law law grants the Columbia Institution the authority to confer college degrees, but says nothing about Gallaudet’s corporate status. It is a well-known and accepted fact that Edward Miner Gallaudet lobbied Congress to pass the 1864 law without notifying Amos Kendall or the other members of the Board of Directors of the Columbia Institution at the time. That being the case, it is very doubtful that the 1864 law would have had any relationship to Columbia’s preexisting 1857 Charter (i.e., very doubtful that the 1864 law would constitute any type of amendment to the 1857 charter, especially since it was not labeled as being an amendment), and it is very doubtful that the 1864 law would have been considered a “second charter.” A federal charter is a legal contract between the federal government and the members of the board of directors of the entity being granted a charter. One bedrock and foundational principle of the law is that parties cannot be made participants of a contract without their knowledge. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the 1864 law was simply a law (i.e., an “act,” as Amos Draper refers to it, by fingerspelling, in the famous 1915 film–The title “The Signing of the Charter of Gallaudet College” was not the original 1915 title of the film of Amos Draper, but was added by a film editor when new copies of the films were made in the early 1930s). Although Edward Miner Gallaudet did refer to the 1864 law once as being “the charter of the college,” he did not do this until Presentation Day, May 10, 1899, which was 35 years after the event and he was probably mistaken in characterizing it that way.

The language of the above quote from McPherson could be taken to imply that Gallaudet has two charters, a claim that has probably never been made before. The appearance of this claim in the Fall 2008 issue of Sign Language Studies would be interpreted by some as indicating a lack of effective oversight of the SLS journal at the time, under Armstrong’s editorship.

A similar lack of effective oversight occurred when the book: A Fair Chance in the Race of Life, which contains articles by McPherson and other authors, was published by GUPress in late 2008. In the editorial comments, which prefaced one of the articles, the book’s editors accuse Edward Miner Gallaudet of acting in an audistic and paternalistic manner in the matter of the hiring of Daniel Chester French to create the famous THG/AC statue. Yet the book’s editors failed to place EMG’s actions in proper historical context, which was that most college and university presidents at the time, all over America, acted in a heavy-handed manner in the exercise of their duties, and in that context, EMG’s actions were typical and common for the time and should not be singled out as being unique or aberrant. Any criticisms of EMG’s actions (which might be valid criticisms) should be applied to the wider group of university and college presidents, and should not be directed at EMG alone or be over-interpreted to entail audistic leanings or tendencies on his part. Especially in this last regard, EMG should be given great benefit of the doubt due to his role in helping to found the college, which has had wonderful effects of empowerment that have now lasted for almost 150 years. As the Executive Director of GUPress, Armstrong should have cautioned the editors of the “Fair Chance” book that the editorial comments they were inserting were biased and constituted conclusions made out of historical context. The publication of the book will have long-lasting effects on the reputation of GUPress.

More recently, under Armstrong’s tenure as Executive Director of External Affairs, former Gallaudet PR Director Mercy Coogan was re-hired on a temporary/contract basis to work again with the PR Department. No announcement was made to the wider Gallaudet community that she was being re-hired, and had an announcement been made, it is very probable that the community would have expressed great misgivings about re-hiring Coogan, even on a temporary basis, due to her performance as head of PR during the time of the 2006 UFG protest when she downplayed concerns about the front end loader/bulldozer being used to remove protesters tents at the Brentwood/MSSD gate.

Currently, the administration is not looking for a replacement for the position of Executive Director of External Affairs, and the PR aspect of that position is now being handled by Donald Beil, President Hurwitz’s chief of staff.

The operation of GUPress is presumably now being handled on a temporary basis by Paul Kelly, until a replacement can be found for the position of Executive Director of GU Press.

ADDENDUM

Here is the full text of the “Editor’s Introduction” of the article in question that was mentioned in the update below:

QUOTE (p. 33 in the “Fair Chance” book):

Michael J. Olson’s meticulously researched article directly challenges benign interpretations of Edward Miner Gallaudet’s presidency. Drawing heaving from primary sources, Olson looks at a previously unexplored controversy that sparked intense debate among American deaf leaders in the late 19th century and raised troublesome questions about Gallaudet’s commitment to equality for deaf people. Olson depicts Gallaudet as ironfisted and essentially absolute in his decisions. Gallaudet operated under the guise of hosting an open competition to hire a sculptor to create a statue of his father and Alice Cogswell, but, Olson shows, even before receiving proposals from deaf candidates, he had already commissioned the well-known hearing artist, Daniel Chester French, for the job. Olson’s research suggests that audism and paternalism were characteristics of Gallaudet’s first president.

UNQUOTE

There are multiple problems with this disgraceful “Editor’s Introduction.” First of all, the “introduction” (editorial) seems to constitute an act of paternalism in and of itself, since the goal of the “introduction” seems to be to inculcate a particular point of view to readers of a Deaf audience before they have even started reading the article. The claims of the article should stand or fall on their own merits, without such editorial handholding being prominently highlighted at the beginning of the article. Also, the “introduction” constitutes an insult toward the author of the article, and implies that the author didn’t do a good enough job of writing the article in the first place to communicate his intended points to the reader.

Next, the wording of the “introduction” is highly deceptive, starting out with nebulous weasel words and phrases such as “drawing heavily from primary sources,” “looks at...the controversy,” “raised ... questions,” “Olson depicts,” etc., then gliding and shifting into more definitive conclusions than the author himself provided in the article, stating: “Gallaudet operated under the guise of hosting an open competition to hire a sculptor to create a statue....but he had already commission the well known hearing-artist, Daniel Chester French, for the job.”

Not only is this manipulative writing and improperly propagandistic on the editor’s part, but this is just plain bad editing and bad writing. If this is truly the author’s message, why preempt the author and make the point before the reader has read article? The reader might as well just stop at the end of the “introduction,” swallow hard, and then skip to the next article, being left with the impression that the editor’s characterization of the article was accurate.

In fact, the editor’s characterization of the article is not accurate. Nowhere in the article does the author make the sweeping claim that is made in the “introduction” (i.e., that “Gallaudet operated under the guise of hosting an open competition to hire a sculptor to create a statue....but he had already commission the well known hearing-artist, Daniel Chester French, for the job.”)–Such a sweeping claim is simply not in the article itself. The author, rather, is presenting his interpretation of comments made by EMG in a letter that he wrote to French and in comments that he made in his diary. Specifically, the author writes (on p. 37): “This episode [about two storms blowing over an apple tree]...suggests that President Gallaudet was more closely involved in the selection of French than some of the Deaf leaders thought.” (emphasis added). Later the author refers to: “The apparent conflict in Froehlich’s statements, as well as the seeming decision to select a hearing artist without a formal process...” (emphasis added). The author does not go on to use more definitive language, but presents his thesis as a thesis, needing to be supported by interpreting pieces of evidence. Nowhere does the author make any definitive, sweeping claims, as was made in the “Editor’s Introduction.”

The “editor,” in his “introduction,” is the actual person(s) involved who is acting in an absolutist manner, by not properly taking into the account the historical context (that most college presidents acted heavy-handedly and exerted undue influence during that historical period), and on top of that, by not taking into account Deaf history.

After the Milan Conference of 1880, Deaf education was slowly careening into major crisis mode. One very plausible interpretation of the later decision to change the name of the “National Deaf-Mute College” to “Gallaudet College” would be that a name change would help to prevent the takeover and/or change in the philosophy and mission of the college on the part of Alexander Graham Bell (which Bell could have perhaps done by lobbying Congress, and did later try to do in at least one instance) and firmly cement the college’s link to the establishment of the Hartford school and to the pedagogy and philosophy brought to America by Clerc and used at that school. Erecting a statue of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet and Alice Cogswell would be a major step in the direction of cementing the college’s link, in the public’s mind, with the Hartford school. If the name change was done for that reason and if the statue was erected for partly that reason, then the historical context of the events can accurately be described as a type of political emergency.

In such types of emergency scenarios, people’s actions must be judged carefully in the specific contexts in which they occur. One only need keep in mind that the announcement of a proposal to erect a statue honoring THG was made at the NAD convention in 1883, at the same time Bell was preparing to deliver his infamous “Memoir” speech in New Haven, Connecticut, which he did that November. The paper he presented was titled: “Upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race”. Bell had been working on this paper for years by writing letters to superintendents of Deaf schools all over the country, and this fact would have been well known to the people who were involved in deciding to propose the erection of a statue to honor THG.

A more appropriate view of EMG’s actions would be one of him being a strong advocate for the social equality of deaf people and hearing people. EMG even explicitly referenced such concept of equality by stating the following in his 1864 inaugural address: “Dr. [Thomas Hopkins] Gallaudet gave to the world the most convincing proof of his belief that the deaf and dumb could through education be made the social and intellectual equals of those possessed of all their faculties, by taking one of his own pupils as his wife.” Five years later, during the second commencement ceremonies, EMG gave another address, stating: “Deafness, though it be total and congenital, imposes no limits on the intellectual development of its subjects, save in the single direction of the appreciation of acoustic phenomena.”—These are not statements made by a person who thinks Deaf people are inferior. To the contrary.

The editor of the “introduction” to Olson’s article in the Fair Chance in the Race of Life book makes no reference to any of these wider considerations and no reference to the wider historical context. Such type of out-of-context conclusion-making represents the quintessence of absolutism, and thus a more appropriate conclusion, on our part, to make would be that it is instead the editor(s) of the introduction who is acting in a way that is “ironfisted and essentially absolute in his decisions,” and is succumbing to psychological projection in writing the “introduction” in the way that it was written.

REVISED SECOND ADDENDUM:

Brian H. Greenwald and John Van Cleve were the editors of the book: A Fair Chance in the Race of Life–The Role of Gallaudet University in Deaf History, which was published by Gallaudet University Press in 2008 under David Armstrong’s executive directorship.

Here is the link to the Worldcat listing for the book:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/fair-chance-in-the-race-of-life-the-role-of-gallaudet-university-in-deaf-history/oclc/230192046&referer=brief_results

Readers will recall that Brian Greenwald was Chair of the committee that ran the “150 Years on Kendall Green–Celebrating Deaf History and Gallaudet” conference, which was held at the Kellogg Conference Hotel on April 11-13, 2007. The other members of the conference planning committee were: David Armstrong, Senda Benaissa, William Ennis III, Gene Mirus, Joseph Murray, Nicole Sutliffe and John Van Cleve. No disclaimer was made at the conference as to explaining how the decision was made to invite I. King Jordan to be a keynote speaker at the conference. The decision to hold the conference was made in 2006, while Jordan was still President of Gallaudet, and the decision to invite Jordan to be a keynote speaker was, therefore, a decision that was made under his auspices. Such a situation calls for a disclaimer to be made, as is common practice in television and print journalism and in other professions. The “Fair Chance” book is essentially a follow-up to the conference, and the book also contains no disclaimer or explanation. Instead, the book contains propagandistic remarks by Jordan, which amount to rationalizations and dodging responsibility for acknowledging his role and his shortcomings in taking actions that ended up inciting the 2006 protest—a protest that could have been avoided had he acted differently during the term of his presidency.

Readers will recall that I. King Jordan (ostensibly) used the term “absolutists” in his January 22, 2007 commentary that was published in the Washington Post. Whether or not Jordan used a ghost writer on his January 2007 editorial is something that has also not been acknowledged or addressed. The question arises as to whether or not it was David Armstrong who actually wrote the infamous WaPo commentary and had it published under Jordan’s name, thus, continuing the exploitation of deaf people by using them as dupes, as it appears Paul Kelly had being doing vis-a-vis King Jordan – Jordan, our erstwhile hero who was taken from us, by the machinations of the power-elite for their own purposes.

<=== CLICK HERE to return to the Shock Waves press release.

Addendum (Sept. 21, 2022): The 1869 commencement ceremony was actually the second commencement ceremony, not the first, as is widely believed (with even television's Jeopardy question writers perpetrating this false information). Melville Ballard graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree, the very first earned degree issued by the College, in 1866, and "exercises" were held (in other words, a commencement ceremony) in Chapel Hall during which his degree was granted. The 1869 ceremony was the first commencement ceremony involving more than one graduate, and is important on that basis (and is even currently indexed as the "first" commencement by the GU administration) 

Shock Waves in the North American Deaf Community — Student Protest Leader Carl DuPree Killed by Gallaudet Campus Police, November 9, 1990

Re-Release: Saturday, February 8, 2020, 6:45 pm ET

Original press release: Monday, September 24, 2012, 3:13 pm ET

Shock Waves in the North American Deaf Community — Student Protest Leader Carl DuPree Killed by Gallaudet Campus Police, November 9, 1990

Gallaudet Vice President shifts blame, unjustly making scapegoat out of Deaf professor

(Washington, DC)

Chronology and synopsis of events:

Carl DuPree, an undergraduate student at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, had made several unsuccessful attempts to pass a remedial English course prior to the Spring semester in 1990.

The normal practice at the time was for the English Language Program (ELP) coordinator to be listed as the instructor in the schedule for all English 50 classes, as is what happened in this case.

DuPree signed up for English 50 for the Spring of 1990 under Marcia Bordman (MB), because MB was the coordinator of the English Language Program. MB then assigned DuPree to attend Carl Schroeder’s class.

On April 24, 1990, DuPree was involved as a co-leader of a protest at Gallaudet, protesting the university’s remedial English policy. It was a “Deaf Professors Now” protest. DuPree told the Washington Times that Gallaudet’s English instructors weren’t able to teach them effectively because most of them were hearing instructors who couldn’t sign well. As part of the protest, two or three hundred students boycotted the English Placement Test.

In May, at the end of the Spring semester, Carl Schroeder reported to MB that, technically, DuPree received an “F” grade for the class (to a large extent for missing too many classes and assignments), but that MB needed to bear in mind that DuPree successfully passed all four parts of the English Placement Test, and therefore, according to a statement in the handbook, he should qualify to receive an “A” grade.

Carl Schroeder never discussed the issue of the statement in the handbook with DuPree, but Schroeder told DuPree that technically MB was listed as the instructor of the course and that MB assigned him (DuPree) to the class (Carl Schroeder’s class).

In late May or early June of 1990, when DuPree discovered on his own that (according to the English Language Program student handbook) he qualified to receive an “A” if all four parts of EPT were passed, DuPree approached Carl Schroeder. Schroeder went to look for MB but couldn’t find MB. Nancy Kensicki (NK, the English Department chair) was not there, either. The English Department was almost empty, so Schroeder decided to check with Robert “Skip” Williams, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Carl Schroeder and Williams agreed to change DuPree’s grade to an Incomplete so that the Department could look at the student handbook. When MB discovered that DuPree’s grade was changed to an Incomplete, MB became apoplectic and then decided to change DuPree’s grade back to an “F”.

NK informed Carl Schroeder that MB wanted to fire Schroeder, or have Schroeder be fired, but couldn’t find a way to do it. NK then pushed Carl Schroeder out of the English Language Program and transferred him to the Freshmen/Sophomore Program where he taught college composition for the next two years.

At some point during the summer, after considering the issue of the statement in the handbook, MB reversed the decision and changed DuPree’s grade back to an Incomplete.

In approximately September 1990, DuPree finished writing his essays that Carl Schroeder requested and turned them in to Schroeder. Schroeder gave the essays to MB. MB evaluated the essays and found them unacceptable. MB then changed DuPree’s Incomplete grade back to an “F” (the third time that MB changed his grade).

DuPree complained about the “F” grade and NK attempted to compromise on the issue and keep everything cool by changing his grade to a “D”. This was the fifth time his grade had been changed overall — once by Skip Williams from “F” to Incomplete, three times by MB, and once by NK.

DuPree still insisted that (according to the handbook) he deserved an “A” grade, but that he would accept a “C” grade. He needed a “C” grade in order to receive money from Vocational Rehabilitation.

NK refused to change his “D” grade to a “C”.

DuPree then withdrew from all his classes (in approximately early October 1990.)

Carl Schroeder attempted to discuss the issue with NK, MB, and Diane O’Connor (DO, the EPT coordinator), however each of those three people refused to speak with Schroeder about the matter.

On Friday, November 9, 1990, DuPree met with Carl Schroeder in the morning and Schroeder explained to him that he (Schroeder) had no authority to change the “D” grade to anything else. DuPree then went to NK’s office, only to discover that NK was scheduled to return at 1:00 pm. DuPree then returned to Schroeder’s office and said he would try to catch NK after NK’s class was finished that afternoon.

Before Carl Schroeder left for home at 12 noon, he stopped by the English Department to check his mailbox. Schroeder ran into NK and told NK that DuPree was not satisfied with the “D” grade and that DuPree would come to see NK later that afternoon. NK became furious and declared an intention to alert the campus police about DuPree.

Carl Schroeder then went to pick up his child and his child’s friend from the Day Care Center and they all spent the entire afternoon off campus.

Shortly after 3:00 pm, DuPree went back to the Hall Memorial Building to speak with NK, the department chair (while Carl Schroeder was off campus).

At some point during the meeting, NK called the campus police (DOSS) and two officers appeared in the English Department office. The campus police officers ordered DuPree to leave the campus and they followed DuPree when he left the English Department office.

Previous to the meeting, DuPree had asked his wife to wait with two of their children in the Ely Center and that he would return after his meeting with NK.

The officers continued to follow DuPree as he turned to enter the side entrance of the Ely Center. DuPree signed to them: “leave, leave . . . . I will leave,” indicating that he was complying with the demand that he leave the campus, but the officers did not understand him and they did not understand that he was in the process of leaving by picking up his wife and kids at the Ely Center.

The officers later claimed that DuPree shoved one of them and that they were afraid that he would throw them down the stairs.

Six more campus police arrived, eventually making a total of eight on the scene. Two of them were new officers who did not even have uniforms.

One of the campus police officers put an illegal chokehold on DuPree. There were multiple officers piled on top of DuPree and it was difficult to even see him under the pile of officers.

The chokehold had been outlawed in the District of Columbia since 1984. It rendered people unconscious by cutting off the air supply to their lungs.

Students at the scene saw DuPree signing that he couldn’t breathe and they attempted to communicate that to the officers, but the officers didn’t understand and they continued the chokehold.

A bone was broken in DuPree’s neck and he suffocated to death.

By about 5:30 p.m., Carl Schroeder received a TDD call from his wife, who said that he needed to call the campus police immediately regarding DuPree. Schroeder’s wife told him that DuPree had died, but didn’t explain how he had died.

Schroeder then called the campus police via TDD. They asked if Schroeder could come to Gallaudet to make a statement about DuPree. When he arrived there, Schroeder saw Paul Kelly together with campus police chief Bernard Holt. (Paul Kelly had been Vice President of the Administration & Finance division at Gallaudet for two years, since Gallaudet President I. King Jordan, Kelly’s personal friend, selected him for promotion to the position in 1988.) Both Kelly and Holt asked Carl Schroeder when the last time was that he saw DuPree. Schroeder told them it was about 10:30 that morning. They seemed upset and asked if Schroeder saw him that afternoon.

Schroeder explained that he picked up his child and his child’s friend from the Day Care Center at noon and they were off campus for the rest of the day. Holt asked Schroeder if he knew what happened to DuPree, and Schroeder said that his wife had said on the TDD that DuPree died, but that he didn’t know what caused it. Neither Paul Kelly, nor Bernard Holt told Schroeder what happened to DuPree.

Per Paul Kelly’s and Bernard Holt’s insistence, Carl Schroeder wrote a statement saying that DuPree stopped by his (Schroeder’s) office that morning to talk about his final grade and that the meeting ended with DuPree intending to see NK about the matter. Schroeder learned later, over that weekend, that Holt was involved in wrestling/restraining DuPree and that DuPree had suffocated.

The next day on November 10, 1990, Muriel Strassler (MS), director of Gallaudet PR, told multiple lies to the Washington Post reporter, claiming (as the Post indirectly quoted MS as saying) that the “...incident began Friday afternoon when Dupree and a former teacher got into an argument. The teacher summoned campus security and asked that Dupree be removed...” MS may have been partly motivated by a professional conflict that MS had with Schroeder, because MS disliked American Sign Language.

Carl DuPree and Carl Schroeder never, ever argued with each other. DuPree often stopped by Schroeder’s office to talk, which was sometimes bothersome, but they never argued. DuPree was always respectful toward Schroeder. Schroeder’s impression was that DuPree understood that he registered under MB’s name as the instructor and that he had to deal with the English Department about his grade. Schroeder harbored no hostile feelings toward DuPree. During the upcoming trial, Schroeder was asked if he was ever afraid of DuPree, and Schroeder said no. Schroeder was asked again in other words if he ever felt intimidated by him and Schroeder said no.

The death was ruled a homicide and four DOSS officers were charged by a grand jury in August 1991 with involuntary manslaughter.

The charges against one the four defendants, James R. Rossi, age 35 at the time of the indictment, were dropped in the middle of the three-week-long trial.

The prosecution at the trial never identified a specific DOSS officer as being the officer who placed the chokehold on DuPree.

The prosecution produced students as witnesses who saw the chokehold, but a major error by an interpreter caused one of the students to lose credibility in the jurors’ eyes. That student was referring to one of the DOSS officers by using his nickname, “Spider,” but the interpreter thought the student was referring to an actual spider, and the interpreter caused the student’s testimony to seem nonsensical.

The jury acquitted the remaining three, mainly because the prosecution never identified a specific DOSS officer as being the officer who administered the chokehold. The three were: Bernard A. Holt (age 42 at the time of the indictment, Chief of DOSS); Paul C. Starke (age 30); and Steven L. Young (age 26).

After the trial, Paul Kelly gave Bernard Holt a promotion which included being head of Facilities as well as chief of campus police (DOSS), then later PK fired Holt when Holt refused to sign a memo that contained false statements about why $4 million had not been spent to hire and train new campus police officers.

At some point, Paul Kelly had hired the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey to investigate the whole incident and they wrote a report, but the administration never allowed the report to be released.

In 1992 Paul Kelly decided to make Carl Schroeder a scapegoat in the DuPree matter and get Schroeder fired.

Carl DuPree had an open and shut case against the English Department. The handbook said he deserved an “A” grade because he passed all four parts of the placement test. Carl Schroeder recommended to MB that he be given an “A”, due to the rule in the handbook, even though his coursework was deficient.

At the time DuPree organized this protest in April 1990 he didn’t know about the rule in the handbook. When he found out about it during the summer, he approached Schroeder. Schroeder then approached Skip Williams, the dean, who agreed that the matter needed attention.

Obviously, MB, the head of the English Language Program, was retaliating against DuPree because of his instigation of the protest only a few weeks earlier (which got major coverage in the local press and probably damaged MB’s career) and MB changed his grade back to an “F” — which the rules of the handbook said he didn’t deserve — then MB reversed it back to Incomplete, realizing the error. Then later during the fall, MB deliberately ignored the rule in the handbook and gave him an “F” for the class after he turned in his work to make up the incomplete.

This was a horrible travesty of justice. DuPree did not “stress out the system.” The English Department chair, NK, had already planned to call the campus police three hours before DuPree came to meet NK on November 9, 1990. Obviously, it wasn’t anything he said or did during the meeting which was the actual, or underlying reason for summoning campus police, and then DuPree attempted to tell the campus police that he was indeed leaving the campus, just as they required. He needed to pick up his wife and kids on the way out. But they were unable to understand him and they ended up killing him as a result.

After this, Paul Kelly got involved and decided to put the blame on Schroeder. Carl Schroeder was actually completely blameless and had handled the situation in a very proper manner the whole way through. MB, NK and DO refused to speak with Carl Schroeder about DuPree’s grade.

Paul Kelly then orchestrated a dishonest plan (which almost certainly violated employment law) to get Carl Schroeder fired. That accomplished two goals, because, since Schroeder was a highly effective teacher and strong advocate of ASL and Deaf culture, Paul Kelly would have perceived Schroeder to be a political stumbling block to the continued acquisition of power that he was imposing on Gallaudet.

The plan was so blatantly wrong that even Jordan’s close personal friend, Skip Williams (the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences) refused to go along with it. They had to break the proper hierarchy and get Howard Busby, the Dean of Students, to fire him.

This is just one blatant example of how Paul Kelly was scheming behind the scenes to push through his personal agenda of power grabbing — by his characteristic method of pushing faux decentralization plans,^1,2 in combination with orchestrating repeated instances of sham reorganizational plans, which were intended to displace political rivals and others, while soliciting the involvement of neoliberalist pseudo-intellectuals³ and propagandists masquerading as historians⁴ — all the while co-opting and corrupting Jordan in the process. Hypothetically, if firing Carl Schroeder had actually been the right thing to do, then Jordan could have easily persuaded Skip Williams to fire him, but Williams balked and he refused to order NK to fire Carl Schroeder.

To further compound the injustice, Congress allocated $4 million to hire and train new campus police officers and the Jordan/Kelly administration received the money and then did not use it as Congress intended, thus actually endangering more students’ lives.

The ultimate, underlying cause of Carl DuPree’s death involved internal Gallaudet politics and Paul Kelly’s (successful) attempt to grab power and play power-politics. This underlying managerial ethos (or rather, “anti-ethos”), that was heightened after Paul Kelly’s ascension to the Gallaudet A&F Vice Presidency in 1988, became so pronounced as it grew unchecked from year to year after the Gallaudet campus police killed Carl DuPree that the faculty even gave it a name: “Management By Intimidation,” referring to it by the acronym “M.B.I.”⁵ The student protesters picked up on the usage of this term, too, by the time of the Unity for Gallaudet protest in 2006, with many of them connecting the dots and realizing that Paul Kelly was functioning to exacerbate and perpetuate the longstanding “plantation mentality” that had existed among members of the board of trustees for decades, or longer.⁶

Paul Kelly was the person who encouraged his close friend, King Jordan to apply for the presidency in 1988. Jordan mentioned during his resignation speech in 2005 that Kelly helped him before he applied to become president.⁷

In this respect, Jordan was actually Paul Kelly’s dupe, and this is an extreme example of a hearing person scheming and maneuvering behind the scenes and exploiting Deaf people — actually doing things that cause Deaf people to be killed.

Paul Kelly, presumably, advised Jordan or concurred with Jordan’s choice of Jane Fernandes to be hired as vice president of pre-college programs in 1995. Jane Fernandes (née Kelleher) had been on the Gallaudet campus and associated with Gallaudet since 1987, and had married James Fernandes, who himself had been a friend of both Jordan and Kelly for some years before that. They both, then, worked in Hawaii from 1988 to 1995, where Jane became head administrator of the Hawaii Center for the Deaf. They met Joseph Mesa in Hawaii, who later enrolled in the high school on the Gallaudet campus, then later was admitted to Gallaudet University, where he lived in the dorms and murdered two classmates. (See also THIS ARTICLE.)

Paul Kelly surely knew that Jane Fernandes was Joseph Mesa’s close mentor and protector and that Jane Fernandes surely contributed in Mesa developing aberrant behavior, and surely must have acted, along with Jordan, to cover up the issue.

Rather than doing the right thing, Paul Kelly supported Fernandes’ elevation to the presidency — not only putting a psychologically disturbed pseudo-intellectual into the role of president (for his own political gain), but also causing a backlash which necessitated dozens of students heroically putting their lives at risk, during the Unity for Gallaudet protest in 2006, in order to rectify the situation and cause justice to be done. And then still Kelly fought back as if he were in an actual war, rounding up Physical Plant Department (PPD) personnel and campus police officers (DPS) who threw objects at protesters’ tents and scooped up the tents with a front-end loader/bulldozer (per objective third-party journalists’ reporting) without first looking inside to see if any students were in the tents.

The shock waves that spread all throughout the US and Canadian Deaf Community after the Gallaudet campus police killed protest leader Carl DuPree, and the negative fallout caused, will never be erased or healed as long as Paul Kelly works at Gallaudet.

True healing cannot take place until the source and cause of the disease is isolated and removed.

FOOTNOTES

1. University of Maryland, College Park, Office of Human Relations Programs; and the Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1998). Diversity Blueprint: A Planning Manual for Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: Association of American College and Universities.

2. Hernandez, Arelis. (2010). A Crack in the Foundation? Diverse Issues in Higher Education (February 4, 2010). Fairfax, VA: Cox, Matthews, and Associates, Inc.

3. Cf. Bauman (1998), p. iii.

4. See: http://saveourdeafschools.org/death_of_deafness.pdf, per the related mention of the article series in the commentary linked by the “propagandists masquerading as historians” hyperlink.

5. Paul Kelly showed consciousness of guilt on the issue by having one of the (faux-)auditors working under him at Gallaudet co-write an article on the topic in the summer of 2006, when, as part of a grotesque display of blatant MBI, he attempted to turn the tables on the faculty (and students) by using the faculty’s own anti-MBI rhetoric as a weapon against them. The article (page 5) also includes a thinly veiled reference to the faculty supposedly being a tyrannical majority (Warigon, 2006, p. 5). In this we see Paul Kelly flying his anti-Academy, anti-intellectual credentials high, as part of the everything-a-mere-shade-of-gray-there-is-no-truth-or-justice-in-the-world-I-just-want-to-get-my-piece-of-the-pie nature of his character and personal philosophy. Later, that same (faux-)auditor violated District of Columbia employment law in 2007 at Gallaudet, when he released an employee’s personnel and medical history records to the public. He was then, as a part of an apparent double cross, fired by Paul Kelly on June 6, 2007 for doing so.

6. In fact, it is possible, or even probable, that the co-founder of Gallaudet, Amos Kendall, used slaves to build the mansion on what later became Gallaudet property, and, though Kendall possibly didn’t own slaves while living there (but possibly did) and presumably did little or no farming on the property, it might be accurate to say in some sense that Gallaudet (the school that later added a collegiate department that later changed its name to Gallaudet) was at one point in time part of, or adjoined to, an actual plantation. Slavery was, in fact, practiced in the District of Columbia up until April 1862, when the boarding school that is part of the first years of the history of Gallaudet University was almost five years old. The author of a scholarly book about Kendall, when contacted, mentioned that wealthy residents of the District of Columbia at the time commonly used slaves, and Kendall, though he grew up in the North, was part of this social milieu.

7. In his retirement speech, given on September 1, 2005, Jordan stated (emphasis in the original): “Paul Kelly helped me before I was president. Paul tutored me on financial issues and budget issues, and without his help and guidance during that application process, I know that I would never have become a finalist for the position. Then after that, during my presidency, he’s been a wonderful friend and supporter. Thank you, Paul Kelly for all you’ve done for me. Thank you.”

REFERENCES

Bauman, Humphrey-Dirksen Lippmann. (1998). American Sign Language as a medium for poetry: A comparative poetics of sign, speech and writing in twentieth-century American poetry. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Warigon, Slemo D. and Betsy Bowers. (2006). Impact of Management by Intimidation on Human Capital: Is It Destroying Your Organization? College & University Auditor. Vol. 50, No. 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 5-10.

SEE ALSO:

http://saveourdeafschools.org/propagandists.html

AND (commentaries by Carl Schroeder’s protégé, Jason Tozier):

https://audismnegatsurdi.com/tag/carl-dupree

ASL translation titled: “Carl DuPree and Carl Schroeder: Heroes of Deaf Culture” (translated by Jason Tozier):

https://audismnegatsurdi.wordpress.com/2020/02/08/carl-dupree-and-carl-schroeder-heroes-of-deaf-culture

AND (People of the Eye):

https://eyethstudios.wordpress.com/2006/11/09/carl-dupree-died-16-years-ago-today

Commentary on Neoliberalism in the Gallaudet University Administration

One of the unfortunate, side-outgrowths of DPN – or in other words, an unpredictable/incidental consequence – was the post-DPN involvement of I. King Jordan in the burgeoning trend of neoliberalism in Washington, DC in the late 1980s and beyond.

When we protested for a “Deaf President Now!” in 1988, did anyone think that demand would come to be related to US economic issues and eventually also global economic policy? Yet, when Jordan assumed office, he very quickly headed in that direction, no doubt as a result of hobnobbing with DC-bigwigs such as Sen. Harkin or Washington Post co-owner Donald E. Graham, which included getting involved with the Federal City Council. (One concrete indication of such was the special Washington DC VIP license plate that Jordan had on his car for many years, which was inexcusable.) We can still see remnants of that relationship in the current efforts being made at GU toward revitalizing commerce on 6th Street adjacent to the campus, which is currently being spearheaded by the Assistant Vice President for Administration.

After DPN, it didn't take long for Jordan's true colors to begin showing. When administrators and faculty members at KDES set up a new plan to emphasize bilingual education and ASL in 1991, Jordan quickly shut it down. This was no doubt due to him following the wishes of Sen. Harkin who, by this time, was already maneuvering to increase the use of cochlear implants among deaf children.

This, then, was the beginning of the end for both IKJ and Harkin, since neoliberalism's strong influence is now, with the partial (philosophical/political) success of the Occupy Movement and the successes of other protest movements around the globe, seemingly beginning to slowly wane, or if not wane, then at least slow down (and will hopefully be headed in the other direction soon), and it’s not an exaggeration at all to say that the Unity for Gallaudet protest played a role in setting the stage for the general Occupy Movement.

In truth, both Jordan and Harkin were actually pro-neoliberalist extremists, since the “monetization” of the human body (as would be the result of the rampant, unchecked use of cochlear implants that they both envisioned) represents one manifestation of neoliberal extremism. We can’t rule out Tony Coelho’s influence in this trend as well, especially since he has also been involved with medical implant corporations, albeit implants of a different type (for epileptics, for example)...

Commentary on Tom Harkin – The Upside and the Downside

Recently, Odyssey magazine, which is put out by the Clerc Center at Gallaudet University, featured an article explaining how Senator Tom Harkin met with students attending the 24th biennial Jr. National Association of the Deaf (NAD) conference. In the article Harkin is quoted as saying that his brother Frank once told him that he was tired of people telling him what to do because he was deaf. Harkin said that Frank once said: "I want to decide for myself."

While Tom Harkin has done a lot of good work over the years, and has even (laudably) been called a "radical" by some, the supposed quote from Frank strikes us as being apocryphal and created by Tom for pragmatic purposes. Granted, the general public often seems to give politicians some leeway in their use of rhetoric to make a point, but on this particular topic it should be pointed out that leeway cannot be given, because the point of the supposed quote would be contradicted by Harkin's intention. In fact, Harkin had a TV ad put together for his 1990 senate run, which he reused for his 1992 presidential run, that showed him conversing with Frank in sign. It was said to be the first-ever political campaign ad featuring a Deaf person signing. In the video, Frank makes a statement that tends to contradict Harkin's current claim.

Harkin has frequently touted the ADA as being his best accomplishment in Congress. Though the underlying premise is flawed as it pertains to social relations between Deaf and hearing people, it must be admitted that many of us have needed to resort to relying on it in lieu of more properly constructed civil rights protections, which have historically been lacking, and so it functions effectively now, in the present, as a stopgap measure. Before that, in 1983, Harkin pushed for more closed captioning on television when he was a member of the US House of Representatives.

We could go through a lengthy list of accomplishments which range over a wide variety of issues that merit praise. Surprisingly, Harkin was also able to accomplish much from 1991 onwards, despite the fact that his political point man on disability issues was (by our estimation, after careful study) a closet-conservative. Harkin even demonstrated a certain amount of heroism during a trip to Chile in 1976 as a participant in a delegation where he was forced out of a building once at gunpoint by Pinochet's soldiers who were trying to cover up illegal detentions and torturing that were occurring there.

Harkin has announced his retirement from the US Senate, and so his term will expire either at the end of this year, or in January. We wish Tom Harkin well, though we are keeping our fingers crossed, hoping that he will not go to the dark side to become a lobbyist for the cochlear implant industry. He hasn't tried hard to conceal the fact that he has been working to find money to fund an army of stenographers to provide CART services for mainstream students, as well as working to find the legal means to force local schools to provide such services. At the end of the day, though, the decision will be up to those students and their parents as to what kinds of schools they attend (mainstream or residential), if we are to believe the substance of the (most likely apocryphal) quote from Frank.

A Response to: “What Crisis?: The Reality for Illinois School for the Deaf”

Sunday, March 3, 2013

A Response to: “What Crisis?: The Reality for Illinois School for the Deaf”
By Jerry Covell

Aaron R. published a post on his blog on February 18, 2013 with the headline: What Crisis?: The reality for Illinois School for the Deaf,” in response to my February 6, 2013 open letter titled: “25 Years After DPN, Deaf STILL CAN’T?” (http://saveourdeafschools.org). I want to thank him for his post, because it reinforced and validated the facts in my first open letter and brought more attention to the problems existing at Illinois School for the Deaf.

In Aaron’s blog post, the author provided “points of clarification” (although mostly false clarifications) in an apparent attempt to divert people’s attention from the acts of oppression and discrimination that I mentioned in my open letter. His post did not by any means constitute any kind of clarification on the issues. It was instead a defense of an audist’s position and a justification for cued speech. The issue is absolutely not about cued speech at all. I don’t really give a rat’s arse about the topic of cued speech compared to the importance of what the real issue is. His blog looks down on deaf people’s basic human rights to cultural identity and language. The author wants us to think that cued speech is perceived by the deaf community as currently being “dangerous” and threatening, when it is truly insignificant in the scheme of things of what occurred and what is still going on at the Illinois School for the Deaf. The core issue of what is happening at the Illinois School for the Deaf (and everywhere else for that matter) involves the acts of discrimination, oppression and the continued perpetuation of the plantation mentality that is being imposed on the deaf community. I will not get into philosophical debates with the author about specific issues in teaching methodology. That is for another day and time. I will attempt to bring the attention back to the issue of discrimination and oppression being carried out against deaf students, deaf educators, deaf staff, deaf parents and the deaf community, by providing even more evidence!

General Points
The author claims that “some people have expressed their opinion privately...” and that “this article has been checked for accuracy by different sources.” This is laughable as those opposed did not talk to him and I know that this author did not actually check with Fara Harper or another individual who witnessed the discriminatory incident that occurred on January 17, 2013. Furthermore, the author claims that “the students at ISD will have the final say in this matter when they graduate and go on to pursue their dreams”. It is interesting to note that the students have been complaining about this matter and their complaints have fallen on deaf ears (pun intended).

I never claimed to be an expert on cued speech. If I was wrong on any details about the nature of it, then I apologize and thank you for clearing it up.

We were upset when Visual Phonics was introduced and used at Illinois School for the Deaf. It was used regardless of the communication modalities of the child. Everyone was required to use it. It was claimed at that time that research proved that it will help with the literacy skills of deaf students. We knew it was not working because the students were confused and struggled with this tool (so did the educators). The author clearly admitted that Visual Phonics is a failure by stating that “the teachers were not satisfied and researched other options and then learned about Cued Speech.” Now we are told to use cued speech. One can understand the resistance happening on the part of the educators and deaf people involved.

The author asserts that the “Cuers are the ones experiencing oppression and discrimination from members of the Deaf Community”, however the author later stated that “many native deaf cuers are also fluent signers and members of the deaf and hard of hearing community.” Those statements are conflicting. We do not discriminate against our own and we welcome all with their various backgrounds (oralists, cuers, CI users, English-based signers, mainstreamed and/or residential students) as long as they can sign. However, when those cuers (oralists, CI users, or English based signers for that matter) portray themselves as superior and/or intelligent than a Deaf person who uses ASL...such an individual will be shunned not discriminated against because their attitude is destructive and harmful to the deaf community.

Word Play and a Record
Resigned or retired? Does it really make any difference? Isn’t it appropriate for one to submit a letter of resignation from employment in order to retire? This is such a trivial non-issue. However, Marybeth Lauderdale, the former superintendent of the Illinois School for the Deaf has jumped into this public debate and brought attention to herself when my first open letter was not about her. Marybeth sent me a private message via Facebook on February 10, 2013 and she said: “Jerry, you should have fact-checked before posting that information on your ‘Gallaudet Protest’ site. The easiest fact to prove? I RETIRED, rather than RESIGNED—those words have very different definitions and connotations. Perhaps you are listening to the wrong, uninformed, people. Does Gallaudet know you are using their name to disseminate inaccurate and slanderous information? I also graduated from Gallaudet, and have a professional reputation to maintain and protect. I have contacted my attorney. I expect a retraction and a public apology, post haste.” As of today, I have not heard from her attorney and I doubt I ever will. She must think I am uninformed and uneducated regarding this matter. Marybeth worked at the Illinois School for the Deaf, which is a state agency, and she was a “public official” when she was the superintendent of that school. The issue about public officials being subject to criticism was settled in the famous New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. Furthermore, I have said nothing libelous or with malice. Therefore, I will not retract my open letter or apologize for the content of it. However, I will correct my one statement, per her request, and say here that the former superintendent retired from the Illinois School for the Deaf. The source which I relied on was the Jacksonville, Illinois newspaper, The Journal Courier, as they did not mention anywhere that she retired. See for yourself at http://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/isd-isvi-superintendent-leaving-the-state/article_308cdc61-c525-5178-aba4-284de56695f6.html. I guess the newspaper’s author is uniformed and uneducated as well and that her attorney will contact him as well?

Marybeth Lauderdale sent an email to the educators and staff at the Illinois School for the Deaf on February 21, 2013. In the email she stated that she wants to “set the record straight as to what I did and did not do before I left ISD.” She is entitled to that, of course, yet I would like to point out that she cannot absolve herself for what happened after August 1, 2012 because the decisions she made prior to her retirement on July 31, 2012 set things into motion. She is responsible for setting those things in motion before she retired and cannot escape criticism for those actions. Under her leadership as a superintendent, she created the environment that we are currently in today. We, as she called us, “outside, uninformed, uneducated individuals who seem bent on destroying the school” actually want to save the school from the oppressor...the audists who are involved in destroying it.

A bit of history
There is no denying that there have been countless discussions in the last three years regarding the use of cued speech at the school...among the administrators and educators (the deaf community was not involved). The operative word is “discussions”, not “decisions”. It started in the high school as a pilot program using cued speech in reading instruction and recently has also included language instruction, and this has not changed at the end of 2011-2012 school year. In an email dated on May 22, 2012, Marybeth Lauderdale, the former superintendent, wrote at the time, “I am not ready to make a unilateral decision that ISD is ready for wholesale endorsement of Cued Speech. I do not want to be one person making a decision for the entire school”. She continued in the same email, “I do support continuation of using Cued Speech for English instruction support, and over the next year, to further monitor its effectiveness. ” Furthermore, in the same email, Marybeth included an attachment called Questions for Superintendent from Cued Speech Program, (identified as the May 22 attachment; it was created by Kathryn Surbeck, Director of Evaluation Center at ISD and Dr. Beverly Trezek, Literacy Researcher), which addressed a comment that cued speech should be required for the campus by stating: “Change of any kind can be challenging and before instituting change, it is wise to try small pilot projects, gather and share data. It is also prudent to educate staff and to solicit concerns and respond to questions. Ultimately, however, the decision whether to expand or limit the use of Cued Speech on campus will be an administrative one.”

It was generally understood that cued speech will continue to be a pilot program to be used in high school for English literacy; and that it would not be used school-wide for every student, and that it would be used to accommodate those students who use cued speech as their communication mode (as required by IEPs). However, the decision to use cued speech was unexpected and arbitrarily implemented when Marybeth Lauderdale announced in her email on July 26, 2012, made a few days prior to her retirement. She stated, “ISD will be implementing the use of Cued Speech this fall as the primary tool for phonics instruction during literacy teaching. Visual Phonics will continue to be used as appropriate for speech instruction and for clarification as needed within literacy instruction. Visual Phonics is not being banned, but replaced by Cued Speech as the primary tool for classroom use.” In addition, Marybeth continued, “This August we are sending two educators, Nicole Frye and Allison Fraas, to receive training to become Cued Speech Trainers. They will, in turn, conduct workshops prior to the beginning of school for educators who have not yet been trained in Cued Speech.” This decision caught many educators off guard and caused them to be confused. The deaf community was stunned by this news which prompted the Illinois School for the Deaf Alumni Association’s Legislative Action Committee to send out an Alert letter on July 28, 2012 regarding their shock and disbelief about the cued speech decision.

Yes, Hilary Franklin spoke with the ISD community about cued speech after providing cued speech trainings to the educators. It was assumed that she was asked at the last minute talk to the ISD community after the administrators realize how upset the deaf community was. The meeting, A Conversation About Cued Speech, was scheduled for August 15, 2012. The ISDAA received very short notice about this meeting only four days before on August 11, 2012. Fortunately, it was such a hot issue within the deaf community that approximately 100 people were in attendance. We were stunned and wanted answers. The meeting was unproductive, according to various sources, because of how controlled and restrictive it was. Questions had to be submitted prior to the meeting and the meeting lasted only one hour. Imagine the deaf community not knowing what cued speech is about and not allowed an open dialogue about it. Those who attended the meeting left confused, upset and wondering what was going on with the Illinois School for the Deaf.

Two different camps of educators
There have historically been two different camps of educators in the United States since the infamous Milan Conference of 1880. Yes, there are two different camps at the Illinois School for the Deaf today...those who support cued speech and those who do not. It is also broken down into camps of those who support the use of cued speech in all classes and those who prefer its use only during literacy instruction. It is obvious that the author is clueless in thinking that everyone at the school is supportive of cued speech. In the May 22 attachment, a question was asked as to why the presenters were speaking and using interpreters, instead of signing for themselves as done in the past few years and the reply was, “The topic of cued Speech has been controversial on campus and was challenging to present because of numerous emotional discussions that have taken place on this topic.” Furthermore, why do you think the former superintendent recommended in her May 22, 2012 email that everyone at the school read: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt and also: Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems by Barry Johnson? It was to urge everyone to find some middle ground, because there were indeed divisions and disagreements at the school on this issue. If the author had fully investigated this by interviewing people other than those who supported his cause, he would have found that these factions do indeed exist at the school.

An adverse environment that is hostile to the deaf community
The author attempts to twist my words out of context to create the implication that the deaf community is against cued speech. Not once did my letter say that cued speech is harmful to the deaf and hard of hearing community. In fact, I believe it benefits some deaf children, and I am not a supporter of a “one-size-fits-all” educational philosophy. Tons of deaf people have this view, too. My statement is related to the fact that there are two different camps, not about cued speech itself. To be clear, I will repeat it again... The existence of these two different camps at the Illinois School for the Deaf is evidence of an adverse environment being created at the school that is hostile to the deaf community (from my first letter). The obvious reality is that this is what is happening at the Illinois School for the Deaf—an atmosphere is being created that is hostile to the deaf community. Ask any deaf educator, deaf staff member, deaf parent, deaf alumnus/alumna or deaf friend of ISD (including some hearing educators). You will find so much tension and hostility there.

The Language Planning Committee...stacked with Cued Speech supporters
Again, the author is attempting to twist my words and divert attention from the real issue. I never once mentioned anything about the “data or evidence being stacked in favor of using Cued Speech.” Instead, I said that committee was stacked with Cued Speech supporters. I was adamantly referring to the supporters of cued speech! (that is, the members of the committee). And also, NO! It was not the same committee as the first one that was stopped/suspended/disbanded/inactivated for whatever reasons as the Language Planning Committee apparently did not meet during the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years. The Language Planning Committee was actually formed (or re-formed) by the former superintendent who stated in her May 22, 2012 email: “I do support and call for the formation of a balanced language planning committee which will focus on what to offer, and when; and what to use and when, as far as language and communication access. This committee should then be able to make a solid recommendation at the end of the next school year.” She also stated in the July 26, 2012 email that, “A Language Planning Committee will be bid this summer and will commence meeting in the fall for the purpose stated above.” (in reference to May 22, 2012 email).

The newly formed Language Planning Committee originally has (8) members who were tasked to develop a language planning policy for the school by the end of the 2013 school year. This committee was composed of six (6) educators and a deaf contractor and a hearing member of the staff. There was only one (1) deaf educator in that committee, Fara Harper. The rest was composed of hearing educators. That is not balanced. The committee was obviously stacked with cued speech supporters. As stated in my last letter, and I will state again: the interim superintendent tried to make the committee be more balanced by adding more individuals on the committee. Two (2) more deaf people were added to the committee along with six (6) more hearing people. This committee now has thirteen (13) members and one deaf contractor. Out of fourteen (14) members, only four (4) are deaf. It is still not balanced and yes, it is still stacked with cued speech supporters. It is my understanding that this committee was temporarily suspended as a result of the incident of January 17, 2013, but has been reconvened for March 21 of this year.

The shocking incident
The author confirmed and corroborated that discrimination actually occurred on January 17, 2013. When Fara Harper wanted to know why she would not be teaching the principal’s child and asked if it is because she was deaf, the pre-K to 8th grade principal did reply that Fara: “...can’t provide the educational environment he needs, then I guess yes.” Thank you for confirming it! A hearing principal did say that Fara is not able to provide the educational environment that her child needs because Fara is deaf. In other words, Fara is not qualified to teach the principal’s son due to her inability to hear and speak. There is no other way around it. That it is a flat-out discrimination, despite what the author asserts about how it happened. The author attempted to put the blame for this statement on Fara for supposedly instigating by pushing the issue repeatedly. Fara makes it clear that she did not push the issue and only asked “is it because I am deaf” once. It is important to note that this issue was already thought of and planned by the hearing principal prior to the meeting. The author stated that the hearing principal “...has concerns about her son’s progress at ISD and contemplated the possibility of mainstreaming him next year.” That statement by itself demonstrates that she already decided, prior to the incident, that Fara is not qualified to teach her son (her son was scheduled to be in Fara’s class this coming fall). I have no reason to doubt Fara’s word and want to remind you that there was one hearing educator who witnessed this incident and who confirms Fara’s statement.

The author tries to make this incident appear trivial by saying that Fara’s discrimination claim was rejected. That is absolutely FALSE! Fara’s complaint of discrimination is still being investigated. Her complaint has been filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and Illinois Department of Human Services. As of today, no decisions have been made by either agency related to Fara’s discrimination claim.

...Termination
The author claims that “there is no evidence of staff members ‘bullying, harassing, jabbing, patronizing and condescending’ others who are deaf or hard of hearing”. Then how do one explain that certain hearing educators have pushed the idea, as I stated before, that “deaf people cannot do anything” unless they can speak and/or unless they have cochlear implants. This started a few years ago, when the same three hearing individuals who, at that time were at the high school, caused an uproar due to the negative comments they made to students, claiming that they would not be able to go to college and would not be successful in life or smart if they do not speak or have cochlear implants. That infuriated quite a few educators, instructors and dorm parents, both hearing and deaf alike. It resulted in a high school-wide meeting taking place which is known as the “AMPLIFICATION FORUM,” which was held on August 29, 2011. The purpose of the forum was included in this announcement:
“The administration would like to have a forum for our H.S. students about the varying perspectives regarding CIs, as well as presenting information about CIs. We hope, as a result of this forum:

1. Students will be aware of varying perspectives and opinions on this topic.
2. Students can begin formulating their own thoughts on this topic by attending this forum and continuing to educate themselves about the topic.
3. Students will accept that they can respectfully disagree or agree with their peers or adults about this topic.”

The above situation itself is a partial evidence of such ‘bullying, harassing, jabbing, patronizing and condescending’ others who are deaf or hard of hearing. Also, there are more evidence but the author is unable to see what is happening when he lives in Colorado (according to the blogger’s profile). However, I have seen few such occurrences first-hand, myself and I can corroborate that this is true. Many deaf educators, deaf staff members, deaf parents and deaf community can and will corroborate this (even some hearing educators). Did you talk to them, Aaron? You did not contact me. I would be happy to talk with you. I would be happy to give you their names so that you can contact them.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Accusing me of having a limited understanding regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Are you serious? Really? Yes, I am aware that the term “cued language services” was added to the law back in 2004. Cued speech should be used if it meets the individual child’s needs in terms of being the communication mode of the child, as stated in this IDEA law:
Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of the child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with peers and professionals in the child’s language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode 20 U.S.C. Section 1414 (d) (3) (B) (iv)

The author is right that the Illinois School for the Deaf, by law, is required to provide a “repertoire of services for children with hearing loss”. The issue brought into question is not about the repertoire of services that is being offered or about cued speech itself. It is about being devious and undemocratic. It is about the issue of the administration forcing ONE teaching method onto the students, despite strong objections on the part of some of the parents and educators. The school is potentially violating the law in terms of the language and communication needs of each child. The question was asked, “Is cued speech in students’ IEPs or do their IEPs say ‘use of ASL.’ Do their parents really know?” The response was in the May 22 attachment which stated, “In their current form, both Cued Speech and Visual Phonics are instructional tools that are being used to address students’ literacy goals. Specific instructional strategies or tools are not delineated on the IEP, although both Visual Phonics and Cued Speech have been mentioned in some of our current IEPs. When Cued speech is being used as a communication system, it is on the IEP.” That is a potential violation of the law because that quote is implying that cued speech does not have to be discussed in the IEP however the law is clear that such instructional tools (direct instruction) must be in the child’s language and/or communication mode, period! Therefore it must be discussed in the child’s IEP. So what happened to the “repertoire of services for children with hearing loss” in these situations?

Yes, some parents are specifically requesting cued speech be used, but frankly, most do not care or know because of the continual introduction of various communication modalities and tools. Cued speech was not discussed during IEPs. When it was brought up by deaf parents during their child’s IEP, it was met with hostility. They ignored and dismissed the objectors (deaf parents) as supposedly being unqualified and unknowledgeable about how to appropriately educate their deaf children. Due to the school’s insistence that cued speech be used with their child, it caused some deaf parents to insist that the school include a clause in their child’s IEP indicating that they do not want their child to use cued speech or be punished for not using it (when the IEP clearly stated ASL as mode of communication in the first place). What has been happening prompted the interim superintendent, Joan Forney to send out an email on February 1, 2013 to remind educators that, “The student’s Individual Education Program (IEP) drives how we implement instruction at ISD. This means since we have 256 students at ISD, we have 256 different programs. This is what is often described as the ‘I’ in IEP. At the IEP, we engage in individual language planning for that student. In the IEP, we determine the specific communication needs of the student. The languages and modes of communication are determined in the IEP.” That quote is in compliance with the IDEA and should happen during each and every IEPs and I have not seen that practiced in IEPs as of yet.

Data-Driven Decisions and Evidence-Based Practices
The author can promote his so-called “data-driven decisions and evidence-based practices” regarding cued speech at the Illinois School for the Deaf all he wants. Again, it is not about the issue of cued speech itself. It is about:

• the attitudes and the arrogance of certain people toward the deaf,
• how the cued speech policy was developed and implemented,
• how the deaf parents are being treated during the IEP process,
• how the students are being forced to learn a new communication modality,
• how the deaf educators at the school are being treated,
• how the hearing educators at the school who disagree with the cued speech approach are being treated, and
• how members of the deaf community associated with the school are being treated.

They are all being subjected to constant oppression via condescending comments, attitudes and actions. Not only that, a qualified deaf educator was discriminated against because of her deafness and her inability to speak. Such demeaning views and attitudes from the hearing principal, the hearing Reading Specialist and certain hearing educators must cease, period. It is the audism, not cued speech that is causing the problem.

Yes, Aaron, there is no denying that there is a “systematic discrimination and oppression taking place” at the Illinois School for the Deaf. There is a crisis at the Illinois School for the Deaf.

Aaron, you have apparently been misled and duped into publishing that commentary, because if you read my first letter again, you’ll see that it is not about cued speech or the issue of being for or against cued speech. Those certain hearing individual(s) can defend themselves, but they apparently attempted to use you, as a deaf person, to get you to act as a pawn to divide the deaf community and create the temporary diversion of focusing on a philosophical debate on how to educate the deaf while ignoring the oppression and discrimination occurring at the Illinois School for the Deaf. I do not think you would accept such oppression towards deaf people unless you find such behavior acceptable. Deaf people everywhere, and I believe you concur with this, are tired and fed up seeing many of our deaf children consistently reading and writing English below 5th grade level, a situation that is perpetuated because of the hodgepodge of approaches and strategies being imposed on deaf children that do little to create confidence that deaf children are receiving an appropriate education. You claimed that “there is a new sense of empowerment taking place for those who are still acquiring and learning English as a language”. Sadly, what is really happening is the continued disempowerment of deaf children who are being pulled away from their identity and language.

And now, 25 years after Deaf President Now protest, Gallaudet University has seen more growth and success under the leaderships of deaf presidents than during the 124 years under hearing jurisdiction. Isn’t it time to let deaf educators finally take control of deaf education? What if we have a majority of deaf educators, a majority of deaf principals and majority of deaf directors/coordinators/deans at the Illinois School for the Deaf? What would happen then?

This is a good time to be empowered! It is time to stop the oppressive attitudes toward deaf people, and it starts with you.

Sources:

Email – May 22, 2012 by Marybeth Lauderdale
Attachment – May 22, 2012, “Questions for Superintendent from Cued Speech Program”
Email – July 26, 2012 by Marybeth Lauderdale
Email – July 28, 2012 by Thomas Chance, ISDAA Legislative Action Chairperson
Email – August 12, 2012 Thomas Chance, ISDAA Legislative Action Chairperson
Flyer – “A Conversation About Cued Speech”
Email – February 1, 2013 by Joan Forney, Interim Superintendent
IEP Meeting – February 7, 2013
Private Message, Facebook – February 10, 2012
Blog – February 18, 2013 by Aaron
Email – February 21, 2013 by Marybeth Lauderdale
Fara Harper
Conversations – various dates and various individuals