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!

It’s a gray, rainy morning in D.C. Not the kind of day to make the commute to work! But for many of us here, our commute consists of taking the elevator downstairs. We’ve had our final breakfasts, and talked about what we were up to last night, whether watching “Through Deaf Eyes,” taking in the revival of “Sign Me Alice,” catching up with friends, or simply sleeping the sleep of the dead.

But I digress: this morning, we’re here for the final keynote speech, by Paddy Ladd. Ladd’s discourse today is titled “Deafhood: Reflections and Future Directions.”

John Van Cleve is on stage. He first mentions his role as head of the University Press. He wants to take a moment to thank some of the people responsible for making this event possible. The first person is Wendy Grande, who coordinated all the arrangements behind the scenes. The second person is the conference chair. This is especially wonderful, because the person in question is a former student of mine, a friend, and a colleague in the History department. I’d like to recognize Brian Greenwald. The support that the Press has from the administration is equally important, and so I’d like to recognize my boss, Paul Kelly. Thanks to everyone who has helped make this conference a reality, and thanks to you as well, the audience, for being a part of this.

Joseph Murray will introduce Paddy Ladd. He says that today we are celebrating 150 years here on Kendall Green. But when the next 150 years are celebrated far in the future, Dr. Ladd will surely be one of those influential individuals from our era who is recognized. Murray continues to introduce Ladd and his background.

The ASL interpreter for Ladd fell sick this morning, so M.J. Bienvenu has graciously agreed to step in at the last minute. Padd is going to present in BSL, so the audience will be looking at Bienvenu, but also at the PowerPoint which is above Ladd. Definitely a stretch for the eyes for the People of the Eye!

Ladd: My aims this morning are to briefly survey the history of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) through Deafhood, with particular reference to Gallaudet; to suggest some ways forward at this critical time; to touch on guiding principles, including the work of Bourdieu; the responsibility of academics to use reflexivity to examine the sources of their own privileges; and lastly, how each generation has to continually break through the glass ceiling and build on the work of the past.

Deafhood is a complex concept; it can take some time to work through it properly. Thus the last point is very important: we need to join in discussions and conversations about many things. We’ll be setting up a Master’s degree at CDS Bristol in Deafhood starting this fall. I welcome each and every one of you to the university to take courses, if not attain a degree.

Yes, Deafhood is complex, but it is also evolving. It is not a rigid idea of what should be; it’s a personal exploration. To understand who we are now, we must look to where we have come from. I caution you to be very careful about settling for simple and simplistic definitions here. Deafhood offers an alternative narrative; it is intended to replace the term “Deafness,” and is a holistic concept.

Deafhood is not about defining who is or is not culturally deaf, or using little “d” or big “D;” it’s about exploring one’s self and their history. It’s about reflecting on what it means to be a Deaf person in the world. Deafhood can be considered the collective sum of positive Deaf experiences.

Moving on, to talk about the idea of colonialism, Deafhood has strong ties to colonialism: you cannot disregard the impact of colonialism on the Deaf experience. Yes, there are positive aspects of Deafness and Deafhood, but we also cannot turn a blind eye to the oppression that we have experienced. Sign Language Peoples around the globe do share things in common, we do share similar experiences, not just on a personal individual level, but collectively.

Let’s take an example; let’s say that there was never a rise in oralism. What would the Deaf community look like? Can you imagine what it would be like if the concept of oralism had never existed? Now, to understand what happened to Deafhood because of oralism, we first have to understand Deafhood or the Deaf community sentiment prior to the emergence of oralism. Looking back to the 1700s, we see the French philosophers and Deaf people pondering what deafness meant at that time. Desloges, Massieu, Clerc, Mottez, de Labedat, Berthier, Forrestier, and others.

Now, eight precepts of Deafhood:

1) SLPs have the gift of languages because they can communicate in ways in which spoken languages cannot. The converse is true for spoken languages.

2) Are ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘artificial languages.”

3) These languages are even more special because they can be adapted for worldwide communication (unlike spoken languages).

For example, Sovage talks about the existence of natural communities as well as natural languages.

4) SLPs model in potential the ability to become the world’s first truly global citizens.

5) Deaf people were intentionally created on Earth to manifest these qualities.

6) Most hearing people are thus in effect ’sign-impaired” persons.

7) Sign languages are therefore offered as a gift to hearing people to assist them in becoming more “complete.”

8.) Deaf leaders should not place themselves above their fellows, but should work to ensure all Deaf people have access to their own privileges.

[DSE here: I hope I got all of these eight! Feel free to correct me.]

Now– how many of these precepts have survived oralism?

My ideas about all this started during DPN, when Dr. Allen Sussman stated, “The time has come for the plantation mentality which has for so long controlled this institution and others ’serving’ the deaf, to end.” However, despite the public perception that Sussman first used the words “plantation mentality” in reference to the administration and Board, the exact term and comparison was originally made by Dr. Joseph Kinner.

I feel this quote accurately reflects our awakening and enlightenment about our own oppression. I should add that my own personal journey was influenced by Gallaudet University. I have been here countless times, served as the Doctor Chair, but also because of the university’s existence and influence in the world.

Now, colonialism: it is a system, not just isolated examples of oppression. It can be linguistic, cultural, social, welfarist, and economic. This includes colonization of the body, but above all, of the mind. This colonialism of the mind is the worst form. Also, colonialism can be internalized.

Once an individual has internalized colonialist beliefs, it can influence them to such a degree that it eradicates who they are as individuals and people. You see this with Native Americans, with aboriginal peoples.

Yesterday’s presentation about double-consciousness fits in neatly here. This concept reinforces a message that the only way for Deaf persons to succeed is by denying their identities, roles, and responsibilities as members of a collective group. This can result over time in a minority society which possesses what could be termed “cultural schizophrenia.” In summation, SLPs cannot fully become themselves until colonial influences are fully removed.

No one person or institution is exempt from the ravages of colonialism. Let’s look at Gallaudet, for example. Is Gallaudet a colonialist institution? Or is it a reflection of the impact of colonialism? How has Gallaudet contributed to or resisted, notions about and instances of colonialism?

Language is also impacted: the use of such systems as “Sim-Com” and Signed English. This really parallels the “mulatto” status in other minority groups. There’s a lack of understanding that Deaf cultures are collectivist, and that U.S. hearing culture is individualist. Also, this all works both ways. The Deaf community may react to newcomers with suspicion. There’s no separate community to be part of, if people don’t find acceptance within the hearing or the Deaf communities.

Deaf discourses: here, there’s much work to be done. What do we know of the views of subaltern (”ordinary”) Deaf people in history? There’s a need for research. To what extent were their voices discouraged or censored? The use of English is a marker as well, with perfect English prized. Where are the examples of “Deaf English”? These and other questions are important.

We need to understand where audism exists and how it exists in order to best control it. We also need to understand and overcome the struggle with racism in the Deaf community. It’s not unique to hearing cultures, and that Deafness alone unites us. We need to understand cultural and racial differences and recognize them. For example, the experiences and trials of the Black Deaf community.

There is a need for Gallaudet to research its own place in U.S. Deaf cultural history. Gallaudet is an ideal place for such work, but as Douglas Baynton has noted, we need to be careful not to assume we’re in a “Golden Age.”

Since the 1970’s, we’ve seen a resurgence in our Deaf communities, the growth and flowering of linguistic recognition, the arts, and other elements of our history and culture.

However, we need to recognize and study the similarities of other minority experiences. There are common threads and study of these should identify these commonalities and be implemented in Deaf education. But we also need to get rid of the notion that we already know about our history and culture. Are we committed to serving subaltern communities, rather than using our knowledge as a covert way to gain personal power? As Marie Philip and others noted, young members of modern deaf families feel little or no responsibility to the community at large. We also need to be aware of the general tendency in the U.S. towards insularity as compared to internationalism.

We must be careful; for example, mainstreamed deaf had their rights to their own heritage and language severely damaged, then they are rejected by their “own people.” We also need to look to other minority groups and compare and contrast experiences in order to better understand our own.

The Deafhood movement is about decolonization, and about the need to understand what has happened to us, to encourage the study of how we have become stuck in a vicious cycle, and enable individual study of our own personal inner divisions en route to embracing our fundamental identities. There’s also the need to better understand gender issues, not just race. If we don’t understand all this, we won’t be able to recognize these factors and elements in our own lives we must be willing to reflect on our own experiences and share with each other. Decolonization also means the search for deaf epistemologies, pedagogies, spiritualities, etc.

Jane Norman introduced me to Howard University and that influenced my thinking as I saw the parallels between the black and deaf experiences. So that’s equally important too.

Really, all of us have to change. None of us are exempt here. The traditional elite need to understand how they have come by their own positions and privileges in relation to the colonial process. The mainstreamed deaf need to understand that without the struggles in the Deaf community, there’d be nothing for them to join. We must understand these things, but also develop more compassionate perspectives across the board.

Gallaudet needs to decide if it should lead by developing a Deafhood vision, or be content to let other U.S. institutions lead the way. Since deaf cultures are collectivist, Gallaudet and other deaf institutions need to be run on collectivist cultural principles. There need to be ongoing, clear, calm discussions of the roles of hearing allies in all the above and more. There needs to be similar discussions of everything, really.

We can either be stuck in a cycle of chain reactions, or we can explore Deafhood and break the cycle and achieve true self-actualization.

Q & A

Jessica Lee: I’m asking about intersectionality; each individual has their own identity; there’s a national identity, an individual identity, and so you have to figure out which of your identities is more important at a specific time. So I’m asking which identity is important. also the globalization. How do we achieve that.

Ladd: Great question. I can’t answer it in a brief manner, but that is the next step. We talk about our multiple identities we need to look at all of them and examine them as parts of who we are.

Question: In terms of point number five, you talk about sign being a gift, and that hearing can learn to sign and accept that gift, but then they turn around and make it into a product that’s marketed and exploited. So how do we stop that? Is this something we should work on? Also, international sign languages are greatly influenced by the West– where’s Asian influences? how do we make it more global?

Ladd: About exploitation, this is where we can examine the parallels with other minority communities. The resolution is to examine ourselves, then engage in dialogue. Because of time limits, hard to fully answer these wonderful questions. Along with the WFD [World Federation of the Deaf], we are now considering the ownership of our culture, our language. This is an international discussion. Who is it that owns a culture? Who owns a language? it’s an interesting question. In England we talk about BSL and struggle over the ownership of it.

Question: A lot of powerful ideas here. But the context of a larger world and related to the protest the concept of “not being Deaf enough” spread back then — it does make people in the mainstream fearful that they can’t enter this group. So how can we change the perceptions that this is a safe place to explore Deafhood?

Ladd: Last year, we learned many difficult lessons. DPN in 1988 was not easy either. we need to look to other minorities– their struggles were long and difficult, and we’re not going to get off easy. The media doesn’t really pay attention to the intricacies around all of this. They’re interested in simplistic narratives. One solution is to make more films and develop our own media messages to counter the misinterpretations out there. To portray who we are as a people through the arts, film, theater. We need to change our point of view from a defensive to a celebratory one.

My Commentary: This was a speech with a lot of powerful concepts. I haven’t finished Ladd’s book, nor have I had time to sit down and digest everything he said, so my commentary here will be somewhat limited and measured. I did have some immediate reactions that I then formulated into questions to ask Ladd during an interview, if we can arrange one (Dr. Ladd is leaving this very afternoon for Merrie Old England!). Unfortunately, we ran out of time this morning– Ladd’s timekeeper, the inestimable Mr. Murray, kept him on schedule once he started. So I never really heard (nor did Ladd have the time to expound on) about the “responsibility of academics to use reflexivity to examine the sources of their own privileges.” As a once (and future?) academic in a room filled with quite a few academics, this would have been fascinating to hear.

I’m not so sure about Precept #5 myself: “Deaf people were intentionally created on Earth to manifest these qualities.” I guess it’s the skeptic in me regarding spirituality and religion, but I don’t think any particular “peoples” were being created for any one specific purpose. But since Ladd just introduced the concept, I’m betting there’s a more full explanation in his book. I’ll have to finish it, as I said, then I’ll expound on my thoughts and reactions elsewhere later.

I find it interesting Paddy Ladd’s moment of “awakening” was during DPN; I remember a discussion I had once with others, and the prevailing thought was, “The only person or persons who benefited from DPN was I. King Jordan.” I disagreed with that at the time, and I feel a bit justified now!

I agree that to an extent the community as a whole has gotten stuck in “a vicious cycle.” To WHAT degree, I’m not sure.

I do wish that, unlike the other keynote speeches, Dr. Ladd had presented at the end of the conference, and not at the beginning of the last day. For one thing, some of the concepts and examples he touched on this morning were echoed in later presentations (such as Victor Vodounou’s talk in the afternoon sessions, where he shared that a good number of African Sign Languages owed quite a bit to ASL, thanks to Andrew Foster’s influence. This tied in with the question from one individual about the Western influences on non-Western Sign, and Ladd’s response about ownership), and it would have been interesting to see how Ladd tied these other papers into his own work.

Regardless, Ladd’s keynote speech still left many of us talking even after the conference concluded.

CORRECTION: I somehow missed Dr. Ladd saying this, but the term,”plantation mentality,” was first stated by Dr. Joseph Kinner, not Dr. Allen Sussman. I have since rectified the error above in my summary. This just highlights that these posts are NOT verbatim transcripts, and should not be used as such.

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.]

Ben Bahan: Thank you for the nice trip through the presidencies at Gallaudet. In my presentation yesterday we looked at the campus map, and the relationship between Kendall School and Gallaudet University now that they co-exist, you see how changes occurred. Their relationship seemed as if though there was always some sort of proximity between the two schools physically, not just on paper. Looking at the map and planning guidelines, it looks as if the physical location of Kendall School has been slightly transient, so to speak. What’s your take on Kendall School?

Jordan: The things I learned about Kendall, there are about 50 potential conferences or books about Kendall and the University. It’s really wonderful but I’m not sure that I can asnwer your question. Well, sometimes when I was a faculty member, I would bump into a Kendall teacher at a conference in a place like California and find out that person worked at Kendall and we worked, you know, 200  yards from each other, and I never saw that person, and they never saw me on campus.  That’s not exactly how it should be. Lots of people go through KDES, then MSSD, and then Gallaudet, and someone should study that.

Samuel Jones: I’m an alumnus, and I’m proud to be here to be a part of this. Do you remember going to Providence Hospital when you were a student? There was something that you said about President Abraham Lincoln when he signed the charter. Oh, and I just want to add something because I learned some information about our history. The Mormon Battalion, when they were marching through Santa Fe to California, the decisions regarding their movement was relayed to and influenced by the president at the time, James K. Polk, and I was surprised to see that Amos Kendall was a part of the political advisory regarding the Battalion. Interesting to see how Kendall really is part of U.S. history, not just Deaf history.

Jordan: Interesting fact. I was thinking about McPherson’s talk yesterday. I was in Providence Hospital, and in a back area, I found the Lincoln Room there; they had a special Licoln Room and they had a charter there on the wall that looked exactly like Gallaudet’s, and the date on that charter was April 8, 1864, the same day as Gallaudet’s, so yesterday was clarifying– seemed that presidents took care of these things on the same day.

Adbul Aziz Al-Obaid: I’m from Saudi Arabia, and want to extend a great honor to Jordan.  I’ve known him for a while, we met during the Deaf Way. Prior to Deaf Way no students at Gallaudet hailed from Saudi Arabia. There are currently six students at Galladuet from Saudi Arabia. The personal impact of Dr. Jordan is more than long lasting and I hope that this inspiration also transcends to other students in Saudi Arabia. This past May I graduated from the university, and I’m proud to have a diploma signed by him. My family is involved in politics in Saudi Arabia and has been for generations. Actually we are a part of the royal family. My degree from Gallaudet is in government. My question, or rather the honor I want to extend to you is a story that an  ambassador from Saudi Arabia said they came here during the Deaf Way and that after talking with you they said that they could see a relationship developing between Saudi Arabia and Gallaudet. We are extending an invitation for you to come to Saudi Arabia. Would you go?

Jordan: Yes, thank you! Yes, I’d go in a minute.

Ricky Rose: Hello, it’s nice to see you again.  As I was sitting in the audience watching you tell your story, I enjoyed sitting here and learning about and comprehending the parallels of the achievements of the university alongside those of the Presidents. I understand that you have primarily talked about the impact of DPN, but the recent protest had unfortunate side effects. How do you think the recent protest will impact deaf history and the deaf community in a positive way, if any? What will the future hold?

Jordan: Wonderful question. Something that history will answer; there are different stories in this room, maybe 50 stories, of how this recent protest will affect Gallaudet’s future. My feeling is a positive one because Gallaudet’s foundation is still strong, its national and international support is still strong, so once Gallaudet gets past reaccreditation, Gallaudet will be fine. Gallaudet will not only survive but be strong.

Brian Morrison: I’m a grad student here at Gallaudet. While watching  your presentation, there’s one point I would like clarification on. What did you mean when you said that during your presidency there were a few achievements, and you pointed to the admissions creiteria for incoming students, that two-thirds of students are now achieving higher levels in  English. But this is education that they received elsewhere– so what do you mean by that? What did Gallaudet have to do with that?

jordan: Well, we have better and better students now– but schools and programs all over make that happen, so no, it’s not me taking credit for that.

Patti Durr: I have a invitation for you. I’m sure you heard about the recent controversy surrounding Don Imus and his public apology. There are some issues that people have with you, for example, your calling the people here ”absolutists,” and I’m wondering if you could offer an apology for that statement in working towards peace and healing.

Jordan: I used that word about some who I believe are absolutists. Is everyone an absolutist who participated in the protests? No, there were absolutists who participated in the protest, but no, it’s not true all were absolutists. If the impression is that I meant everyone, that’s wrong.

Durr: The impression was given to the general public that this statement was coming from the university’s former president as though that label extended to everyone that was really just engaging in civil disobedience. You have a powerful position and high name recognition but I personally feel you owe the community an apology because of that statement and the perceptions now created in the community [audience applause]. For you to say that is very hurtful, and it would be nice if you apologize because it’s not helping the healing.

Jordan: I didn’t intend that word to label all those who participated. I also believe in civil disobedience and the right to protest.

 Thank you.

[Mercifully, the tension in the room soon dissipated, since the Q & A session’s end meant a ten-minute break.]

It’s a cloudy, drizzly day here in D.C., but the conference is on schedule, and the power is definitely back! At 9 a.m., attendees watched Fred Weiner introduce Dr. I. King Jordan, the 8th President of Gallaudet University. Jordan this morning will speak on “DPN and the Evolution of the Gallaudet Presidency.”

Jordan begins by noting he was impressed with the first day of the conference, and the sanguine attitude everyone exhibited in spite of the blackout– he noted that Bahan’s photograph of the SLCC apparently caused the outage yesterday (audience laughter).

I am going to speak about DPN today, but I can’t really talk about the impact of DPN without mentioning the presidents before DPN. So I’m going to touch on the presidencies before 1988. One fact that I learned about Gallaudet: in the first 120 years, there were four presidents. Then in a span of just four years, there were four more (audience laughter). That fact would make for interesting research as well.

I’m not a historian– but what I know about history and what history means is probably a lot different from what historians think. To me, history is about stories. A lot of what we know about the past depends on who tells the stories. History, herstory… today obviously will be mystory, my story.

The first president, who you heard a lot about yesterday, was Edward Miner Gallaudet. He came here when he was just 20.  But a lot of people were skeptical about a 20-year-old leading an institution, so Amos Kendall asked EMG to bring his mother with him. So Sophia Fowler Gallaudet, who was Deaf, a native ASL user, very fluent in ASL, came and stayed here until she died.

E.M. Gallaudet strongly supported the notion of a college for deaf people and shared his father’s dream in this respect. He thus lobbied Congress to grant the Columbia Institution the power to confer degrees. But several congressmen shared the belief that a college for the Deaf was not a good idea. Amos Kendall himself had some initial doubts about the idea.

In 1864, E.M. Gallaudet overcame doubts that deaf people could or should have a college education. In 1988, we overcame the doubts that a deaf person could or should lead a university.

We faced some challenges then that we still face now: academic standards and communication. Where communication was concerned, E.M. Gallaudet faced the challenges of the Milan conference of 1880. To circumvent the rise of oralism, he helped to preserve the use of signs at Kendall Green.

The second president, Percival Hall, was president from 1910 to 1945. He served for 35 years. We learned yesterday that after he stepped down as president, he continued as chair of the board. I didn’t know that– Doris Stelle brought new information to me.  Hall graduated from Harvard, and originally intended to be an engineer. But he came to Gallaudet, was impressed, and never left.

He was enrolled in the Normal Department. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about that word, “normal.” It was a term that really just refers to the teacher training program. Hall taught for a while outside Gallaudet, then returned, taught Latin and math here, then became EMG’s secretary– back then that meant something more akin to a chief of staff. When EMG retired, he named Hall aas his successor.

During his term, Hall emphasized liberal arts, with a particular focus on cultural studies. There were studies of the deaf population in the U.S. conducted during his tenure [here, Jordan is possibly referring to Harry Best’s 1943 study, but I’m not positive]. Hall presided over the campus during tumultuous times: the Great Depression and World War II occurred on his watch. 

The third president was Leonard Elstad, who served for 24 years, from 1945 to 1969. Like Hall, he knew northing about deafness or deaf people prior to enrolling in the Normal Department. He earned his degree, then stayed and taught English and history. He advanced to become principal of Kendall School, and then he left to work in New York, finally returning upon his appointment as president. 

I had a really hard time finding out how presidents were appointed; it’s very difficiult to know what the process was, who made the decision(s), how the decision was made after the first two leaders. Elstad had a strong commitment to academic standards, and was person who recruited George Detmold. As you heard yesterday, Detmold worked on our accreditation, and we received our first accreditation in 1957.

During Elstad’s era, there were increased appropriations that allowed the campus’ physical plant to improve and grow. Enrollment boomed as well, with the numbers soaring from from 200 to 700 students. A big difference! There was also increasing support for international students at Gallaudet during this time. Elstad enlisted the support of the Rotary Club to fund the tuition and academic expenses for international students.

Gallaudet’s fourth president was Edward C. Merrill, who served 14 years from 1969 through 1983. Not as long a tenure as his predecessors. He began as an English teacher in North Carolina, then moved up the ranks at different schools to be an administrator, and came here from the University of Tennessee, where he was a dean. Under Merrill, MSSD was established, and soon after its founding, MSSD garnered accreditation from both CEASD and MSA. During the Merrill era, there was also legislation authorizing the Kendall School as an independent school. The National Center for Law and the Deaf was founded, the Gallaudet Research Institute began, and the four regional outreach centers were all established during this time. This was also a time when the “rubella bulge” of the 1960’s affected Gallaudet’s enrollment, so this impacted campus a great deal.

Upon the announcement of his retirement, and the subsequent search for his successor, there started to be some dialgoue about having a deaf president to lead Gallaudet. So this is about 1982 or 1983. Merrill himself supported the idea of having a deaf presidnet, but support was limited at that time, so the idea soon faded.

The next president was Lloyd Johns, who was the president at California State University, Sacramento when he was appointed. He only served for a few months, and stepped down even before he was formally inaugurated. The Board of Trustees then appointed Jerry C. Lee as interim president. The board actually started a national search for the next president after naming Lee to temporarily assume the reins. But then in the midst of the process,  they stopped the search and instead named Lee as permanent president.

During Lee’s brief tenure, 1984 to 1987, Gallaudet College became a University, thanks to an act of Congress.  The new status helped Gallaudet to become a full member of the Washington, D.C. area consortium of universities. It had previously only been a junior member in this regional partnership. When we became a university we became a full participant, and that’s been wonderful for Gallaudet students.

Now, when Lee announced his resignation, the dialogue about the desire for a deaf president grew stronger, and people started to think more seriously about having a deaf president. Clearly the board recognized this too, because the search committee contained several deaf representatives, and was chaired by a deaf man. Deaf people were encouraged to apply, and several did. The final three consisted of two deaf, one hearing.

But as you know. Zinser was appointed as the seventh president. She came to Gallaudet from the University of  North Carolina at Greensboro, where she was assistant chancellor. She was appointed on March 6 and stepped down on March 11, 1988; during that week, she was here in D.C. but unable to come on campus.

As Fred [Weiner] noted in his introduction, students, with the support of alumni, staff, faculty, community members, friends, and others shut down the university and demonstrated for a deaf president. I want to note that it’s important to recognize that this protest rapidly turned into a social movement, a revolution for the rights of deaf people.

To her credit, Zinser resigned and in her statement, she said “I am resigning because of this extraordinary social movement of deaf people.” She stepped aside to allow this social movement to continue.

After Dr. Zinser, the Board met again, and agreed to appoint me as the next president. Jane Bassett Spilman also resigned, and the Board elected Phil Bravin, a deaf man, to chair the Board. There was a commitment to a 51% deaf majority on the board, and the empowerment of Deaf people took place in a way it never had before.

Appointing a deaf president was just the beginning of changes at Gallaudet. As I said, it was a social movement. There was a lot of symbolism, and the symbolism is important here.

There’s a story I want to share from those days. I went to the CEASD conference in Providence, Rhode Island about two or three weeks after I assumed the presidency. While I was there, the RISD Superintendent invited me to visit his school, and of course I said yes.

So I went to visit, and when I got there, wow, it was really a show! Because DPN had just been in the news, there were a lot of reporters, cameramen, and media types who were very interested in and curious about the first deaf president. So I was given a tour, and we stopped at the preschool class. So the students were sitting on the floor, and I was given a tiny, preschool-size chair to sit on in front of the kids [audience laughter]. They expected me to chat with the students  and of course, what can I really talk about with 4 and 5 year olds? But this one little boy walked up to me, looked at me closely, looked at my hands as I talked, then touched my hearing aid; at this point, he smiled and just stood there. So you know, I don’t know what goes on in the minds of little kids [audience laughter] I’m sure he didn’t know that I was a deaf president, or what a deaf president would mean, but he saw his superintendent treating me with respect, saw the cameras… But he knew I was a deaf man. He knew I was deaf, and thus like him. So I’m sure he looked at me and thought or said something like, deaf are important, me too– I can do that. So I think about what that means to a little kid… A big impact, I think.

Because I became president in a vey public way, I also became a spokesperson for deaf people and hard of hearing people and disabled people, and during my time the ADA was passed: this was not coincidental. I was invited to testify as a lead witness in support of the ADA about a month after I became president.

Key Congressional leaders like Steny Hoyer,Tom Harkin, George H. W. Bush, and others have all said publicly that DPN really jump-started  the ADA and was largely responsible for the passage of ADA.

During DPN, many deaf people celebrated the results– some were near, but many were far away, in other states, and other countries. Gallaudet  was able to help with this celebration by hosting The Deaf Way in 1989. Deaf Way allowed culture, arts, and the celebration of the global deaf community to come to the forefront. Many who attended returned to their home countries and started working to improve the lives of other people.

When we planned it we thought  perhaps 500 or 600 would attend, but we ended up with 5,000 participants. We were not really ready for that many peole to attend, but people were patient with the registration woes and had a mini-conference while standing in lines before the actual conference.

In 2002 we had Deaf Way II, and more than 10,000 registered. We probably had more than that celebrating Deaf Way II, maybe closer to 15,000 people who were in and around the central site. Since DPN the community at large has become a lot more involved with the campus community.

I think gallaudet’s primary role has to continue to be to provide an exemplary education to the deaf students who come here to study. The mission of Gallaudet is about deaf education, about excellence in education. In 1988 that was my vision, and my work has always been to support that mission of higher education and excellence in education.

I gave a speech in November of 2005; I had announced my stepping down in September 2005, and during that speech I stressed that the community needed to work together to continue to change the lives of Deaf people here and around the world. Students who study at Gallaudet are the future of deaf people.

Have we achieved excellence and student success? During that speech, I reflected on some of the achievements during my presidency. We have graduated attorneys, financial analysts, business owners, Hollywood actors, elected members of a national parliament… The list goes on and on. Deaf people who graduate from Gallaudet really can do anything.

A few fast facts. When I entered office, about 2/3 of students took developmental English and non-credit English classes. When I left it was exactly the opposite: 2/3 of students were enrolled in for-credit English, while 1/3 in developmental English courses.

In  the fall of 2005 we had 351 new degree-seeking students, the largest number since the rubella bulge.

The Honors program was strengthened and expanded, and more and more are graduating now with university and departmental honors.

Technology has grown too; our use of technology at Gallaudet is double the national averages for colleges and universities; at Gallaudet, 75% use the GDOC board.

Gallaudet recently received a multi-million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation for a Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning, or VL2. Gallaudet is one of only six schools to receive such a grant. The impact of the research conducted in this center could be very influential.

A successful university  has to have a successful Board. I’m happy to say that the individual who was Board of Trustees chair during most of my presidency is here somewhere in the room: Dr. Glenn Anderson [applause].  Thank you, Glenn. We established a strong working relationship, based on full, open, and honest communication. We worked together to ensure Gallaudet’s success.

The Board as individuals became much more visible on campus; you saw board members here more often, they even participated in shared governance workshops. That was a first for Gallaudet.

Exemplary education also requires outstanding faculty and staff, and that requires good salaries. When I assumed the presidency, salaries at Gallaudet lagged behind other schools in comparison. At the end of my term parity in compensation was finally achieved.

The President’s Fellows Program has also been successful. In fact, the first person to complete the program is a young man named Brian Greenwald. I’m happy to see him leading us [applause].

 Financial support is also important; I worked hard with Congress in developing a relationship, and I also worked hard at forging relationships with corporations, foundations, and individual donors. I find it ironic that people doubted that a deaf person could lead a university; their doubts were about the relationship with Congress and fundraising… that was told to me many, many times.

I think back on my presidency and I think those were my strongest areas. They will continue to be strong areas for presidents in the future.

When I entered office, there was less than $10 million in endowments; now there’s more than $175 million– a great achievement.

Lots of fundraising such as the Capital Campaign helped the university. The SAC was created using these monies. The new SLCC building will be an important new buildigng, it will be a world-class teaching, learning, research, and service center where disciplines that historically worked separately will be near each other and contribute to interdisciplinary collaboration. The SLCC is being designed with deaf people in mind and by deaf people.

This building we’re in now [the GUKCC] was funded by a $12 million grant from the Kellogg Foundation. Many events like this conference happen here; a lot of outside groups meet here, the Board meets upstairs, and also the Mental Health Center is in the building. It’s clearly an important building. But this location is important too for another reason: this was the former Division II Kendall School. It was the building erected to teach black Deaf students after the 1952 court decision.

Before 1952, students were bussed to Overlea, Maryland.  There’s a plaque on the back of hotel sign describing this history. It’s really interesting to sit in the bistro sometimes and watch people look at that sign.

I’m not proud that Gallaudet was once segregated, and I’m not proud that Gallaudet didn’t integrate til it was forced to, but I’m proud that we talk about it, that we’re open about it, and that we show what this building site was.

I’m also proud that fifteen years before the Tuskegee Airmen received their Congressional Gold Medals, I saw that fifteen years ago one of those airmen came and spoke at a President’s Scholars Dinner here on campus.

When I announced I would step down, I spoke about the “Gallaudet spirit;” the spirit that made Gallaudet so very, very sucessful.  The MSA report in 2001 stated that Gallaudet was indeed very unique and indeed had a mission, not just a mission statement.

During my Inaugural address in 1988, I spoke to the need to reach out and educate deaf people of all backgrounds. People who may not be Deaf or become deaf/Deaf later in life still contribute to the lives of deaf people.  The New Directions study took two years– it was an exhaustive study of the university, and the Board of Trustees enthusiastically endorsed the report when it was submitted. The report helped guide the university in its future goals.

Last year the campus divided and there was a lot of pain and hurt. I think the only way out of that is to find a way to work together cooperatively and respectfully with each other. Everyone has to be willing to work hard to get back to that sesne of community we used to have, and a shared commitment to working on the reaffirmation of the MSA accreditation is a good place to start.

Gallaudet has a solid foundation, but also faces challenges. Therefore it’s very important that all people inside and outside campus work with our current president while the university searches for a new president.

There’s also no question Gallaudet did great things in the last 150 years. I personally have spent more than half my life here at Gallaudet: as a student, a faculty member, a department chair, a dean, and finally president. I expect that I will always be passionate about Gallaudet.

I’m looking forward to the next generation, and hope that people all over the world will continue to look at Gallaudet as a beacon of hope.

My Commentary: Jordan’s speech was not what I was expecting, to a degree. I thought we would get an assessment of how the presidency changed over time, and more distinct parallels and comparisons done of how Jordan’s powers, responsibilities, and obligations were similar to or different from that of his predecessors. While he is a scholar, Jordan is not a historian, so I suppose to project the expectations of a historical presentation/lecture may be slightly unrealistic. Still, as a speech, it was a nice summation of the key highlights of each president’s time in office. Jordan’s anecdotes were interesting and amusing. Ultimately however, this speech had an aura of the valedictory about it. It would have been very interesting to hear Jordan’s recollections of DPN itself, the internal and external conflicts he faced, or even a history of his first year in office and how that branded his presidency or differed from previous occupants of College Hall. I think, however, that it is still very recent history, and given that Jordan has just stepped down mere months ago means that a more objective and scholarly assessment of his place in history [and he definitely has a place in history!] may have to wait for time and place to gain distance, if not posterity. I intend to try for a more in-depth interview as I did with McPherson, and I hope to expand a bit on this keynote speech at that point. 

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…!]

James McPherson is now speaking; his remarks focus on the Civil War. He mentions remarks made in the early months of the Civil War– the understanding that the Civil War was not just about secession, but about larger issues such as dignity and the human condition in the United States.

America was still very unique at this time, in the mid-19th century; other nations were still under the rule of monarchs, and democratic impulses were still a new idea for most people. McPherson’s intent this morning is to discuss the notion of giving “all a fair chance in life.” The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were documents that influenced the thinking of people like Abraham Lincoln– the notion of equality and egalitarianism as expressed in Jefferson’s words that “all men were created equal” was a promise that America aspired to, even though obviously at the start of the Civil War, this standard was a promise yet fulfilled.

McPherson also touches on the French Revolution, which, in the wake of the American Revolution, merged the radical notions of revolution with the principles of the Enlightenment in their own effords to improve the condition of man.

Such principles guided the educational efforts in France to provide an education for French Deaf people. Here, McPherson mentions Clerc, and thus ties the philsophical and social principles of France in the early 19th century with the burgeoning social movement in the United States during the Second Great Awakening. He now mentions Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, who came of age and formed his religious principles at a time when Americans were turning to religion and also rejecting traditional notions of Calvinism.

The notion that people were predestined for heaven and that their lots in life were predetermined began to be disavowed, and the concept that one has control over one’s own fate emerged. This idea, merged with the realization that social ills were sins that needed to be eradicated, set the social and moral stage for Deaf education. McPherson notes that the abolitionist and feminist movements also got their start in the antebellum era.

He then ties this in to the movement for Deaf education: the role that Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet played in the educational reforms of the era that involved educating Deaf people. While Gallaudet and his peers wanted Deaf people to have access to religious concepts and the word of God, this was not unique: public education at the time had similar goals. The schools we are familiar with now were not the schools of the Jacksonian era.

McPherson now talks about Jacksonian democracy, and how this was in some ways a counter to the evangelical reform movement, because the empowerment of white men across the board didn’t necessarily translate to power for blacks, women, deaf people, and other minorities in the United States.

He then mentions Amos Kendall, who was a Jacksonian Democrat, a member of Jackson’s cabinet, and of course, the man who helped start Kendall School– as McPherson observes, “the reason we are here today.” He then discusses the beginnings of what today is Gallaudet University, and the signing of Gallaudet’s charter by Lincoln in 1864. McPherson remarks that while Lincoln signed the charter without comment, he opines that if Lincoln had added a comment, he would have observed the significance of what he was doing in terms of human rights and in the context of the struggle of the
Civil War.

McPherson now segues into remarks about the Morrill Land Act of 1862– this legislation granted thousands of acres of public lands for the establishment of what were then known as “agricultural and mechanical colleges”– many of these schools today are state universities such as Utah State University and Texas A&M.

McPherson mentions all of these things in terms of his overall theme: the “lifting of weights” from people’s shoulders– the barriers that inhibit progress in the United States. He adds the Freedmen’s Bureau and the founding of Howard University as part of the social and governmental efforts to “lift the weights” and clear the path for blacks, just as the founding of Gallaudet provided opportunities for deaf people.

McPherson notes that the Civil War resulted in a feeling of nationalism– a united nation once more. However, the North and the South were two different regions, and the cultural and social differences were readily apparent at the time. The post-war era was a time when Northern values were resisted by the Southern peoples, to the point that the aftermath of Reconstruction meant that while the nation was united politically among whites, there remained segregation for blacks.

These inequalities were exacerbated by the massive immigration to the United States starting in the 1880s, which led many Americans to fear an assault on their language, their values, their social structure. The perceived attack on America led to a feeling that there needed to be homogenization and acculturation at every step of the way.

McPherson asks, what does this all have to do with you– with Gallaudet and Deaf America? He answers by saying that “you are more familiar with this than I,” and points to the rise of oralism and the drive for the assimilation of Deaf people into hearing society as part of a larger trend then present in the United States: the assimilation of all people into America.

He notes that immigration historians have labeled “this model of Americanization ‘Anglo-conformity.’” He then opines that perhaps oralism could be called “hearing conformity”– the notion that Deaf people had to conform to hearing norms. He points to Edward Miner Gallaudet’s use of the “combined method” as a “melting pot” of communication (which neatly ties the historical notion of a “melting pot” of nationalities to the melting pot of the deaf into the hearing world).

National policies on American Indians during the post-Civil War era also had impact, and in its own ways, influenced what was happening to the Deaf at this time too. While Inidan tribes were called “nations,” they were in actuality herded onto the reservations and isolated from the rest of the country. However, this policy soon changed during the 1880s, as assimilation became popular, and Indians were then sent to boarding schools and taught how to blend into the mainstream of America.

As always, religion played an important part, McPherson notes. Many religious groups worked in the schools and reservations, trying to convert and influence Indians. This parallels the work of religious reformers with Deaf people. It was all part of making everyone who qualified as an “other” into an “American.”

Senator Henry Dawes, McPherson observes, was a perfect example of the American leadership and its perspective on Indians and the Deaf. Dawes served for approximately 30 years on Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees and championed the school in Congress (Dawes House on campus is named after him). However, Dawes was a supporter of the Indian Empancipation Act in 1887, which broke up the tribal reservations into 160-acre parcels in an effort to fully “Americanize” Indians. People like Dawes influenced policy for groups like the Deaf and the American Indians.

While McPherson doesn’t want to push the analogy too far, there are ties and parallels in the drive for assimilation– Indians and immigrants weren’t alone; they were joined by the Deaf in being influenced by the dominant white, hearing culture. McPherson continues by noting the trends in the 20th century that recognized cultures, languages, and self-determinism influenced all of these groups.

He now shifts, and discusses blacks in America. The schools and institutions established for blacks in the post-Civil War era were administered and led by whites, just as whites ran the schools for Indians, and the hearing ran the Deaf residential programs. He observes that while there were balck teachers in some of the schools for blacks, that whites continued to be a dominant part of the workforce in programs for blacks in America.

He mentions the backlash against white rule at Historically Black Colleges such as Howard University, and the eventual installation of the first black presidents at these schools. He wryly states he “doesn’t have to tell you about the obvious parallels between these events and Gallaudet University.”

“The United States has always been a pluralist nation,” McPherson states, but of course this pluralism hasn’t necessarily translated into equality and equal opportunity. He notes that the tensions between opposing groups led to eventual understanding, accommodation , and change, and this is true across the board.

Now McPherson is done; Greenwald takes the stage to open the comments portion of McPherson’s keynote.

Joe Murray has a question: he wants to know if there’s a shift from not just “equipping one’s self,” but to a “battle for life?” in terms of race? 

McPherson: yes, you can see this in the black community. There was equality on paper, in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, but this did not necessarily translate into an improved quality of life during the 1880s and 189os. McPherson cites the accommodationist tactics of Booker T. Washington as exemplifying this trend– it was not so much about advancement at this time, as it was merely holding on to what these various communities had at the time.

Paddy Ladd has a question: Ladd wants to know how the passivity in the various communities were influenced and to what extent, by religion, in the 1860s? Wants McPherson to help uncover some of the roots of Deaf history as they pertain to religion.

McPherson: oh, yes. Religion was a key element in the African-American community. The church was central to slaves and freed blacks. There’s a definite ambivalence between “accommodation” and “protest,” and there was definitely a tension in the black community between these two impulses. At a time when white suppression continued in the South, this was difficult. Still, McPherson thinks the church helped keep alive not only tradition, but also the spirit of reform. He feels that this emerged fully in the latter half of the 20th century– Martin Luther King, of course, being a good example. So, yes, religion has had a major influence on groups such as blacks. However, sholars and leaders such as W.E.B. duBois criticized the accommodationist philosophies of the black church.

McPherson can’t see any obvious parallels at the moment for Deaf history, but hopes this conference will begin to provide answers. He hopes to learn along wit hte rest of us.

Marieta Joyner: she says that the origins of the first school for blacks in North Carolina was influenced by a graduate of Hampton University, who was familiar with sign language and the needs of Deaf people. There are definite ties between the histories of the two groups. She will speak later on Douglas Craig.

Steven Baldwin: Wants to know if Lincoln had any ulterior motives in signing the charter for Gallaudet?

McPherson: it was not the custom at the time for presidents to comment or observe on legislation; Lincoln and other presidents at that time would go into a room in the senate at the end of the session, and at this time, this would have been the summer of 1864, and just sit and sign all the bills that were passed. So there would be 30 or 50 bills just sitting there– of course, he just sat there and signed these bills. Perhaps he said something about signing Gallaudet’s charter, but if he said anything, it’s now lost to history. However, McPherrson feels that Lincoln’s whole philosophy was geared towards the improvement of his fellow man, so signing the charter was consistent with his beliefs.

 My Commentary: This was an excellent start to the conference, as McPherson ties in a lot of the cultural, social, political, and educational trends in the United States to the origins of Deaf education in the United States. Gallaudet hasn’t and doesn’t exist in a vacuum; a lot of philosophical and social issues tie in with how Deaf education began, and how Gallaudet was founded. Obviously McPherson is a relative newcomer to Deaf history, but the work that has been done by many authors and historians the last two decades means historians in other disciplines are now able to connect the history of the Deaf to American history in general.