150 Years on Kendall Green: The Blog

The interviews with our previous keynote speakers, Dr. James M. McPherson and Dr. I. King Jordan, were successful, with both conversations allowing deeper examination of their respective keynote speeches, as well as some insights into the speakers and their thoughts on Deaf history.

Now I wish to present the final keynote speaker interview: my conversation with Dr. Paddy Ladd. Paddy Ladd himself needs no introduction, but some of you may not be familiar with his background or career. Again, the program book tells us more about the keynote presenters. In Dr. Ladd’s case, this is what the program book had to say:

Paddy Ladd co-founded the Deaf group NUD, which fostered TV programs in British Sign Language (BSL) and approaches to Deaf education that emphasize bilingualism. He then founded the London Deaf Video Project for Deaf People and advocated the use of BSL videos for translating government information. He held the Powrie V. Doctor Chair in Deaf Studies at Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C. in 1992-93. He also founded the FDP in 1998 to replace the NUD, and created the Blue Ribbon ceremony at the World Federation of the Deaf in 1999. He is the author of numerous research articles, and published his book In Search of Deafhood: Multilingual Matters in 2003. At present, he is the Director of Research Programmes at the University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, U.K.

Because the conference was drawing to a close, and we both had obligations, we agreed to conduct this interview on-line, rather than in person. Thus, without further ado, here is “A Conversation with Paddy Ladd.”

David S. Evans [DSE]: Thanks so much for being willing to spare some time to talk with me! I was able to interview Dr. McPherson and Dr. Jordan, so it’s nice to have interviews with all three keynote speakers.

My first question is this: Deafhood has been all the rage over the last few months here in the United States. I’m curious: what do you think of all this? Do you think we Americans are fully grasping the concepts you’ve outlined? Or are we simply at the very beginning of our journey?

Paddy Ladd [PL]: First, let me begin by thanking the History Department at Gallaudet for inviting me to give the paper; that was a brave move in the present climate, and I appreciate them taking that step. I also appreciate the fact of the conference itself, which was overflowing with good papers, many of which opened new doors.

You said it - we are indeed at the beginning of the journey, all of us, in the USA and elsewhere. Of course the discussion, “What does ‘Deaf’ mean?” is as old as the hills (or their first Deaf inhabitants!), but most of those discourses, because they have been in Sign and not in print, are not recorded.

I see the Deafhood concept as an opportunity to collect and situate those kinds of discussions within a framework of post-colonial studies, which gives us, as indeed the equivalent ideas do for other colonised societies, the opportunity to cast the net as widely as possible, within information pertaining to the past, present, and future. I can tell you that the take-up of the concept has been far greater in the USA than elsewhere (Germany seems to be the second most involved country as of this moment), for which much credit is due, both to the enquiring nature of US Deaf people, and to the efforts of David Eberwein, Ella Lentz, Genie Gertz, and Joey Baer in undertaking this task, as well as to the various pioneering bodies which have asked them to speak on the subject.

How do I feel about this? Very humbled and gratified. It also feels strange, as if it is happening to someone else, rather than myself!

DSE: Many of us really enjoyed your presentation this morning, but there was quite a bit jammed in there, and quite a bit left out due to time. What would you say is the single most important concept for someone to bring away from your keynote presentation? If you only had five minutes rather than over an hour, what would you want your audience to remember most?

PL: That’s an almost impossible question to answer! It was incredibly difficult to reduce it to 45 minutes as it was. I guess that I hope an audience could see the necessity of asking ourselves the questions above, and that the concept is intended to bring about unity and reconciliation over time by realising that we have all been damaged by oralist and other forms of colonialism; that not even Deaf families are exempt. I would hope also that we become clear about the need to respect Deaf traditions and cultures, and the need to prioritise Deaf subaltern experiences, especially those who are functionally monolingual. But at the same time we need to recognise that from this base we then go beyond these, strong enough in our self-respect that we can embrace mainstreamed Deaf people, hearing people of Deaf children, CODAs, etc., firm about some of the basic principles for which we stand, yet open to having others become allies and participants once they are clear about these relatively firm positions.

DSE: I was thinking about your presentation overall. Deafhood has quite a few universal themes. In a way, it almost seems like a utopian concept, an idealistic view of the world. Some might even say it carries theological and moral tones, in the vein of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Is it realistic to expect people to fully set aside their prejudices and their preconceived notions of who they are and where they fit in? Do you view Deafhood as the epitome of what we can be as Deaf people, as a utopian goal to achieve, or merely as a guidepost to aspire to?

PL: Deafhood is not an absolutist concept; it’s a journey and a process. To stop simply at what is presently understood as a “Big D” position is to replicate some of the problems we already have. And it certainly is intended to have spiritual overtones– asking why Deaf people exist, and/or should be ‘allowed’ to continue to exist (cf the genetics debate) can bring us to a place of spiritual intentionality, whether that higher power is ‘God’, ‘Allah’, ‘Jehovah’ or the Gaian principle (which itself is the nearest thing to the 19th-century French Deaf position of Clerc, etc., regarding “Nature.”) We cannot assume that this is “correct.” At the same time, it cannot be disproved either.

DSE: Ok, that’s interesting. A lot of this is covered in your book, I’m sure. Speaking of your book, a lot of people here in the U.S. have cautioned that your book is not an easy one to read. Your discussion during your presentation used a lot of scholarly and sometimes abstract ideas. In your talk, you said that there is a need to engage subalterns and reach out to them and include them in the larger community. How do you plan to make Deafhood accessible to the community as a whole, not just the educated Deaf people here at Gallaudet and around the globe?

PL: The book had to be written at the level it is because it is intended to match the highest discourse levels of present “hearing” scholarship. It’s easier to show this in sign language than in English. I sign it as a way to “shield” Deaf people from oppression, a kind of “This is their wisdom and experience– now respect it and stop oppressing them” stance. Having established that position, the aim of subsequent books is to then use simpler English because the position has been established.

I try to encourage people to use the book as a resource. Dip into the chapters that are easiest to read, e.g. chapters 7, 8, and 9, and take it from there.

But, yes, I am very concerned re: accessibility. I simply don’t have the time or energy to make the necessary DVDs, and I get rather fed up with people saying I should be the person to do this alone. I would much prefer people to come to me and say, “Hey, we want to put your book onto a DVD– can we set up a team to do this?” The www.deafhood.com site will help when it is opened– the English is simpler there… But it still needs people to sign the work. I am happy to see the U.S. Deafhood study groups growing, especially when they make sure they bring along other Deaf people to take part in that process.

DSE: In my interview with keynote speaker James McPherson, I asked about where he felt Deaf history should fit in with history in general. I’d like to ask you a variation on this question. In what direction do you think Deaf history should go? What role, if any, should Deafhood play in future research and publications?

PL: I think almost all Deaf history research can be framed in Deafhood terms — i.e. in respect of finding out more about what “Deaf” has been, and how that relates to the various patterns of wider histories. I have to run now, so I can’t go into this in further depth. But I would stress how vital it is to film and archive Deaf materials, especially with older people. I (and many others) were really dismayed to find that the conference not only did not want to film any of the presentations and discussions (especially given the importance of “oral” histories and of the need to archive materials). Not only that, but they then forbade others to do so. I may be wrong, but at regular hearing conferences, I think speakers are audio-recorded by audience members without problems.

There was a suggestion that this was because of the interpreters’ demands. For one thing, interpreters should not have that power over sign communities. But also, filming could have been done without sound.

However, this problem also occurred at the last two Deaf History International [DHI] conferences too, which were Deaf-run, which is even worse.

I recall one Deaf teacher being very upset because he could not bring back anything of those conferences to show and inspire his Deaf students with. That said it all for me.

So you can see this problem is even bigger than Gallaudet. There may be other issues I’m not aware of regarding the filming and recording of conferences. Again, it would appear that this issue of interpreting “permissions” is far wider than what we witnessed at this conference. Given that it affects the filming and dissemination of Deaf people’s information, we need, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, some serious, clear, setting down of the various issues that have to be considered, so that solutions can be more swiftly found.

Failing to ensure, or suppressing the circulation of signed information, given how much we have to catch up with hearing people’s information, is very much an anti-Deafhood thing for me.

Finally, to end on a happier note, I understand that following “DPN2,” there was a big increase in the number of Deaf students for Deaf history courses. This seems to be a remarkable statement about the importance of history in our present-day lives, actions, and self-concepts. The more that we press for what we feel, intuitively if not verbal-eloquently, are deeper Deafhood issues, the more we can spark the interest and consciousness of both Deaf and hearing people. So this is something we could give more attention to in future priorities for Deaf research.

DSE: Thank you for your thoughts, Dr. Ladd. I really appreciate your taking the time to do this interview. Best of luck with your research and work, and hope to see you next time you’re on this side of the pond!

I had several ideas for this conference, but I also received suggestions as to what to do in addition to covering the presentations. One idea was to conduct interviews when possible. Yesterday, I interviewed the first keynote speaker, Dr. James McPherson. I decided I’d try to interview the other keynote speakers as well. Thus, here is my conversation with our second keynote speaker, Dr. I. King Jordan.

Jordan’s biography in the program pamphlet outlines a career that is familiar to many of us:

I. King Jordan was chosen in 1988 as the first deaf president of Gallaudet University, the world’s only liberal arts university for deaf and hard of hearing students, a position he held until his retirement in 2006. Before that, he was a professor, department chair, and dean of the Psychology Department at Gallaudet University. He has made numerous scholarly contributions to his field. In addition, he has been a research fellow at Donaldson’s School for the Deaf in Edinburgh, Scotland, an exchange scholar at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, and a visiting scholar and lecturer at schools in Paris, and Toulouse, France.

[One correction I’d like to make to this: Jordan wasn’t dean of the Psychology department, but he most certainly was chair of the Psychology department. Jordan was Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), a job he had just prior to his appointment as Gallaudet’s 8th president.]

Jordan spoke earlier today. I sat down with him later in the afternoon, and we had the following chat.

David S. Evans [DSE]: Thank you for being willing to sit with me, Dr. Jordan. I enjoyed your speech this morning, but I’d like to expand a bit on some of the points you made or wanted to make. For example, how did DPN change the role of the presidency– was the only real change in the visibility of the office, or did it change how the presidency itself operated and functioned? I. King Jordan [IKJ]: It really changed how it operated, because I really had two jobs. I was the president of the university, but I was secondly a role model and spokesperson for deaf people. At first I thought that wasn’t a problem, but then I realized that I had to be a representative for all these groups, and I was more of a public figure than I thought I was going to be.

DSE: Yes, you mentioned some of that this morning. Do you think this dual role is a permanent change for the presidency, or was it just unique to you and your presidency thanks to DPN? Most university presidents do not and never have had that high a level of public visibility. IKJ: I think it’s a permanent change. I just think… Well, first, did you see the recent movie “Through Deaf Eyes”? [DSE: yes, I did] That was filmed long before the recent protest, and you recall my remarking that the presidents from now on would be deaf– maybe it will be someone who is from a multi-generationally Deaf background, or even someone with a cochlear implant, or another type of deaf person, but there will always be someone who will be a role model.

DSE: Ok… You had an increased role in the public eye. Have you encountered problems as a role model for people outside of Gallaudet?

IKJ: Oh, yes. There are many different ways to be deaf, and some people wanted me to be deaf their way, or to be deaf in this particular way. I needed to be deaf my way. The first week of my presidency I got a letter, I got a letter from a man who could not speak and he felt that I should turn off my voice and reflect his version of deafness. Well, I felt I needed to be myself and be who I am. Maybe future presidents won’t be the same kind of deaf person as I am, but I needed to be true to myself and at the same time try to remind everyone I don’t necessarily represent their version of a deaf person. I’m just one kind of deaf person, so what I do is not necessarily right or wrong. So, that’s how I’ve had some difficulties as a role model.

DSE: Hm, that’s interesting. Now, another question: How did your role as administrator change after DPN?

IKJ: After DPN, everyone realized that every job on campus represented deaf people. Most of the administrators before this time were hearing, and it was very rare to have deaf people on campus in positions of authority in the administration. But then people realized in the wake of DPN that that was true anymore. Now people started to be aware that they could aspire to advance through the ranks in ways they couldn’t previously. So I think that was the biggest change.

DSE: So there was a sea change across the board? Interesting. Now I’d like to ask you this. Looking back on your time in office, what do you feel was your biggest accomplishment and your biggest regret?

IKJ: This might sound trite, but I’m most proud of having succeeded where a lot of people expected me to be a failure. Even deaf people expected me to be a failure. On the night of March 14, 1988– that night, I had a press conference, and there was a reporter there from channel 4, and he said to me, “Right now you are doing fine, but where will you be five years from now?” He didn’t really expect me to succeed. Everyone has this ideal, but when it comes to doing the real job you won’t make everyone happy. Some Deaf people told me that I wouldn’t make it, but I did make it.

My biggest regret… My biggest regret is there are so many different and new faces on campus, and I tried meeting the freshmen as much as I could, along with meeting everyone else, and it deeply hurt me when they left before they graduated, and seeing them come with potential for the future, it’s wonderful. But then it hurts me when I see them leave and not accomplish what they set out to do and I wish there had been a way for me to do better at helping them to succeed.

DSE: Well, sometimes those freshmen leave and they do come back, you know. I left Gallaudet for a while myself before I returned and finished my degree. Now, I’d like to diverge a little bit from DPN and the early years of your presidency. The recent MSA report said that there is a need for Gallaudet to clearly define and follow through on its mission. What mission do you think that should be?

IKJ: It has to be education. That is the primary responsibility of Gallaudet. I don’t think the MSA criticisms are 100% correct. They were talking about a general mission.

DSE: Ok, hm. Maybe I’m not asking the right question, or I need to re-phrase. Let me put it another way: should Gallaudet try to be everything to everyone?

IKJ: No, no, it shouldn’t, but it should be a place to be open to all people. You can’t have an engineering program, a vet school, a medical school, or all the things some universities and institutions have, but what Gallaudet can offer is a strong educational foundation to prepare people for those programs. I remember someone strongly suggested we build a hospital on campus and I thought that was crazy, that we couldn’t spread ourselves too thin. But we definitely should be open to anyone who wants to come here.

Growing up, I didn’t know anything about Deaf people or deafness, but when I became deaf and it was time for me to think about where I wanted to go to finish my education, I wanted to come here and learn about myself and the history and the culture, and what being Deaf is all about.

DSE: They’re starting another panel, so we’ve run out of time. A pity– there’s a lot more I’d like to ask you in terms of expanding on your keynote speech and the things you said, but we’ll have to stop for now. Thank you very much for your time today.

IKJ: Thank you as well.

[I wish I had had more time for this interview, or the opportunity to formulate better questions. The answers Jordan gave in the beginning of the interview mirror things he had already said in this morning’s keynote, and didn’t add anything new. I especially wanted to try to explore how his management style and powers compared and contrasted with EMG and Hall’s; additionally, there are so many more questions I and others would like to ask Jordan about today and about his presidency. This will have to wait until I or another person can do a more in-depth interview without time constraints.]

I was fortunate to be able to sit down with the first keynote speaker, James McPherson, for a brief interview. According to the program book,

James M. McPherson, the George Henry Davis ‘86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1989 for his book Battle Cry of Freedom. His 1998 book For Cause and Comrades received the Lincoln Prize. In 2002 he published Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam 1862, and a Civil War book for children, Fields of Fury. McPherson was named the “2000 Jefferson Lecturer in the Humanities” by the National Endowment for the Humanities. He was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of the Encylopaedia Britannica.

So without further ado, here is my conversation with James McPherson.

David Evans [DSE]: Welcome to Gallaudet—what’s your impression of campus so far?

James McPherson [JMcP]: Well, I’m impressed by the architecture and the landscape and we walked around yesterday. I haven’t yet had the chance to go into the buildings themselves, but other than that I’ve had some interesting conversations with the History department faculty.

It’s been an interesting experience so far– I’ve already learned a lot about the history of this institution.

DSE: So what did you know about Gallaudet and its history prior to coming here? 

JMcP: I knew almost nothing except about what’s been in the news lately with the protests, the student strike, the tensions here on campus… I read the New York Times, and I try to keep up with the news, including what was happening [here], and the general impressions and the history… I had a lot to learn before I came here.

DSE: So based on your limited knowledge, how did you craft your excellent speech from this morning?

JMcP: I asked the conference chair Brian Greenwald to help educate me, and he indeed helped out. I read the books that have been written about the campus, and learned anything I could about the history and the same was true for my research.

DSE: So what, if any, exposure have you had previously to the deaf/Deaf community and deafness?

JMcP: Well, first I had a deaf dstudent at Princeton about twenty years ago, and this woman, she understood the lectures by sitting in the front row, and doing her best to follow my lectures. She was fine one-on-one in office hours, and read lips, but the problem was when it came to group discussions in class and of course that became a problem. It became a problem because of the speed of the discussions and the seminars. It was very challenging for her…

We made exceptions, such as a paper for her to write in lieu of other requirements, but it wasn’t the same… That was the first real experience I had with someone who was deaf and a real window into what deaf people experience.

DSE: In your research in preparing for this conference, was there anything that struck you or was particularly important about Deaf history?

JMcP: The main thing that was interesting was the battle between manualism and oralism and the conflict between [Alexander Graham] Bell and [Edward Miner] Gallaudet and the bitter controversy that engendered. I didn’t know any of this before… Gallaudet being stuck in the middle of this battle and [Edward Miner] Gallaudet mediating the whole affair. It was an interesting thing to learn the different ramifications of that struggle and the place of deaf people in America.

DSE: So you didn’t know about Bell’s role beyond the telephone?

JMcP: Not until the research I conducted for this conference, no.

DSE: How do you see Deaf history and Deaf studies fitting into the larger mainstream of history and historical studies?

JMcP: Every element has its own history but there is always the question of how they integrate into the larger society and their history. The challenge is to integrate into the larger picture, yet keep its own identity. Some minorities such as blacks have had more difficulties because they weren’t allowed to fit into society at large; the same is true of the deaf. I think it’s often extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to fit in, so by their choice, by their own necessity, they have to form their own communities and that translates to their history too.

I think deaf history can provide some comparisons and contrasts with other studies in the United States.

DSE: Thank you very much for your time. We’re glad to have you here at Gallaudet, and enjoy the rest of the conference!

[In retrospect, there was quite a bit more I could have asked McPherson, but he was gracious enough to answer the questions I posed. I’m curious, for example, of his views on Jill Lepore’s A is for American, and other recent works that seek to integrate Deaf history within the larger context of American history and its social, cultural, and ethnic elements. Perhaps next time…!]