NTID Community:
I just learned that the RIT Board of Trustees, with support from President Destler, has accepted my recommendation that the Alexander G Bell name be removed from our dormitory. They followed the on-going discussion and are in agreement with the views expressed in my recent email to President Destler urging the removal of the name; I shared that email with you on June 30, 2008.
I hope that each of you, like me, learned a great deal from the open process we pursued in reaching this decision.
In the end I learned – to my great pleasure – that we live in a community where strong opposing ideals can share the same space, where we can hold discussions with coolness as well as with heat, and where consideration and thoughtfulness regarding others is a strongly held value. My faith in all things related to RIT/NTID was reconfirmed throughout this process and in the final decision.
You each have my great thanks for your participation in our deliberations and for your advice on this issue.
Alan
T. Alan Hurwitz, Ed.D.
President, NTID
Vice President and Dean, RIT
Rochester Institute of Technology
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
52 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, New York 14623-5604
Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Status of Bell Name on Dormitory
Students, Faculty, and Staff:
I would like you to be aware that several days ago I sent the following recommendation to President Destler regarding the name of the Alexander G. Bell building. As reported below I am deeply appreciative of the part so many of you played in this process. I will inform you when Dr. Destler and the Board of Trustees has made a final decision.
Alan
Dr. Destler:
With this communication I am recommending to you as President of RIT, and to the RIT Board of Trustees, that the name “Alexander G Bell Hall” be removed from that RIT/NTID residential building, and that in the future we follow RIT guidelines to begin the process of renaming the building as appropriate. I assure you that this process shall be conducted in accordance to the RIT Board of Trustees policy and guidelines for naming buildings on the campus.
As you know, I followed an extended process to arrive at this decision. It began when I established a working group to advise me on the issue. I circulated their final report to you and all of NTID in May 2008, and included my opinion at that time. In a subsequent communiqué I reopened the discussion and allowed for: a multi-step process including an open forum which occurred in early June 2008; a continuous opportunity for students to provide me with feedback; and finally two forums (just completed) that allowed for RIT/NTID alumnae to provide comments to me during our RIT/NTID 40th Anniversary Reunion, which is currently in progress.
From start to finish I saw many individuals express their views in public forums and in public emails. I applaud the willingness of those who spoke on the issue. All spoke from their hearts and many bared their souls. Over time I detected what for me was a change in the tone of these communications; this was particularly noticeable in statements which – while still strongly maintaining the authors’ positions – considered how their positions and statements might impact those who did not agree with them.
In addition to the public comments, I received a large amount of email addressed privately to me. Those too reflected well on the free exchange of opinion valued not only in a university but in a ‘community,’ which is how I view NTID.
A small number individuals – in public or private communications – indicated that they did not have a strong position on the name, but knew the unity of our community was threatened, which saddened and upset them, and me as well.
In the end I found myself returning to, and strongly agreeing with, many comments indicating that Bell advocated an exclusive approach to communication that did not support a sense of community of deaf people who use a variety of communication approaches including ASL.
We live in a community.
We thrive as a community.
We welcome all to our community.
I have been convinced that it is not appropriate for us to maintain a building with his name; using a term I have used before, there is a strong ‘consensus’ for the removal of the name. I saw that consensus in all of the forums and communications that occurred since reopening this discussion within our community. Each of the individuals who participated in the process by sharing his or her views, and even those who were not active participants but who used the discussions to educate themselves, are owed a debt of gratitude for their efforts. In an educational environment we hope all commit to educate themselves, and then to educate each other. That has happened here.
I want it to be clear that this decision does not affect the open arms which we always have, and always will, extend in welcome to everyone who joins the RIT/NTID community.
I know you are to be commended for your participation, and I thank you for your advice, counsel, and support throughout this period.
I believe that the appropriate recommendation has been made.
I believe what has happened has been in the best interest of our community.
At this point I will await your decision.
Warmly,
Alan
I would like you to be aware that several days ago I sent the following recommendation to President Destler regarding the name of the Alexander G. Bell building. As reported below I am deeply appreciative of the part so many of you played in this process. I will inform you when Dr. Destler and the Board of Trustees has made a final decision.
Alan
Dr. Destler:
With this communication I am recommending to you as President of RIT, and to the RIT Board of Trustees, that the name “Alexander G Bell Hall” be removed from that RIT/NTID residential building, and that in the future we follow RIT guidelines to begin the process of renaming the building as appropriate. I assure you that this process shall be conducted in accordance to the RIT Board of Trustees policy and guidelines for naming buildings on the campus.
As you know, I followed an extended process to arrive at this decision. It began when I established a working group to advise me on the issue. I circulated their final report to you and all of NTID in May 2008, and included my opinion at that time. In a subsequent communiqué I reopened the discussion and allowed for: a multi-step process including an open forum which occurred in early June 2008; a continuous opportunity for students to provide me with feedback; and finally two forums (just completed) that allowed for RIT/NTID alumnae to provide comments to me during our RIT/NTID 40th Anniversary Reunion, which is currently in progress.
From start to finish I saw many individuals express their views in public forums and in public emails. I applaud the willingness of those who spoke on the issue. All spoke from their hearts and many bared their souls. Over time I detected what for me was a change in the tone of these communications; this was particularly noticeable in statements which – while still strongly maintaining the authors’ positions – considered how their positions and statements might impact those who did not agree with them.
In addition to the public comments, I received a large amount of email addressed privately to me. Those too reflected well on the free exchange of opinion valued not only in a university but in a ‘community,’ which is how I view NTID.
A small number individuals – in public or private communications – indicated that they did not have a strong position on the name, but knew the unity of our community was threatened, which saddened and upset them, and me as well.
In the end I found myself returning to, and strongly agreeing with, many comments indicating that Bell advocated an exclusive approach to communication that did not support a sense of community of deaf people who use a variety of communication approaches including ASL.
We live in a community.
We thrive as a community.
We welcome all to our community.
I have been convinced that it is not appropriate for us to maintain a building with his name; using a term I have used before, there is a strong ‘consensus’ for the removal of the name. I saw that consensus in all of the forums and communications that occurred since reopening this discussion within our community. Each of the individuals who participated in the process by sharing his or her views, and even those who were not active participants but who used the discussions to educate themselves, are owed a debt of gratitude for their efforts. In an educational environment we hope all commit to educate themselves, and then to educate each other. That has happened here.
I want it to be clear that this decision does not affect the open arms which we always have, and always will, extend in welcome to everyone who joins the RIT/NTID community.
I know you are to be commended for your participation, and I thank you for your advice, counsel, and support throughout this period.
I believe that the appropriate recommendation has been made.
I believe what has happened has been in the best interest of our community.
At this point I will await your decision.
Warmly,
Alan
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
NTID open forum on AG Bell hall
vlog explaining the open forum at NTID re: AG Bell hall
the overall forum was very positive - about 50/50 Deaf / Hearing composition - great number in attendance for summer time. Overwhelming number of comments as to why the name should be removed. Some expressions of concern re: process or impact of the decision.
Loose translation of the vlog: (difficulty uploading the vlog - will get it up as soon as we can)
Yesterday NTID hosted an open forum to discuss Bell Hall – should the name be kept or removed. The Discussion and open forum went great. Dr. Hurwitz, our NTID president, held this forum to collect more input and feedback regarding the dorm name. He wants to get the pulse of our community. It's really important so please, if you feel strongly about keeping or removing the name Bell hall, send an email to Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. Destler, president of RIT, letting them both know your thoughts. (Hurwitz tahess at rit.edu and Destler wwdpro at rit.edu). If you want to keep or remove, state your reasons why. Your thoughts on this matter are really important. Dr. Hurwitz will host two more open forums during the NTID Alumni Reunion at the end of this month to get your thoughts. At the same time he is collecting input from the students. So if you want to let them know your thinking, send them an email. It's really important.
In regards to yesterday’s meeting, in my opinion it was very positive. Different opinions, points of view, concerns were put on the table in a very peaceful manner. One person brought up that Bell’s name on our dorm was like having a Hall of Shame. In their opinion it was a shame and a disgrace to NTID, a Deaf college, to have a dorm in Bell’s honor because of what he worked for. It was time for the name to go. Another person expressed concern as to what would be the possible adverse impact if the name is removed? They felt it was important that NTID consider any possible negative affects removing the name would have. Some people worry that if the name Bell is removed other people will “think” that NTID does not support people who are oral or hearing parents who have chosen to raise their children in an oral-only way.
Several hearing people expressed how Bell has no personal relevancy or impact on their lives or the lives of their family; however, they feel that if d/Deaf people feel strongly offended by having a building in Bell’s honor then they should be heard and respected. Its important that if d/Deaf people themselves want the dorm name removed then that should be listened to. Their wishes should be respected. Similarly, when African-Americans are offended by a confederate flag and the question is raised should it be kept, people listen to what African-Americans say – it is offensive and as a result it is removed.
One person said the name Bell hall does not fit RIT’s value statements and suggested the name be moved to a speech, audiology and/or cochlear implant center at NTID. A speech teacher who has been at NTID for many years came forward and responded that the speech, audiology and/or cochlear implant centers at NTID do not adhere to the principles and beliefs of AG Bell. (Banning of signing / pure oral only method, opposed d/Deaf to d/Deaf marriages and d/Deaf people becoming teachers etc) Bell's beliefs are not beliefs that our NTID speech and audiology services hold – it is not what they are about. Rather, when a student who signs comes to that dept. for services they are supported and welcomed, likewise when a non-signing student comes to work on speech they are served also. They work with who the students are and what they bring with them. They don’t follow Bell’s ideals so it wouldn’t be appropriate to pass on his name to their services. She stated she’d prefer not see that happen. I was very impressed with her statements.
One person shared that people who want the name to come down, like Orange & Brown, have not been following the right procedure or have been manipulating students to do their bidding or haven’t been teaching students how to respect authority and follow the system. Another person explained that he went to a school called Stonewall Jackson Elementary school. When I saw that I had to laugh hard because I know very well that Stonewall Jackson was totally opposed to the freeing of slaves. He was a strong Confederate and wanted to keep slaving running and the North and the South separate and many other things. He was a famous general during the Civil War. So the name of my colleague's school was in Stonewall Jackson’s honor and he grew up thinking nothing of it until he studied history in high school – wow, that man was AGAINST the liberation and equality of Black people – and my school was named in his honor? Geez!. But today that name is no longer – it has come down and been changed.
NTID and Orange & Brown want to be clear that opposition to a name in Bell’s honor is not opposition to people who are oral. I myself am very oral. I am hard of hearing and grew up my whole life in the hearing world and as a speaking person. And that name is still offensive to me even though I am an oral person and I was raised orally. That name in his honor – after what he did to d/Deaf people and what he tried to do to their rights – it is simply not respectful to have a name in his honor.
We want to be clear that all students are welcome here always. If we choose to leave the name in Bell’s honor we have to think about if we are sending a welcoming message to our d/Deaf ASL students and their d/Deaf parents. It is not welcoming to students who use sim-com or those who are comfortable with sign language and Deaf culture. They may want to have a d/Deaf partner or d/Deaf children in the future – we would not be welcoming to them because we honor Bell who did not welcome such and vehemently opposed them. Now conversely, if we remove the name does that mean we are not welcoming oral students? We say no that is not the case, we are definitely still cherishing our students who are oral. We want to welcome them to NTID – this is their home too. NTID belongs to all of us. This is the beauty of NTID/RIT that it should welcome all people where diversity is cherished and everyone can become part of our d/Deaf family.
There were many other comments in this two hour meeting – I can not remember them all. Overall, I was very impressed with how positive it was – people could share their fears – would it impact negatively or positively on NTID – should we move the name, leave the name, give it a new name. Really it was a wonderful discussion, no complaints. Thanks to NTID for hosting it.
the overall forum was very positive - about 50/50 Deaf / Hearing composition - great number in attendance for summer time. Overwhelming number of comments as to why the name should be removed. Some expressions of concern re: process or impact of the decision.
Loose translation of the vlog: (difficulty uploading the vlog - will get it up as soon as we can)
Yesterday NTID hosted an open forum to discuss Bell Hall – should the name be kept or removed. The Discussion and open forum went great. Dr. Hurwitz, our NTID president, held this forum to collect more input and feedback regarding the dorm name. He wants to get the pulse of our community. It's really important so please, if you feel strongly about keeping or removing the name Bell hall, send an email to Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. Destler, president of RIT, letting them both know your thoughts. (Hurwitz tahess at rit.edu and Destler wwdpro at rit.edu). If you want to keep or remove, state your reasons why. Your thoughts on this matter are really important. Dr. Hurwitz will host two more open forums during the NTID Alumni Reunion at the end of this month to get your thoughts. At the same time he is collecting input from the students. So if you want to let them know your thinking, send them an email. It's really important.
In regards to yesterday’s meeting, in my opinion it was very positive. Different opinions, points of view, concerns were put on the table in a very peaceful manner. One person brought up that Bell’s name on our dorm was like having a Hall of Shame. In their opinion it was a shame and a disgrace to NTID, a Deaf college, to have a dorm in Bell’s honor because of what he worked for. It was time for the name to go. Another person expressed concern as to what would be the possible adverse impact if the name is removed? They felt it was important that NTID consider any possible negative affects removing the name would have. Some people worry that if the name Bell is removed other people will “think” that NTID does not support people who are oral or hearing parents who have chosen to raise their children in an oral-only way.
Several hearing people expressed how Bell has no personal relevancy or impact on their lives or the lives of their family; however, they feel that if d/Deaf people feel strongly offended by having a building in Bell’s honor then they should be heard and respected. Its important that if d/Deaf people themselves want the dorm name removed then that should be listened to. Their wishes should be respected. Similarly, when African-Americans are offended by a confederate flag and the question is raised should it be kept, people listen to what African-Americans say – it is offensive and as a result it is removed.
One person said the name Bell hall does not fit RIT’s value statements and suggested the name be moved to a speech, audiology and/or cochlear implant center at NTID. A speech teacher who has been at NTID for many years came forward and responded that the speech, audiology and/or cochlear implant centers at NTID do not adhere to the principles and beliefs of AG Bell. (Banning of signing / pure oral only method, opposed d/Deaf to d/Deaf marriages and d/Deaf people becoming teachers etc) Bell's beliefs are not beliefs that our NTID speech and audiology services hold – it is not what they are about. Rather, when a student who signs comes to that dept. for services they are supported and welcomed, likewise when a non-signing student comes to work on speech they are served also. They work with who the students are and what they bring with them. They don’t follow Bell’s ideals so it wouldn’t be appropriate to pass on his name to their services. She stated she’d prefer not see that happen. I was very impressed with her statements.
One person shared that people who want the name to come down, like Orange & Brown, have not been following the right procedure or have been manipulating students to do their bidding or haven’t been teaching students how to respect authority and follow the system. Another person explained that he went to a school called Stonewall Jackson Elementary school. When I saw that I had to laugh hard because I know very well that Stonewall Jackson was totally opposed to the freeing of slaves. He was a strong Confederate and wanted to keep slaving running and the North and the South separate and many other things. He was a famous general during the Civil War. So the name of my colleague's school was in Stonewall Jackson’s honor and he grew up thinking nothing of it until he studied history in high school – wow, that man was AGAINST the liberation and equality of Black people – and my school was named in his honor? Geez!. But today that name is no longer – it has come down and been changed.
NTID and Orange & Brown want to be clear that opposition to a name in Bell’s honor is not opposition to people who are oral. I myself am very oral. I am hard of hearing and grew up my whole life in the hearing world and as a speaking person. And that name is still offensive to me even though I am an oral person and I was raised orally. That name in his honor – after what he did to d/Deaf people and what he tried to do to their rights – it is simply not respectful to have a name in his honor.
We want to be clear that all students are welcome here always. If we choose to leave the name in Bell’s honor we have to think about if we are sending a welcoming message to our d/Deaf ASL students and their d/Deaf parents. It is not welcoming to students who use sim-com or those who are comfortable with sign language and Deaf culture. They may want to have a d/Deaf partner or d/Deaf children in the future – we would not be welcoming to them because we honor Bell who did not welcome such and vehemently opposed them. Now conversely, if we remove the name does that mean we are not welcoming oral students? We say no that is not the case, we are definitely still cherishing our students who are oral. We want to welcome them to NTID – this is their home too. NTID belongs to all of us. This is the beauty of NTID/RIT that it should welcome all people where diversity is cherished and everyone can become part of our d/Deaf family.
There were many other comments in this two hour meeting – I can not remember them all. Overall, I was very impressed with how positive it was – people could share their fears – would it impact negatively or positively on NTID – should we move the name, leave the name, give it a new name. Really it was a wonderful discussion, no complaints. Thanks to NTID for hosting it.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Bell dorm open forum June 4th and O and B email to NTID community
June 4th Wed at 2 pm in the CSD Student Development Center room 1300 - there will be an open forum to discuss the dorm named in AG Bell's honor
------------
Faculty and Staff have been sending reply all messages to the NTID community since the decision on the dorm name was originally announced. O & B sent out a reply all message yesterday:
Greetings to members of our NTID/RIT community:
EXRESSIONS OF THANKS:
The Orange & Brown Coalition, which is made up of students, staff, faculty and alumni of NTID/RIT, would like to thank all of the faculty and staff who shared their thoughts on the issue of Bell hall and allowed for us to reprint your comments in our website at: http://orangebrownrit.blogspot.com/2008/05/ntid-facstaff-responses-re-decision.html . We value ALL of your comments.
We gratefully acknowledge and value Drs. Hurwitz and Destler's statement at our May 22, 2008 meetings that no personal attacks, threats, or hostile environments will be tolerated towards individuals or groups in favor of keeping the name or those in favor of removing the name
We would also like to thank Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. Destler for reconsidering the decision and for opening up the dialogue on this topic.
-----------------
RESPECT FOR ALL
We trust that once NTID/RIT examines the unexamined principles of AG Bell's life work and activities, people will be able to see the difference between those who work to improve methods of teaching speech and Bell’s efforts toward mandating an exclusive and intolerant pure oral approach over all else.
Removing the name of AG Bell from one of our dorms in no way targets Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals who prefer to use speech, individuals who teach speech, and/or those who work in the field of audiology. Our opposition is to the individual--AG Bell, and how he fostered a rigid exclusiveness connected with the teaching of speech to deaf/hard of hearing individuals (and the complete intolerance of sign language) ---- not against the acquisition of speaking skills. If the administration is to worry about potentially offending anyone by removing the name of the dorm, they must show equal concern, respect and value for the multitudes of people that have been offended by the decision to keep the name.
Please rest assured that if NTID/RIT had a building honoring someone who advocated exclusively for the teaching of ASL and banished English and speech from a deaf child’s educational experience, we would object vehemently to honoring this person as well. NTID/RIT is playing right into A G BELL’S LEGACY -- – polarization within deaf education – -the oral/aural only camp and the bilingual camp (where ASL and English are equally respected). We regret this very much.
-----------------
RIT VALUES VS VALUES OF AG BELL
The Orange and Brown Coalition's position is that Alexander Graham Bell dorm be renamed because honoring A.G. Bell is incongruent with what RIT stands for. According to RIT's values statement:
COLLECTION OF FEEDBACK/MATERIALS
In reviewing all the materials before us:
------------------
A SUGGESTION FOR TOWER C PLAQUE
Lastly, we would like to offer new wording for the new plaque in honor of those who have graduated from NTID/RIT:
NTID has been referred to as the “grand experiment” because its vision was to have a Deaf college exist within a Hearing college. Without a doubt, this grand experiment has been a successful and meaningful one. Thousands of Deaf and Hard of Hearing people from all walks of life are welcomed here to study, learn, grow, contribute and achieve in this unique environment. The values of pluralism, diversity and respect are lived out every day at RIT because of the existence of NTID and Deaf/hard of hearing students on campus.
-----------------
We thank each and everyone of you who cares equally for ALL of our students and are so willing to engage in this dangerous dialogue. We, members of the Orange and Brown Coalition, mean no ill-will towards anyone and we believe we can have this honest and much overdue dialogue with utmost respect and caring.
We know that all in our NTID/RIT community are UNITED in the desire to affirm and live out RIT's values of: integrity, respect, diversity and pluralism.
Thank you.
Peace,
Orange & Brown Coalition
SOURCES:
Baynton, Douglas C. Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Baynton, Douglas, Jack Gannon, and Jean Lindquist Bergey. Through Deaf Eyes: A Photogrpahic History of an American Community. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2007.
Bell, Alexander Graham Memoir upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race. 1883.
Edwards, RAR, “Chasing Aleck: The Story of a Dorm”, The Public Historian, Vol. 29, Nov 3, pp. 87-107, Summer 2007.
Gannon, Jack R. Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of the Deaf, 1981.
Lang, Harry. A Phone of Our Own. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2000.
Lane, Harlan. When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. New York: Random House, 1984.
Shulman, Seth. The Telephone Gambit: Chasing Alexander Bell’s Secret. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008
Van Cleve, John V. and Barry A. Crouch. A Place of Their Own: Creating the Deaf Community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Veditz, George, De Moruis Nil Nisi Bonum, Obituary for AG Bell, The Jewish Deaf, October 1922, pp. 13-15.
Veditz, George, Dec. 29, 1909 letter to AG Bell, retrieved 5/18/08 http://memory.loc.gov/mss/magbell/169/16910210/0001.jpg
Veditz, George, February 15, 1915 letter to AG Bell, retrieved 5/18/08 http://memory.loc.gov/mss/magbell/169/16910212/0001i.jpg
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet and the Communication Debate. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
------------
Faculty and Staff have been sending reply all messages to the NTID community since the decision on the dorm name was originally announced. O & B sent out a reply all message yesterday:
Greetings to members of our NTID/RIT community:
EXRESSIONS OF THANKS:
The Orange & Brown Coalition, which is made up of students, staff, faculty and alumni of NTID/RIT, would like to thank all of the faculty and staff who shared their thoughts on the issue of Bell hall and allowed for us to reprint your comments in our website at: http://orangebrownrit.blogspot.com/2008/05/ntid-facstaff-responses-re-decision.html . We value ALL of your comments.
We gratefully acknowledge and value Drs. Hurwitz and Destler's statement at our May 22, 2008 meetings that no personal attacks, threats, or hostile environments will be tolerated towards individuals or groups in favor of keeping the name or those in favor of removing the name
We would also like to thank Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. Destler for reconsidering the decision and for opening up the dialogue on this topic.
-----------------
RESPECT FOR ALL
We trust that once NTID/RIT examines the unexamined principles of AG Bell's life work and activities, people will be able to see the difference between those who work to improve methods of teaching speech and Bell’s efforts toward mandating an exclusive and intolerant pure oral approach over all else.
Removing the name of AG Bell from one of our dorms in no way targets Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals who prefer to use speech, individuals who teach speech, and/or those who work in the field of audiology. Our opposition is to the individual--AG Bell, and how he fostered a rigid exclusiveness connected with the teaching of speech to deaf/hard of hearing individuals (and the complete intolerance of sign language) ---- not against the acquisition of speaking skills. If the administration is to worry about potentially offending anyone by removing the name of the dorm, they must show equal concern, respect and value for the multitudes of people that have been offended by the decision to keep the name.
Please rest assured that if NTID/RIT had a building honoring someone who advocated exclusively for the teaching of ASL and banished English and speech from a deaf child’s educational experience, we would object vehemently to honoring this person as well. NTID/RIT is playing right into A G BELL’S LEGACY -- – polarization within deaf education – -the oral/aural only camp and the bilingual camp (where ASL and English are equally respected). We regret this very much.
-----------------
RIT VALUES VS VALUES OF AG BELL
The Orange and Brown Coalition's position is that Alexander Graham Bell dorm be renamed because honoring A.G. Bell is incongruent with what RIT stands for. According to RIT's values statement:
- RIT values integrity (Bell has been accused numerous times of forgery and plagiarism),
- RIT values respect (Bell did not respect the wishes and voice of the deaf and hard of hearing people of his time),
- RIT values diversity (Bell showed no tolerance for sign language in deaf education, was exclusive and extreme in this philosophy, and actively worked to prevent deaf people from being teachers),
- and RIT values pluralism (Bell actively tried to prevent, diminish, and destroy the pillars of the Deaf community and Deaf culture - ASL, Deaf schools, Deaf teachers, Deaf organizations, and Deaf marriage practices).
COLLECTION OF FEEDBACK/MATERIALS
In reviewing all the materials before us:
- scholarly publications on AG Bell's role in deaf education and Deaf history and AG Bell and the telephone invention and patent (see below for sources)
- the petition with over 1,000 signatures from students, faculty, staff, community members (Deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing) in favor of renaming the dorm
- the many, many, many private emails and personal communication we have received from individuals telling us they are disgusted, upset, and in shock over the decision but are fearful to express this to the administration privately or publicly
- Ohlone College Deaf Studies' resolution to disassociate itself from NTID until the dorm is renamed http://orangebrownrit.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-from-faculty-of-center-for-deaf.html
- and shared statements in favor of honoring AG Bell, which however do not propose valid reasons as to why a dorm name in Bell's honor is appropriate on RIT's campus
------------------
A SUGGESTION FOR TOWER C PLAQUE
Lastly, we would like to offer new wording for the new plaque in honor of those who have graduated from NTID/RIT:
NTID has been referred to as the “grand experiment” because its vision was to have a Deaf college exist within a Hearing college. Without a doubt, this grand experiment has been a successful and meaningful one. Thousands of Deaf and Hard of Hearing people from all walks of life are welcomed here to study, learn, grow, contribute and achieve in this unique environment. The values of pluralism, diversity and respect are lived out every day at RIT because of the existence of NTID and Deaf/hard of hearing students on campus.
-----------------
We thank each and everyone of you who cares equally for ALL of our students and are so willing to engage in this dangerous dialogue. We, members of the Orange and Brown Coalition, mean no ill-will towards anyone and we believe we can have this honest and much overdue dialogue with utmost respect and caring.
We know that all in our NTID/RIT community are UNITED in the desire to affirm and live out RIT's values of: integrity, respect, diversity and pluralism.
Thank you.
Peace,
Orange & Brown Coalition
SOURCES:
Baynton, Douglas C. Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Baynton, Douglas, Jack Gannon, and Jean Lindquist Bergey. Through Deaf Eyes: A Photogrpahic History of an American Community. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2007.
Bell, Alexander Graham Memoir upon the Formation of a Deaf Variety of the Human Race. 1883.
Edwards, RAR, “Chasing Aleck: The Story of a Dorm”, The Public Historian, Vol. 29, Nov 3, pp. 87-107, Summer 2007.
Gannon, Jack R. Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of the Deaf, 1981.
Lang, Harry. A Phone of Our Own. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2000.
Lane, Harlan. When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. New York: Random House, 1984.
Shulman, Seth. The Telephone Gambit: Chasing Alexander Bell’s Secret. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008
Van Cleve, John V. and Barry A. Crouch. A Place of Their Own: Creating the Deaf Community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Veditz, George, De Moruis Nil Nisi Bonum, Obituary for AG Bell, The Jewish Deaf, October 1922, pp. 13-15.
Veditz, George, Dec. 29, 1909 letter to AG Bell, retrieved 5/18/08 http://memory.loc.gov/mss/magbell/169/16910210/0001.jpg
Veditz, George, February 15, 1915 letter to AG Bell, retrieved 5/18/08 http://memory.loc.gov/mss/magbell/169/16910212/0001i.jpg
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet and the Communication Debate. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
O and B position request for Bell dorm to be renamed
NOTE: this position statement was composed and approved of before the decision to reconsider was announced to the community. Rather than revise it based on this latest step, O & B has sent it forth to properly and formerly explain and document our discontent with the original decision and our rational for our request that the dorm be renamed.
We are very grateful that the initial decision is being reconsidered. Perhaps the most significant part of this document is the proposed wording for a new plaque at the bottom of this letter.
-----------------
To: Dr. Hurwitz
CC: Dr. Destler
From: The Orange & Brown Coalition
Re: The Dorm and Revised Plaque in AG Bell’s Honor
Date: 23 May 2008
The Orange and Brown Coalition, which is made up of students, staff, faculty and alumni of NTID/RIT, request that the Alexander Graham Bell dorm be renamed because honoring A.G. Bell is incongruent with what RIT stands for.
Removing the name of AG Bell from one of our dorms in no way targets Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals who prefer to use speech, individuals who teach speech, and/or those who work in the field of audiology. Our opposition is to the individual--AG Bell, and how he fostered a rigid exclusiveness connected with the teaching of speech to deaf/hard of hearing individuals (and the complete intolerance of sign language) ---- not against the acquisition of speaking skills. If the administration is to worry about potentially offending anyone by removing the name of the dorm, they must show equal concern, respect and value for the multitudes of people they have been offended by the decision to keep the name.
Much discussion has revolved around the AG Bell working group's statement: "The group could not reach a consensus…a thoughtful, considerate and conscientious group of people found that they could not agree." While the working group’s statement that was bolded goes unnoticed: "However, the working group came to unanimous agreement that A.G. Bell held perspectives, goals, and promoted objectives that are different from and inconsistent with the perspectives, goals and philosophies of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology." AG Bell working group final report to Dr. Hurwitz dated My 8, 2008
THE RESULTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A CLEAR CONSENSUS IN TERMS OF VOTING, YET THEY CAME TO A “UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT” THAT AG BELL’S GOALS/PERSPECITVES CONFLICTED WITH THAT OF NTID. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS NO CLEAR CONSENSUS TO KEEP THE NAME OF THE DORM IN A.G. BELL’S HONOR…YET, THAT IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS USED AS A BASIS FOR THEIR DECISION.
We are puzzled that the administration, both at the NTID level and RIT level, has decided that it is reasonable to support the minority vote because the majority vote was seen as not being a "clear consensus." One should not make decisions based on default.
Furthermore, it is generally known that controversial issues rarely get strong majority votes - hence, this is why they are considered controversial. Many difficult US Supreme court decisions are made by a 5/4 vote. It is not a strong consensus but it still becomes the law of the land. The dissenting opinion never rules SIMPLY because the majority was deemed too weak. The vote was: 6 Keep and 8 Remove – yet, the administration decided TO SUPPORT the minority vote. The working group closed their report with the statement: We would like to suggest that you distribute our report to the NTID community and provide opportunities for input as you determine your recommendation(s) to President Destler. This recommendation did not mean that a decision first be made, and then a community dialogue take place afterwards.
In reviewing all the materials before us:
Please rest assured that if NTID/RIT had a building honoring someone who advocated exclusively for the teaching of ASL and banished English and speech from a deaf child’s educational experience, we would object vehemently to honoring this as well. NTID/RIT is playing right into A G BELL’S LEGACY -- – polarization within deaf education – -the oral/aural only camp and the bilingual camp (where ASL and English are equally respected). We regret this very much.
We acknowledge and value Drs. Hurwitz and Destler's statement at our May 22, 2008 meetings that no personal attacks, threats, or hostile environments will be tolerated towards individuals or groups in favor of keeping the name or those in favor of removing the name.
Lastly, we would like to offer new wording for the new plaque for NTID Alumni Hall.
We are happy to meet with you if you desire any further discussion and we thank you in advance for your careful attention to our request.
Peace,
The Orange & Brown Coalition
We are very grateful that the initial decision is being reconsidered. Perhaps the most significant part of this document is the proposed wording for a new plaque at the bottom of this letter.
-----------------
To: Dr. Hurwitz
CC: Dr. Destler
From: The Orange & Brown Coalition
Re: The Dorm and Revised Plaque in AG Bell’s Honor
Date: 23 May 2008
The Orange and Brown Coalition, which is made up of students, staff, faculty and alumni of NTID/RIT, request that the Alexander Graham Bell dorm be renamed because honoring A.G. Bell is incongruent with what RIT stands for.
- RIT values integrity (Bell has been accused numerous times of forgery and plagiarism),
- RIT values respect (Bell did not respect the wishes and voice of the deaf and hard of hearing people of his time),
- RIT values diversity (Bell showed no tolerance for sign language in deaf education, was exclusive and extreme in this philosophy, and actively worked to prevent deaf people from being teachers),
- and RIT values pluralism (Bell actively tried to prevent, diminish, and destroy the pillars of the Deaf community and Deaf culture - ASL, Deaf schools, Deaf teachers, Deaf organizations, and Deaf marriage practices).
Removing the name of AG Bell from one of our dorms in no way targets Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals who prefer to use speech, individuals who teach speech, and/or those who work in the field of audiology. Our opposition is to the individual--AG Bell, and how he fostered a rigid exclusiveness connected with the teaching of speech to deaf/hard of hearing individuals (and the complete intolerance of sign language) ---- not against the acquisition of speaking skills. If the administration is to worry about potentially offending anyone by removing the name of the dorm, they must show equal concern, respect and value for the multitudes of people they have been offended by the decision to keep the name.
Much discussion has revolved around the AG Bell working group's statement: "The group could not reach a consensus…a thoughtful, considerate and conscientious group of people found that they could not agree." While the working group’s statement that was bolded goes unnoticed: "However, the working group came to unanimous agreement that A.G. Bell held perspectives, goals, and promoted objectives that are different from and inconsistent with the perspectives, goals and philosophies of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology." AG Bell working group final report to Dr. Hurwitz dated My 8, 2008
THE RESULTS OF THIS WORKING GROUP SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A CLEAR CONSENSUS IN TERMS OF VOTING, YET THEY CAME TO A “UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT” THAT AG BELL’S GOALS/PERSPECITVES CONFLICTED WITH THAT OF NTID. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS NO CLEAR CONSENSUS TO KEEP THE NAME OF THE DORM IN A.G. BELL’S HONOR…YET, THAT IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS USED AS A BASIS FOR THEIR DECISION.
We are puzzled that the administration, both at the NTID level and RIT level, has decided that it is reasonable to support the minority vote because the majority vote was seen as not being a "clear consensus." One should not make decisions based on default.
Furthermore, it is generally known that controversial issues rarely get strong majority votes - hence, this is why they are considered controversial. Many difficult US Supreme court decisions are made by a 5/4 vote. It is not a strong consensus but it still becomes the law of the land. The dissenting opinion never rules SIMPLY because the majority was deemed too weak. The vote was: 6 Keep and 8 Remove – yet, the administration decided TO SUPPORT the minority vote. The working group closed their report with the statement: We would like to suggest that you distribute our report to the NTID community and provide opportunities for input as you determine your recommendation(s) to President Destler. This recommendation did not mean that a decision first be made, and then a community dialogue take place afterwards.
In reviewing all the materials before us:
- scholarly publications on AG Bell's role in deaf education and Deaf history and AG Bell and the telephone invention and patent
- the petition with over 1,000 signatures from students, faculty, staff, community members (Deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing) that the administration still has not formally acknowledged
- email responses opposing the decision to keep the dorm name in Bell's honor
- the many, many, many private emails and personal communication we have received from individuals telling us they are disgusted, upset, and in shock over the decision but are fearful to express this to the administration privately or publicly
- and receiving no valid reason as to why a dorm name in Bell's honor is fitting on RIT's campus and why a minority dissenting vote rules the day
Please rest assured that if NTID/RIT had a building honoring someone who advocated exclusively for the teaching of ASL and banished English and speech from a deaf child’s educational experience, we would object vehemently to honoring this as well. NTID/RIT is playing right into A G BELL’S LEGACY -- – polarization within deaf education – -the oral/aural only camp and the bilingual camp (where ASL and English are equally respected). We regret this very much.
We acknowledge and value Drs. Hurwitz and Destler's statement at our May 22, 2008 meetings that no personal attacks, threats, or hostile environments will be tolerated towards individuals or groups in favor of keeping the name or those in favor of removing the name.
Lastly, we would like to offer new wording for the new plaque for NTID Alumni Hall.
NTID has been referred to as the “grand experiment” because its vision was to have a Deaf college exist within a Hearing college. Without a doubt, this grand experiment has been a successful and meaningful one. Thousands of Deaf and Hard of Hearing people from all walks of life are welcomed here to study, learn, grow, contribute and achieve in this unique environment. The values of pluralism, diversity and respect are lived out every day at RIT because of the existence of NTID and Deaf/hard of hearing students on campus.We see it in the best interest of our community to resolve this matter as soon as possible as we do not want the controversy to adversely impact the upcoming NTID alumni reunion nor enrollment.
We are happy to meet with you if you desire any further discussion and we thank you in advance for your careful attention to our request.
Peace,
The Orange & Brown Coalition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
