150 Years on Kendall Green: The Blog

We have finished two of the three speakers. Now Ripley’s colleague Lucille Blackwell will also speak on Laura Redden Searing. Her presentation is titled “Laura C. Redden: Public Poet.”

Blackwell: Harry Lang spoke about Redden’s interaction with the Lincolns and her life as a journalist; I will talk about the other part of her life as a poet. She wrote very accessible poetry. She interacted with everyone.

Here’s a sample of her poetry [Blackwell quickly shows a snippet]. She may have been a gardener, since she writes a lot about flowers in her poetry, and she also published a number of articles about flowers. There’s perhaps also some interest in the sciences. She also wrote romantic poems and other types of poems.

[Basically we are treated to very brief and quick samples of her poetry, and Blackwell is telling us little bits and snippets such as Redden writing about John Greenleaf Whittier, and that they sustained a friendship for many years.]

Redden became a poet for three reasons. Her father died when she was young, so she had more independence than other women, whose fathers might have guided them towards marriage or other more “acceptable” pursuits. Second, she was deaf. At fifteen, she wondered and worried about her future as a deaf woman. She did think about marrying a young man once in Illinois, but her step-father encouraged her to go to the Missouri School instead. She did so, and then was enccouraged to be a writer. Finally, the Civil War allowed her to express her thoughts through patriotic poems.

In the mid 1860’s, she went to Europe and wandered for four years. While she was there, she met other authors and artists. Her poetry shows her adaptability in absorbing new words and languages. She wasn’t a good lipreader, but as this poem shows, she picked up dogsledding terms while in Alaska [Shows this poem very quickly, and it includes words like “mush,” etc.]. In europe she learned enough of some languages to write poems in these languages.

She once wrote 70 poems, which taken together form a sort of epic. They’re not all in the same meter, the same length, etc. she could write in different registers, which indicated a high level of skill. We saw yesterday that deaf women were denied education, yet redden independently accomplished a lot, and she certainly was a role model for her times.

My Commentary: This presentation was far more accessible and appropriate for the conference than Ripley’s. Blackwell’s knowledge and enthusiasm for Redden was evident. The main problem during her presentation was that due to time limits, she was forced to show her PowerPoint presentation with the various poems at such a rapid pace, it was difficult to read the entire poem, or get a sense of why Redden was unique/important. While there was no clear tie to Gallaudet or Kendall Green, Blackwell’s talk contributes to a rounded-out sense of Deaf history through individual biography.

However, given that Redden was a poet and a journalist, and the fact that Chris Krentz also presented a paper talking about John Carlin, perhaps it might be time to have a conference at some point that focuses primarily on Deaf writers, artists, and sculptors. There certainly are quite a number of individuals that could be examined, from Edward Booth to Laura Redden Searing to John Carlin to Albert Ballin and Granville Redmond, and up into the 20th century, with people like Dorothy Miles and playwrights like Gil Eastman. Certainly something for someone out there to think about…

We’re in the middle of the final panel, and Ripley has left the stage. Now Teresa Burke introduces Harry Lang, who is probably best known for A Phone of Our Own: The Deaf Insurrection Against Ma Bell. He was, as was previously noted yesterday, the senior advisor for “Through Deaf Eyes.”

Lang will also talk about Laura Redden. His presentation is “I Considered Him My Friend: Laura C. Redden and Abraham Lincoln.” Lang begins by recounting his correspondence and work with Judy Yaeger Jones. Jones shared a box of materials with Lang. This container that she found that had tons of letters in them that were between Redden and noted people of the 19th century.

I want to talk about Redden today, but I also want to tie into Gallaudet, because we are here celebrating the 150th anniversary of Kendall Green. Fort Rapp was situated next to and on Kendall Green during the Civil War. In September, 1861, the Pennsylvania 62nd Infantry regiment from Pittsburgh encamped there. They were not yet fully outfitted and six of the companies received Springfields; the others got Enfield muskets.

During the first week of September, 1861, Laura C. Redden was a war correspondent. She came from Missouri to cover the Civil War for the St. Louis Republican. Within a week of her arrival in D.C., she was watching this regiment cross the Potomac. While she was in D.C., she stayed at the Willard Hotel, along with many others, from correspondents to government officials.

Laura Catherine Redden was born in 1839, and became deaf around age 12 or 13 due to meningitis. She went to the Missouri School for the Deaf, where she graduated in 1858. She primarily communicated through sign and written communication. She was an avid reader of the classics and poetry. Her family not wealthy, so she wanted to be self-supporting. She became a writer, and adopted the pseudonym “Howard Glyndon” when she was 19. She was very charming, and she was an advocate for female suffrage.

Missouri at the time was a border state and very politically divided; it was the only state that Stephen A. Douglas won in the 1860 Presidential election. Missouri was soon controlled quickly by the Union, but the was much death and chaos regardless. In St. Louis, a job was available as a war correspondent, and Redden decided to take it. She left by train, and arrived in Washington, D.C., where she used the telegraph to send back her dispatches.

She would go to the top of the Willard, where she used a telescope in her work. She rode horseback to the nearby camps to communicate with the soldiers, and then sent telegraphs back from the Willard. She and other correspondents were often on the Willard’s roof with telescopes during the war.

During the year 1861, Abraham Lincoln stayed at the Willard, General U.S. Grant stayed there, General George McClellan stayed there, and many others besides. Redden visited the receptions and events at the White House, just three blocks away from the Willard Hotel. D.C. was unpaved with dirt roads back then, and the streets quickly became muddy on rainy days. Nearly every block had a livery stable.

Redden was apparently pretty and quite vivacious, her newspaper was highly respected, and her nom de plume, Howard Glyndon, was well known. These elements helped her in her work. She was not the only female journalist at the time, but others mention her in their memoirs.

While in D.C., Redden met Lincoln six times in two months. In one of her written accounts of her meetings and sightings of Lincoln, she states about him, “I do not think the president had given three minutes thought to his personal apperance…” She was impressed with Lincoln and his bearing, recounting that “You could not, to save your life, even if that man were your bitterest enemy look upon that face and come away without feeling a respectable pity for the suffering clearly writtten on his face…” [These are quotes that Lang is showing in a simultaneous PowerPoint presentation]

In 1862, she was hired by publishers to edit a series of short biographies of men serving in the wartime Congress, titled Notable Men of the House. Some of the lawmakers whom she interviewed were involved with approving the legislation for the National Deaf-Mute College as part of the Columbia Institution, which of course today is Gallaudet University.

Some people claim she personally interviewed Lincoln, but the word “interview” back then did not have the same meaning as it does today. Back then, it could mean merely to see each other, and the two did have at least six meetings , but probably not an actual interview in the sense that we think of it today. However, another writer, John Janney, recounts that a “mute woman” met with Lincoln. Could this woman have been Redden? Judy Yaeger Jones found a handwritten note from Lincoln to Redden, so we know that they did have communications.

One must wonder how laura communicated with Lincoln and other personages such as Grant. She also knew Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, who actually learned some signs, as did Booth’s sister. We don’t know yet, but some wonder if there’s a possibility Lincoln knew some fingerspelling or signs. Lincoln also knew Frederick Barnard, who learned signs from Laurent Clerc. Laura Redden rarely used speech for communication, but she never described in detail how she obtained so many fascinating details during her interactions with others.

I’m trying to answer some of these questions that I’ve just posed, but we still don’t have a lot of answers; it’s a very tantalizing puzzle. By 1864, Redden was friends with General Grant, and Grant gave her a pass to go see the battles. We do know that she advised Lincoln in a letter to add Grant to the ticket in 1864 rather than Andrew Johnson. Redden was also friends with Mary Todd Lincoln.

Once, a General van Vliet handed Redden a paper and asked if she’d like to have it it; it was four stanzas commemorating the Battle of Balls Bluff by Willie Lincoln, the son of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln. After Willie died, Redden sent the poem back to Mrs. Lincoln along with her condolences. A few days later, a large bouquet arrived from Mary Todd Lincoln, thanking Laura Redden for her thoughtfulness.

There’s a lot more, of course, since I’m working on this now with Judy Yaeger Jones. But I’m excited to share this with you and continue this research.

My Commentary: This was an excellent paper for this particular panel; I’m now very interested in Laura Redden Searing, and looking forward to the publication or dissemination of Lang’s work. It would be interesting to know what her editors thought of her, what other assignments they sent her on, and what other reporters and war correspondents of the time thought of Redden, and what their interactions with her might have been. At a time when the telephone hadn’t yet been invented and the written word was paramount, I think Redden was able to seize opportunities that later generations probably didn’t have. Lang is presently doing research, so it’s hard to fully critique his work, or suggest new questions or avenues, but the presentation today was very satisfactory.

We finally took a break after a long afternoon. Everyone was glad to have a few minutes to stretch, get a drink, use the restroom, chat, and help the catering reduce the amount of food on the table to zero. I spent the time perusing the books available at the Gallaudet University Press table. Since they were offering a discount for conference-goers, I was seriously considering buying a book or two to add to my ever-growing collection!

This was the last break for us all– we soon were called back into the auditorium, to hear the last panel of the conference. Things were starting to wind down; a few people already had to leave for home.

The final panel would focus exclusively on the Deaf poet, Laura Redden Searing (1839-1923). The panel, appropriately, is titled “Deaf Poet Laura Redden.” Teresa Burke was the moderator for this panel, and introduced the three speakers, who are Debora Ripley, Lucille Blackwell, and Harry Lang. Ripley and Blackwell both teach at the Missouri School for the Deaf, while Lang is a professor at NTID. We’ll hear first from Ripley, an art teacher, who will present “Connecting Laura Redden with Today’s High School Deaf Students.”

Ripley: I work with Blackwell; we try to get students interested in history, so by the time they come to college they have a love of history. Today, I want to share a few examples of what were doing on the high school level. I will also speak about Redden as well.

In my own family, it’s sometimes difficult to get them interested in history and the past. They’re spoiled by Disney World-type vacations. I planned a trip to D.C. for five days, but the kids complained after the second day, and the Air and Space museum isn’t the same as Space Mountain.

So how do we engage students in learning to enjoy something? Sometimes it helps to make them think it’s their idea in getting involved in a topic or subject, and then enjoying the process. Sometimes it’s as simple as drawing contrasts between what they’re doing or what they’re seeing on TV. For example, getting kids interested in the Renaissance– it was difficult, but we planned a Renaissance festival at school, and in preparation we were to go to a larger festival. Unfortunately, there was no way to make any connections. Luckily the day before our class was to do our Renaissance unit was the opening ceremony of the 20th Winter Olympic Games in Torino, Italy. So I used this as a way to forge connections, from the winter sports equipment requirements, to the differences in snowflakes, to using science equipment to compare snowflakes, and so on. Then our next “connection” was trying to figure out when the microscope was first invented. So making connections is important in education. Now today, we’re focusing on Laura Redden. We take special interest in her as an alumnae.

So how do we get the kids engaged in Laura Redden? We start by describing her and referencing her as if though she were living today. If you point to her as a career woman, a divorced single mom, then it seems more like something that is happening in 2007, and students can relate to that. From there we go into her attributes, and then tell them that she graduated from the same school they’re attending. Now you have their attention, and now we can connect her to what’s going on in history, reading, writing, art, poetry, etc. Now she becomes an interesting point for further study. We could do a performance about her in drama class, for example. I’m going to show you a little bit of how we approach her in our program. You can use other deaf role models and people for your own schools and classes. Redden is just an example based on our own experiences.

One example of what we do– we started with a birthday party that then led to exploring who Redden was. [Ripley shows a picture of an enameled pin with Redden’s face on it] We used this pin at one of our programs and we handed it out. We have postcards that we passed out with a picture and brief biographical information [Ripley shows a slide of the postcard].

Now I want to talk about cross-curriculum activities. [Ripley tries to get her equipment working]. I’m sorry, the film clip isn’t working. But essentially you can use these techniques for any historical figure, not just Laura Redden Searing. We have enjoyed our time here, and we will take back what we have learned with us and get our students engaged with history.

My Commentary: This was the weakest presentation of the entire conference, unfortunately. While Ripley’s enthusiasm for the work she and Blackwell are conducting is admirable, she spends the first half of her presentation not really talking about Redden Searing or Gallaudet or Kendall Green at all. The second half is about educational techniques in getting students involved in a topic. The tie-in here is that the topic is Laura Redden Searing. This is definitely an interesting subject, and the techniques she outlines are useful, I’m sure, but would be far more appropriate at a teacher’s workshop or a CEASD convention, or a high school education conference. This forum is focusing on the history of Kendall Green, and by extension, Gallaudet, and has attracted both as presenters and audience members scholars, academics, and amateur historians. Hopefully Ripley will preserve her talk and use it in a more appropriate setting or at a different conference.

The second and final speaker in the panel “Gallaudet’s Global Influence” is Victor Vodounou. His paper will discuss “The Influence of Gallaudet on Education, Language, and Culture of Deaf People in French-Speaking West African Countries.”

Vodounou: I decided to do research on Africa and Gallaudet’s influence after I heard about this conference. I couldn’t find any direct connection, but I did find an indirect influence.

Africa’s recent history is one of colonialism, with England and France the dominant powers. These cultures and languages still remain: 23 nations in Africa are French-speaking, in addition to the local languages. Most countries formerly under French influence are non-West African nations, and are not on the old Gold or Slave Coasts.

France of course gave Clerc to the U.S., but there was no Clerc for Africa. Here in the U.S., we have some approximate statistics for the national deaf population. But in African nations, we don’t have anywhere near an exact number of deaf people, but there must be many deaf in Africa; there are large deaf families there.

Now my topic subject is the influence of Gallaudet on African deaf education. We’ll start with Dr. Andrew Foster. He is considered the “father of the deaf” in Africa. Foster was born in 1925 in Alabama. He became deaf at 11 from meningitis, and was the first black Deaf man to graduate from Gallaudet. While he was at Gallaudet, he did research and realized there were no schools for the deaf in Africa. It really bothered him, so he decided he would go to Africa and help found schools.

In 1956, Foster founded the Christian Mission for the Deaf in Michigan, and then in 1957 he established the first school for the deaf in Ghana. He founded a total of 31 schools across Africa. Foster introduced Total Communication to African children for the purpose of understanding the Bible. He also built training centers for teachers and spiritual leaders. He was deeply religious and saw education as a path to God. In 1987, he died in a plane crash in Rwanda.

Foster’s legacy was introducing sign language that was similar to ASL, primary education, deaf culture, and Christianity; this is what he left to Deaf Africa.

The languages emerged as a mix of local and American signs. For example, Nigeria has Nigerian Sign Language, but it’s still close to what was received from Foster. The schools led to the development of Deaf culture in Africa. There wasn’t much technology, and until the schools, deaf people didn’t marry because they wouldn’t have met each other. Now that’s changed and we now have deaf couples and deaf families. In the past, maybe a deaf person would be in an arranged marriage with a hearing person– a deaf wife would be with a hearing husband, and the reverse.

So Andrew Foster brought his Gallaudet experience and helped transform African Deaf society.

Q & A for this panel:

question: Were African governments convinced to help establish schools? Or was Foster truly on his own?

Vodounou: Part of the problem in Africa is war, both between nations and within countries. This even extends to regional conflict: maybe one tribe has a school, another one doesn’t, and that is part of the conflict right there.

Yes, Foster did try to garner state support. Some governments helped, while others didn’t. Foster’s wife is now very old, but she’s still working and helping in some of these schools.

I’ve gone with Foster before, to meet the head of state of a nation, and there’d be media attention about this. Deaf men meeting the leader of the nation, so this attracted attention. Usually when he asked for support, the usual answer would be that there was a lack of money, but there was always curiosity about the fact that America and other nations had schools. Foster just forged ahead and the equipment always managed to materialize so it did goad some to action.

Elizabeth Andrews: I was approached recently by a Catholic organization in Ireland looking for volunteers to go to Africa to teach the deaf but these volunteers have to be qualified. Most deaf people in Ireland are not educated and they wanted ASL users. How do you feel about the use of ASL in Deaf African education, and how do you feel about missionaries being the ones to establish education?

Vodounou: Those are good questions. When Foster came to Africa, he wanted signs to be the mode of instruction. The French came along and were shocked to see signing, so then the French government sent oralist rehabilitationists, educators, specialists, etc. Remember it was like this in France until the 1970’s.

Many volunteers came for two years. They were trained in oralism, and they taught speech and lipreading. They got hearing aids for the children, but there were only a limited number of batteries. The kids would pass the batteries around, but once batteries died, the hearing aids were no good. The aid from France was not effective. Hearing aids are and were expensive. The families paid for the molds, which they often couldn’t afford, and so on. By using sign language, you don’t have to pay.

So if you want to help Deaf people in Africa, sign is the way to go. There are very few books in general on any topic and there aren’t any African sign language materials.

My Commentary: This paper was a perfect complement to Hartig’s presentation. Again, as Vodounou acknowledged, there is and was no real direct influence from Gallaudet, but just as Hartig noted, Gallaudet graduates do have a large influence that can be international at times. This paper led to a lot of questions in my mind: what provisions were made, if any, for education in any African nation prior to independence? How did local deaf people cope during the colonial era? How did the various tribes, kingdoms, and principalities treat their deaf citizens in the era prior to European colonization? Vodounou didn’t fully answer Andrews’ questions. I’d love to know how Africans feel about ASL and ASL signs being used in their sign languages, and I think that Edwards’ final question points to a larger topic that impacts deaf education globally: the disproportionate influence of religion in deaf education. Why does a need to “know God” have to be the main reason for spreading language? Have we moved beyond that, or are we still stuck in that cycle? Look at the number of interpreters who start as church interpreters, or claim they know signs based on their interpreting at church services. It’s definitely a topic for examination, in my opinion. As for African nations, is religion still a motivating factor in establishing schools and services?

We’ve just finished the previous panel, and according to the schedule, we’re supposed to have a break. But Brian Greenwald is on stage, and is making an announcement. Greenwald says that yet again, we’re a bit behind schedule, so there’s no break now– we’re going straight to the next panel, and then we’ll break.

This next panel is titled, “Gallaudet’s Global Influence,” and Doug Bahl is on stage to introduce the first speaker. He is going to introduce Rachel Hartig. Bahl mentions he’s the current president of Deaf History International (DHI), encourages people to contact Lois Bragg if they’re interested in DHI, and also to look at the complimentary copy of the newsletter in their conference packets as well.

Hartig’s paper is “The French Connection: Gallaudet’s Influence on Emmanuelle Laborit and the French Hearing and Deaf Communities.” She says that while she will speak about Laborit, the title doesn’t mean we’re going to hear some secret about Gene Hackman and deafness.

Hartig: This presentation will trace the influence Gallaudet had on the life and career of Emmanuelle Laborit and how this influence spread and impacted the French hearing and deaf communities. We will explore this topic by using Laborit’s memoir, “The Cry of the Gull,” in addition to my own work.

What was wrong with Laborit as a child? She didn’t form words; instead she let out screams, which reflected her desire to speak. Her parents gave her the nickname “Mouette,” which means “gull” in French. People thought she was delusional, not deaf, but she continued to only make noises. Finally an uncle realized that maybe it was deafness. When Laborit was nine months old, the doctors made the final diagnosis — yes, she was deaf. Laborit described in her memoir the “chaos in my head;” this was a description of her childhood. For her, there was no temporal sense or ability to place things in the abstract.

For Laborit and her family, there was no shared language. Her parents sought counsel, and were told not to use sign language. Instead, their daughter should have speech therapy and a hearing aid. As a child, Laborit lacked an identity and language; she felt isolated and marooned. She was terrified of the night and any parental absences. But once she was exposed at age 7 to sign, the family finally could forge relationships with each other.

In France, thanks to the Milan conference, the use of signs was banned until the 1970’s. But Dr. Laborit, Emmanuelle’s father, heard a radio interview with a deaf American theater director, Alfredo Corrado. Corrado mentioned the International Visual Theater (IVT), just outside of Paris, and also mentioned that he went to Gallaudet, where he graduated in 1970.

Dr. Laborit was amazed; he now knew that deaf people could earn a college degree and succeed. He felt cheated by the professionals the family had seen in France. He went with Emmanuelle to Vicennes, where they met Corrado and his interpreter, Bill Moody. Emmanuelle couldn’t tell who was hearing and who was deaf, but she was transfixed by signs. Corrado was the first deaf adult she knew, and this was a sea change for her.

She received her sign name while interacting with Corrado [Hartig demonstrates]: a sun coming from the heart. Now she had two different identities: Her given name, Emmanuelle, and her sign name, representing different aspects of her. She now had the ability to communicate and she found expression through theater. Her first play was based on her subway travels to Vicennes, an hour and a half journey to socialize with deaf people at IVT.

At the invitation of Bernard Mottez, Harry Markowicz came in 1976 to study LSF. The two men then facilitated trips for American professionals, most from Gallaudet, to come to France. People like Gil Eastman, Carol Padden, and Tom Humphries went. These were learning vacations for professionals and academics; this was one of the major affiliations between Gallaudet and France.

Laborit also made a trip– this was to the United States. This first trip was in 1979, and was an awakening. In France, signing in public was still considered shameful, so to then come and see Gallaudet was a revelation. Now Laborit not only had a personal identity, but a collective identity based on her trip. After this trip, her father, who was a psychiatrist, decided to work with only deaf people. He began an outpatient center that used only signs. Other adults that came on the trip were inspired to start to make changes in France, including more support for LSF.

Laborit blossomed as she grew up, and she was cast in the French adaptation of “Children of a Lesser God,” and won a Moliere award [similar to the American Tony award] for it. She was transformed by the experience, and she went on to a successful career in theater and film.

The mission of IVT is not just to support and nurture Deaf actors and to introduce Deaf culture, but also to introduce and sustain sign language in France. Laborit now leads the IVT and through her acting, directing and vision for IVT, she is trying to raise the public consciousness about LSF and promoting the use of LSF. Corrado was a Gallaudet graduate, and he influenced Laborit; her own trip to Gallaudet sparked changes. This means Gallaudet influenced her development.

My Commentary: This was an interesting presentation, but didn’t fully fit the scope of the conference or what I was expecting. It wasn’t so much an academic or historical paper; it was more an exploration of Gallaudet’s impact on the global Deaf community. But in this sense, it did fit the conference: One of the words in the conference title is “celebrating,” and this paper certainly celebrates the accomplishments of Gallaudet worldwide. At a time when Gallaudet is facing more than its share of changes, it’s good to be reminded that Gallaudet has an influence far beyond its physical boundaries, or even the United States. This is the type of paper I probably would have expected at a gathering such as Deaf Way, but it was still enjoyable nevertheless.

We are now going to hear the final speaker from the panel “Interpreting Deaf History.” William Ennis again takes the stage to introduce Douglas Baynton, whose paper is titled “The Intersection of Deaf Education and Immigration Policy.”

Baynton: My research lately has been largely on immigration, and I’ve found stories of deaf people that came to the U.S., and I want to share some of that with you today. During the 1880’s, the country experienced increased immigration, and immigration policies were unrestricted. But by the 1890’s, Congress began imposing limits, and this increased and changed over the years. It started with the Chinese, who were seen as unassimilable. The second group to face restrictions were those with mental defects, then the third group was a bit ambiguous; those who were “likely to become public charges.” These were people the government felt would become dependent on welfare. This group included children and women on their own, unless they were independently wealthy. There was also a third category within this broad classification; those with physical defects, which included the deaf.

People who found themselves in this vague division had to prove self-support– it was difficult to overcome that notion, plus whatever language barrier existed. For hearing people, they had interpreters skilled in a varied number of languages at Ellis Island, but for the deaf, there weren’t any interpreters, and they had to depend on hearing family members. So officials focused on those hearing people and ignored the deaf. Thus it happened that hearing children were asked about deaf parents, and they were questioned about how their parents worked, how their parents could support themselves, so they had to represent their parents plus overcoming attitudes about deaf people. So to overcome all that was tremendous.

The first story I want to share today is from 1906, about a man named Frederick Baglow. He was from England, he was 35, he was working for the British Deaf Times, and was working as a writer. He had money for his travels, and also had a letter from the British Deaf Times verifying his employment. He explained to the immigration officials that he was entering the country for work purposes, but to them he was an “likely public charge,”[LPC], and was thus denied entry. The immigration officers saw him not as a professional or a writer, but only as a deaf person. Now, if you were denied admission, you could appeal the decision in writing, but many deaf people couldn’t do that, so they just left and returned to where they came from.

However, Baglow decided to appeal. He wrote a letter to the commissioner, and the commissioner responded in his report that this man could speak, he had good English and he had good penmanship — this last is rather strange, but apparently the commissioner felt it was important. He also noted that Baglow was well-dressed, and a “gentleman,” so Baglow gained approval to enter the U.S.

Another story, this time from 1912, is about Charles McHardy, who was from Scotland. He was a tradesman, a 25 year old stonecutter, and you could earn good money at that time doing that work. What I found interesting in the files was that McHardy was trying to present himself as an independent businessman. But the immigration officials viewed him differently. First he was asked if he had relatives in the country, and he did say he had two brothers in Canada. They then suggested he go to Canada instead. He disagreed and said there were better opportunities in the U.S. Then they asked about his parents. McHardy said his parents were in Scotland. He tried to sidestep these questions and showed his union card to demonstrate his independence.

But the immigration officials persisted, and asked who would support him. He said friends encouraged him to come to America, and showed them letters saying that there was work for him in the United States. Finally the officials asked if he could prove why he should be allowed into the country. McHardy said, “Because I can work and I am a man.”

Obviously, he was trying to demonstrate he wasn’t akin to a child, but an adult. But officials still felt he was a “LPC” and deported him. Like Baglow, he also appealed his case, and the interview notes reflect a similar perspective as the initial encounter — he had good command of English, he was literate, he couldn’t speak, but he dressed well. So then they sent a letter to the stonecutter’s union asking if a deaf person could work in that job. The response stated that yes, they were better than their hearing peers because they were not easily distracted, there were no side conversations during work hours, and they were generally good at what they did. Many employers in Scotland preferred hiring deaf stonecutters. So finally McHardy was allowed in.

One more story: in 1913, a man named Moische Fischmann who was a Russian Jew, in his thirties. He was a blacksmith working with iron, and had worked in Russia with no problem for 16 years. But the pogroms of this era gave impetus for his departure. He fled to England, which is what many Russian Jews did. But then he decided to go to New York City, where he had family.

Upon his arrival at Ellis Island, the immigration board interviewed him, and he talked about his level of skill in his work, and his cousin brought two letters which verified job offers for him– these letters said there weren’t enough ironworkers in New York City. They wanted to hire him at $12 a week, which was very good pay at that time. But still the board labeled him as “LPC,” and denied him entry. Fischmann also appealed this decision, but his lack of English skills or speaking abilities led to his deportation.

The first two stories are exceptions to the rule; most had to go back to where they came from. Most of the time, we don’t know what happens to deported people. It’s very frustrating as a historian, because the only evidence we have about these people is the fact that they tried to come to this country.

Fischmann decided to try Belgium instead, but the following year, World War I started, and the Germans eventually went through Belgium, so Fischmann returned to England. He found work there, and met a philanthropist who was also a war refugee. This person said he would help Fischmann try again for New York and the U.S.

Luckily he found a ship in the middle of wartime that was going to the U.S. But upon arrival, the same thing happened again. He was interviewed again, and the same response: despite having relatives in New York City, he was deported because of the same reason — he couldn’t speak, etc. But then at the last minute, the immigration officials decided they couldn’t ship people back to Europe, because maritime travel had become too dangerous thanks to U-boat convoys. So instead, they imprisoned those with mental problems, but allowed other disabled people to finally leave Ellis Island.

So we have Baglow, who was highly educated and a professional; McHardy was sort of on the border because of his blue collar status. McHardy had to post a bond, and bonds could be anywhere from $500 to $1000, which was a huge sum back then [$500 in 1912 dollars, using the Consumer Price Index as a factor, is roughly $10,400 in 2006 dollars; $1000 would be approximately $20,800]. McHardy didn’t want to have to post bond, but finally realized it was necessary, so he posted bond with the aid of friends. Finally, we have Fischmann, who was deported due to his lack of English skills, in addition to everything else. It didn’t help that oralism was then at its peak. Oralism, combined with eugenics, social Darwinism, and a backlash against differences in general, made it difficult for immigrants with disabilities, such as the deaf, to gain entry to the U.S.

My Commentary: This was a very interesting presentation, and sheds light on another aspect of Deaf history. Obviously finding documentation may be very difficult, but I wonder what immigration officials did with deaf immigrants in the days prior to Ellis Island, when people arrived at Castle Garden? I’m also curious as to what happened to Deaf people after 1924, when the U.S. set up the quota system. Another avenue for further research could be tracking some of these immigrants, and then seeing if their descendants have letters or other documentation. This would be time-consuming, but might pay off in the end. Additionally, I think this presentation points to the need to research the history of deaf people in other countries. Baynton talked about Scots stonecutters preferring to hire deaf employees– this is a fascinating fact, and points to the possibility of finding additional information somewhere.

The next speaker in this particular panel is Joe Murray. His paper is titled, “Gallaudet College and American Deaf Citizenship in the Progressive Era.”

I’m going to present today on American citizenship during the Progressive era. I’ll be examining this through the prism of Gallaudet. My research focused on the annual reports from approximately 1870 to the early 1900’s.

Last year, at graduation and other end of year ceremonies, which dignitaries were present? Did the campus play host to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Chief Justice Roberts, and others? No– we had our honored guests, but none of these people from government and politics came. But when you look at reports from the late Victorian era, dignitaries were often on campus, ranging from Presidents, Congressmen, Vice-Presidents, Supreme Court justices, members of the diplomatic corps, and so on.

Why did all these people come to campus back then during Presentation Day and other important occasions? One obvious reason was Edward Miner Gallaudet. He was an important figure in the D.C. of that era. His social status, his position as president of the school, and his political interactions contributed to a number of intimate working relationships with the movers and shakers of the time. Additionally, D.C. was a much smaller city back then. There weren’t as many social events or demands on time as there are today.

These are somewhat obvious reasons for the appearance of national figures and local dignitaries. But another reason I think people came was because during this era there was a different social consensus about freedom and democracy and what they meant. So I’m going to talk about how hearing people and deaf people viewed Gallaudet College during this time– sometimes these ideas conflicted, sometimes not.The first concept is nationalism. This is a expanding concept– at that time, as the U.S. expanded its reaches, we were viewed as a more progressive and idealistic nation. Back then, the government funded West Point, Annapolis, and Gallaudet. Two of these three schools are for military purposes; that shows our view of ourselves and what we valued– we valued citizenship and nationalism.

Now, to discuss democratic ideals. Education was a means of incorporating deaf people into American democracy. James A. Garfield pointed this out: “Education elevates deaf people from irresponsible persons to assume the full responsibility of citizenship.”(1870) This means if you don’t have an education, then you can’t understand the world and the legal rights needed to understand your role as a responsible citizen. These concepts formed an educational foundation which Gallaudet undertook as part of its civic responsibilities.

By funding education for future intelligent citizens and taxpayers, congressional appropriations for Gallaudet was considered an act of “enlightened selfishness.” (Garfield said this) The rise of the deaf middle class at this time and their accomplishments were a “vindication” of government sponsorship. Through training educators and then staffing the schools, a cycle emerged that began to perpetuate educated deaf citizens.Deaf people from this time shared similar views: one graduate stated that the establishment of a college for the deaf during the Civil War showed agreement on education for the deaf as a common goal for the nation.

Now, I call this co-equality– I came up with this concept after conducting my research. The deaf were a part of society: we paid taxes, we worked, we contribited our ideas, but at the same time, we had our own “deaf space.” We integrated, then we returned “home.”I’ll give you an example: upon President Garfield’s death, one presenter during a campus ceremony shortly after the assassination commented on the patriotic feelings and the unity in the wake of the President’s death. Our responsibilities were as citizens of the nation.

But by the 1890s there was a shift: the “othering” of deaf people. There was still a sense of the need to become good citizens, yes — but now the rationale shifted.

This all brings us forward to the present day. Are we assimilating? How are we citizens? What do we convey to society about who we are as deaf and what we can offer? That’s the question I’m leaving to you to answer.

My Commentary: This was a good synthesis of Deaf history and general American history, and Murray’s questions at the end are questions that should concern us all, not just those of us in attendance at the conference. I’d like to add my own question: if education today is less about citizenship and more about preparing oneself for the competitive working world and global commerce, what role do we as Deaf people have in that– what can we contribute?

I do wonder what private letters, NAD correspondence, articles in the “Little Paper Family,” and other papers aside from the Gallaudet annual reports say about how the Deaf community was viewed and how it viewed itself as part of American society. I also wish there had been more time, so Murray could have delved further into how the concept of Deaf people as the “others” changed public and private perceptions. I believe this paper is derived from Murray’s dissertation research, so it is possible we’ll see a fuller, more expanded version that will shed light on the late 19th century beyond the confines of Gallaudet’s campus.

We all adjourned for lunch after the panel session this morning, and now we’re back in the auditorium for the final afternoon of papers and presentations. This afternoon we have three panels, and several presentations within. The first panel is “Interpreting Deaf History.” But before we are treated to the papers and presenters themselves, Brian Greenwald takes the stage to make a few announcements.

Greenwald: I am the chair of this conference, but I didn’t do this all alone. I have some people to thank. I want to first thank the committee members, starting with David Armstrong [As Greenwald mentions each individual, those that are present in the auditorium rise to be recognized]. Also Senda Benaissa, and William Ennis. Now Gene Mirus. Joe Murray, and Nichole Sutliffe from the Clerc Center, thank you. I’d also like to thank John Van Cleve. I also had help from graduate students here at Gallaudet; two who helped me significantly are Leah Abshire and Sylvia Solyer. If the two of you could stand to be recognized. Now, if all the grad assistants who have worked with us on this could rise and be acknowledged. I also want to thank Wendy Grande, of course, for her significant contributions. Thank you [audience applause].

We are now going to start the afternoon panels. William Ennis will be introducing the speakers for this particular set.

Ennis: I’m in the history department here at Gallaudet as a Presidential Fellow. I’m going to introduce the presenters from the next panel. First there’s Ulf Hedberg, and most of you who do any research know Ulf, so i almost don’t need to introduce him [This is definitely the case! Anyone who’s done any research on anything related to Gallaudet or Deaf history based on materials in the archives in the last fifteen or so years owes a debt to Ulf Hedberg and Michael Olson and their assistants].

I also want to introduce Harlan Lane [Ennis expounds briefly on Lane’s background and accomplishments]. Now I’m going to introduce a good friend and colleague, Joe Murray, who is currently working in Norway; now I’d like to introduce my advisor from the University of Iowa, Douglas Baynton. Our first speaker in this particular panel is Lane.

Lane is presenting today on Deaf lives in Maine; this topic is also co-presented by Richard Pillard and Ulf Hedberg, although Lane will be delivering the paper on his own. Their presentation is titled, “Deaf Lives in Maine 150 Years Ago: The Campbells.”

Lane: Coming back to Gallaudet makes me feel like I’m home among friends. Identity is both personal and social, so everyone has two kinds of ancestors, personal and cultural. I’m now going to talk about the cultural ancestors of the Deaf-world. When we research individuals, we want to know how they interacted, how they met, married, had children, and so on. So we need to explore all possible resources to find every little bit we can about them.

For some of you, these are your direct ancestors, thanks to hereditary genetic deafness. We’ve explored other early Deaf families in New England, such as the Browns of New Hampshire, the Smiths and others in Massachusetts, and the Rowe and Curtis families in Maine. Today we’d like to present an excerpt from the genealogy of the Curtis family.

The Curtises intermarried with the Rowes. My next slide shows the affiliated families with the Curtis and Rowe families– thanks to intermarriage or parenthood, they are all interconnected [Lane is showing a PowerPoint presentation that contains a number of family trees, and he uses a laser pointer to indicate who he’s talking about at that point in his talk].

As we can see here, second marriages also expanded the network. For example, George Riggs’ marriage to Margaret Chandler also linked the Campbell and Riggs families. George Riggs father was obviously a Riggs, while Margaret’s mother is a Campbell.

Such secondary linkages means there’s a extended network of family ties and socialization.

Now, we’ll discuss the Rowe family. The Rowes lived in New Gloucester, Maine, and the Curtis family was in Leeds, 24 miles away. It’s a long distance on foot, but both locations are near the Androscoggin River. Now, you have the Campbells, who were in Bowdoin, Maine, near the Kennebec River, which is 18 miles the from Curtises and Rowes.

Several of these marriages in the Campbell family were mentioned in the Deaf “national press” in the 1860’s, because they married into large, multi-generational Deaf families. 25 letters from this particular family have been preserved, so through these letters we know a bit about the Campbell family. Most of the letters referenced health issues– in an era when distant communication was not as casual or instantaneous as today, letters could be very important.

All the deaf Campbells married other deaf people, while all the hearing Campbells married hearing people. A big factor in this is shared language, of course. So these letters mentioned health and work, but also familial relationships. The letters demonstrate a good command of English that reflects well on Deaf education in that time and place. There are occasional errors, but this is true of hearing family members as well. These letters and communications afford us a glimpse of Deaf family life of the time.

My commentary: This presentation was interesting to see/hear in person, but a bit difficult to summarize for the blog, because the PowerPoint had a lot of genealogical charts and information that is relevant to the paper/presentation. As an amateur genealogist, I appreciated the approach Lane, Pillard, and Hedberg took, since examining the personal life often can lead to larger connections within both Deaf history and general U.S. history. My only regret with this presentation is that much of it focused on the genealogy and background of the families, and not as much on what it all means today, or what it meant back then. Hopefully these three men will continue their work and present it again in a forum where the entirety of their research can be examined and analyzed beyond the rudimentary framework of genealogy.

Gene Mirus is moderating this panel on “Through Deaf Eyes” this morning. While most of us have seen it (and a number that didn’t, or wanted to see it again, saw it last night in the auditorium here at GUKCC), it’ll be interesting to see what an academically-oriented panel has to say. Additionally, Larry Hott, the producer/director of the film, is with us today. The panelists are Larry Hott, Producer/Director, Florentine Films/Hott Productions; Sara Robinson, Ph.D. student, History, Ohio State University; Glenn Anderson, Professor, Rehabilitation, Human Resources and Communication Disorders, University of Arkansas; and Sam Supalla, Associate Professor, Sign Language/Deaf Studies, University of Arizona.

Mirus: It’s an exciting program and we have this panel of distinguished individuals here with us this morning. I’m going to quickly introduce each one, and then we’ll get started.

As with any good film, you can’t include everything. People have commented, “Oh, it didn’t have this, it didn’t have that.” You can’t really satisfy everyone. So now we have the opportunity for each of our panelists to give their own critique of the film and offer perspective.

Some have argued that the Deaf need to know their own history, that some don’t know about their own history.

Some argue we have a hearing filmmaker, where are our deaf filmmakers? Yes we have some, but not enough. Where is Gallaudet in all of this? They are not training or growing their own filmmakers — why not? [audience applause]

O.K., I’d like to start. We’ll begin with Larry Hott.

Larry Hott. there are some people here in the audience that I’ve worked with closely over the last five years. One is Jean Bergey, the other is Karen Kenton; if there’s anything in the movie you don’t like, blame them. [audience laughter] If you liked the film, then you can give credit to me and to our Deaf advisor, Harry Lang.

When I got the call for this film, I said I’m very interested– and yes, these issues can be a hornet’s nest. Yes, I’m a filmmaker, but I don’t need the politics.

They really needed someone at the start with a national track record to ensure this whole project gets on television.

I at first objected to doing the project, because it’s “through deaf eyes;” I don’t have deaf eyes. But we ended up with about twenty deaf advisors, which was great. But we needed someone on the team itself, so we brought in Harry Lang. There were still some objections, or concerns. Well, what about a co-producer or filmmaker who is deaf? The solution was to have deaf filmmakers contribute their own short films and segments, which would then be “through deaf eyes,” so that’s why you see six deaf filmmakers’ work represented here.

I think by being an outsider I brought some perspective to the entire project. We had to clarify and simplify the stories, so the job of filmmaker is to do triage when editing comes around. We had an hour and 45 minutes, and to boil it all down to that out of everything we did… How do we hold the interests of two different communities, the deaf and the hearing?

We told the deaf filmmakers to do what they wanted, as long as they didn’t duplicate the others, so they then formulated ideas, sent them in, and in the end, no one’s vision overlapped anyone else’s.

These [Deaf] filmmakers mentioned the trouble of getting their work funded. My response was, I don’t do the technical stuff- I’m the producer and director. My job is to find people to take care of all these other tasks. The key word here is collaboration: you need to find people to work with and don’t fall into the trap of only doing works from your own experience– do films on anything! So I recommend to deaf filmmakers and others, it’s all a matter of resources and collaboration.

I saw numerous blogs and vlogs, and many critiqued the film for not having this or that, so I think a good question here is, what did you come to the film with? Do you see only what you want to see and disregard the rest, or were you able to put aside whatever prejudices you had and see what the film had to offer?

Glenn Anderson: I want to thank Brian Greenwald for inviting me back to participate in the 150th anniversary of Kendall Green.

I’ve done a lot, taught, researched, wrote, presented, and now I’m a film critic– a new role for me. [audience laughter] I’m eager to try doing this new role. In thinking about the film, I saw the website, and it had a discussion guide with six questions, so I structured today’s remarks around these six.

the first is in terms of the film; I think it was a great accomplishment. It ’s the first film we’ve seen on national TV during prime time and that means it had access to many many people across the U.S. The only thing is, we had to wait until the 21st century for this. I hope this is just the beginning for many opportunities to see our story on national TV during prime time. I hope that next time it’s made by deaf filmmmakers.

The next three questions, I’m going to answer together: what did you learn about Deaf culture; what did you learn about Deaf history; and describe something in the film that related to your own experience.

The film represented many things. They had to boil down 200 years to 2 hours, which wasn’t easy, I think. I thought the variety of viewpoints represented was good, but it is not an easy task to pull them together. The closing comments by CJ Jones, that it’s so important that your character and intellect are more important than your ability to hear… many things from the film may fade, but I’m going to remember CJ’s final words that despite deafness, there is much he can do.

Oh, all these people, regardless of background and education, talked about the challenges of using the phone and I could relate to that. I often had to ask my mother if she would call for me, and I remember moving to Detroit early in my career and one of my co-workers, whose mother had a best friend that offered me a place to stay. It was a spare room in a house and she was older, she worked for the Detroit newspapers. At the time, I was single, so she put my infomation in the singles network in the paper, and so girls would call the house and I couldn’t use the phone, and so the lady who lived there would answer these calls. The girls would then hang up, and so I lost many opportunities for dates because of that. [audience laughter]

Ben Bahan talked about his dad. That anecdote hit me. I remember when i was a child in Chicago, all the teachers I had were hearing. We couldn’t sign. It was an oral school, but on the trip to school we all signed, and we had name signs and knew the differences between “right” and “wrong” signs. Later at the University of Arkansas, I saw Sam Supalla’s book on name signs. I read it and realized we were following the cultural rules for naming conventions even though we were just little kids.

The film reinforced things I already knew, but Carolyn’s [Carolyn McCaskill] stories were important– we don’t have enough narratives or information about the black Deaf experience. Now, what’s missing in the film? Not enough stories about deaf people of color– Andrew Foster, for example; we do need to include that, and we also need to include information on deaf sport and the Deaflympics.

Sara Robinson: I’m a historian, so I will speak just from historical content and analysis, and I’ll leave culture, language, and educational issues and concerns to those experts.

I think Hott did a great job with so much material and so little time. One of the great features was the fact that it represented Deaf history in the overall context of U.S. history such as nativism, eugenics, and civil rights. Too often, people treat Deaf history as an isolated discipline, and they don’t place it in context, so i think it’s important to understand the linkage between deaf and general history. For example, eugenics as a whole was aimed at immigrants, not just the Deaf.

But I think they needed to touch more on the conflicts and inequities within the community, such as the black Deaf experience. What we saw was mostly about the white Deaf experience; where are the Native Americans, etc.? I understand there was a trade-off here; there also wasn’t much on deaf women’s history, for instance. Also, the deaf women’s experience was not exactly parallel to hearing women’s experience. Some of these things were in the film, but many were not. A lot of this relates to control over the history and the story — who’s telling the history?

Race, class, and gender are important factors, but they weren’t there — this film was from the perspective of the Northwestern European white male: if you’re not in this narrow category, how can you fully relate to the film, and what does that sense of relation say about your deaf identity?

Sam Supalla: I’m in the film, and I’m honored to be part of it. The film was made before the 2006 protests, so that part was not included.

The overriding theme that we saw, and what impacted my thinking was, “There’s not one sole way to be deaf.” I disagree that that’s the best message I got from that film.

Three points I want to make today. There was an question, a formula, it kind of threw me, but you may know this story. My mother was oral deaf, my father was signing deaf… we’re talking about being equal, we’re talking about signing communities. I want us to be viewed as equal with the larger American Deaf society, not just equal with oral deaf people.

Signed and spoken languages are both human languages, so the concept of inequality means I’m not human. What we want and need is to have our language seen as powerful and on par with other languages; that was missing from the film.

We see Gallaudet as a bastion of signs, a fortress, but now it’s imploding from the inside. We may have an intuition about things, but we need to articulate it. Literacy and language are important elements, and the film made it seem like there’s a truce here, when that’s not necessarily the reality.

Hott: Our intention was to make a history film, with some elements of culture, not the reverse. So the emphasis was on Deaf history. Our intent was to include universal experiences whenever we could. I’ll give an example — there was a lot of pressure to include the Deaf experience during WWII. Thousands went to Ohio to work in the tire factories. We looked at that, and really, it was the same story as the women going to factories. So how is this different from the American Experience? So we decided not to include it. We wanted stuff that would showcase the Deaf experience as different and unique in its own way.

The Bahan narrative was an example. We didn’t show it to say that ASL is the equivalent of English or a counterpoint, but that the recognition by the child of their own prejudices, the experience of being told over and over again you’re not good enough… we did focus quite a bit on ASL — we told the story of Stokoe, and then there was ASL as part of the cinematic narrative.

As far as the recent protests, PBS told us to put a disclaimer in for broadcast, but we would probably have not included the 2006 protests anyway. This is not a topical film, but a film about the history of a community. We’re too close in time right now; there would be 100 different perspectives on last year. At some future point perhaps, when it’s not too fresh, it’s not a wound. If we had put it in, then no matter what we did, we would have gotten it wrong. So this is definitely for a future film.

My Commentary: I’m not going to add a whole lot here– there’s already been a ton of discussion on “Through Deaf Eyes” in the blogosphere; this is merely a more formal assessment. One good aspect is we’re now hearing from the producer/director, Larry Hott, so we’re finally hearing a little bit more about the “inside” of it all– why they did the film this way, why they made some of the choices they did, etc. I agree with Hott that any aspiring deaf filmmaker shouldn’t necessarily limit themselves to Deaf-oriented stories. While that’s nice and satisfying for an internal audience of Deaf people, commercial viability will only come with a more universal tale. Once commercial success is achieved, then that filmmaker or filmmakers can then go back and do a Deaf-themed story on their own terms. Occasionally you have exceptions to the rule, but they are usually with works that hearing people are already familar with, such as “Children of a Lesser God,” and have larger, overarching themes that deal with elements of being human.

I do disagree with Hott about the decision to leave out the history of Deaf people during World War II– while there may have not been a whole lot of difference between what the deaf were doing and what women were doing, it still ended up creating a large, economically self-sufficient pool of deaf people who enjoyed a better standard of living than their older peers did just a decade earlier. It also led to strong communities being set up within established cities that impacted the region for quite some time thereafter. But again, as many have said, you’re trying to cram 200 years into 2 hours– it’s a difficult task. For my personal take on the show, go here.  For some examples of the “best of the best,” go here.

The last presenter in the panel on religion, Meredith Filiatreault, isn’t with us today, so Brian Greenwald and the committee chairs have rearranged the schedule and offered the slot to Gallaudet Archives employee Michael Olson, whose presentation yesterday was aborted due to the power outage. So today’s final speaker will be Olson. Roberto Sanchez quickly introduces Michael Olson, who will be presenting today as part of the panel on “Politics at Gallaudet University.” Olson’s contribution to the panel is “The Thomas H. Gallaudet and Alice Cogswell Statue: Controversies and Celebrations.”

I’d like to start by sharing that this is information I didn’t know until I conducted the research. It’s been a lot of work, but it’s also been very rewarding. It’s a statue that many of us have seen. Some of us see it every day when we come to work. But when it was first erected,it was not called the Gallaudet statue, it was called the “Gallaudet Memorial Group.” It was placed on campus in 1889.

I will talk today about the early history of this sculpture from 1883 to 1889. I will also share information about some of the
statue committee’s discussions, the fundraising, and the people who were involved.

In 1883, the NAD had their second convention in New York City.One of the resolutions was offered by C.K.W.Strong, who recommended that in honor of the approaching centennial of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet’s birth, a bronze sculpture be commissioned and placed in the Washington, D.C. area, preferably on Kendall Green. The motion carrried, and the NAD selected fifteen people to serve on a committee to plan this undertaking.However, it was not long before problems developed.

The first controversy centered around the planned location. Lars Larson, a member of the class of 1882, objected to the proposed site. He argued that Hartford would be more logical, since Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet had helped establish the American School for th Deaf, and really had nothing to do with Kendall Green or the National Deaf-Mute College. Larson supported the statue, but he just didn’t agree with its planned location. Others disagreed with Larson’s thoughts, and noted that D.C. was the nation’s capitol, and that many visitors came to the city. When these visitors made their way to Kendall Green, the statue would be there. This battle lasted about a month, and then the controversy ended.

The Gallaudet Centennial Committee was composed of eighteen members,with Theodore A. Froehlich of New York City as the chair. Initially,they were able to raise about $2,500 towards this effort. Initially, they estimated that this would be close to the final cost. The committee treasurer was William Weeks, who was a graduate of the Maryland School for the Deaf.

I examined the records of contributors, and I saw that many people were solicited nationwide for sponsorship and donations. Some gave five cents, which was a lot of money back then for some people. But there was slowness in raising the money, and Lewis A. Palmer, a member of the class of 1884, was concerned it was not enough.  He noted that the funds that paid for the James A.Garfield bust that was installed in Chapel Hall came in quickly, and opined that perhaps this was happening because the nation still in mourning. By comparison,the fundraising for the Gallaudet Memorial Group was slow. The noted sculptor Daniel Chester French was commissioned to do the bust of Garfield; and Garfield’s last public speech had taken place at College Hall. Taken together, these facts spurred public fiscal support for the bust of Garfield. Palmer felt that the distance in time from Gallaudet’s death, which was in 1851, meant there was no sense of urgency and it wasn’t fresh in people’s minds.

The Pennsylvania Society of the Deaf helped Pennsylvania to be the first state to assume responsibility in helping to meet funding goals. They made special memorial cards with a portrait of T.H. Gallaudet in the center, and the manual alphabet was depicted on the card’s border. The society had to reprint the card several times, due to their popularity.

The next problem surfaced when William Weeks resigned as treasurer in the midst of complaints about his fundraising skills — in two month’s time, Weeks had only collected a total of $4.25 [audience laughter]. His replacement was mathematics professor Amos G. Draper, who assumed responsibility for fundraising. Draper placed an item in The Deaf Mute’s Journal, a weekly publication for the deaf, and he would report on all the results of each state’s contributions.

From 1883 to 1885 under Weeks, money was slow in coming. When Draper took over in 1885, within two months’ time, he collected over $500 – this was compared with $100 in the previous two years. The fresh blood in leadership apparently spurred donations.

But a new controversy emerged, this time around Draper. In New York,the Brooklyn Society of the Deaf called attention to the fact that Draper hadn’t been a member of the NAD in 1883, and had not paid his dues when the motion was passed to create the committee.

Angie Fuller Fischer, a Deaf poetess and advocate, came to Draper’s defense and pointed out that he had just assumed the reins as treasurer and he needed to be given the time to do the job before any criticism was warranted. Her efforts on his behalf mollified the community, and objections over his status with the NAD faded.

By 1886, The Deaf Mute’s Journal published an item stating that Daniel Chester French had been commissioned to do the statue. There is no evidence that I can find that shows how or exactly when French was hired for the job. The committee that was responsible to hire a sculptor consisted of five members: Amos G. Draper,D.W. George, E. Hodgson, the Reverend Job Turner, and Theodore Froehlich.

But in Edward Miner Gallaudet’s diary entry for February24,1887, Gallaudet wrote that he traveled to NYC to meet with Froehlich, and mentions “…looking forward to giving Mr. French a commission in the coming spring.”

I’m not sure if this meant French was already on board, or simply in the forefront of people’s minds. There was a call in various deaf publications for artists to submit designs for the memorial; for example, an announcement in The Deaf Mute’s Journal on April 14, 1887, encouraged the submission of designs.

Just a matter of days later, Gallaudet’s diary entry for April 22,1887 stated, “…the deaf are up in arms because the committee does not give more time to have models prepared by deaf-mute artists.”Just weeks later, on May 3, 1887,the commission committee came to Kendall Green to assess models and designs. Gallaudet’s diary for that day notes that French was offered the commission. The controversy that erupted as a result was about appointing French, a hearing man, over a deaf artist. French was well known at the time and thereafter; he did the Minuteman statue in Concord, Massachusetts, and later did the Lincoln Memorial statue in Washington, D.C.

As far as Deaf artists are concerned, we know that Albert Ballin and J.F.J. Tresch submitted designs. It is not known if Douglas Tilden participated in the competition, and there is no real information about any other deaf artists submitting entries.Committee member Reverend Job Turner said that the committee wished to select a deaf artist, but that they couldn’t find anyone they liked.Turner did say that if they could find someone as good as French, the committee would have offered that person the job. I also feel the committee was frightened to give so much money to an unknown. So that’sprobably part of why French was chosen.

On May 5, 1887, the public announcement was made regarding French’s commission. French was in Paris at the time.  He was notified about his appointment. At the same time,he was aware of the fact that Deaf people in America were protesting the decision.  French remained silent on the issue, and it helped he was abroad.

Another controversy emerged, again in the NYC area. There was a mass protest by deaf people, who wanted to an open process where they could start again and possibly select a deaf artist. However this protest didn’t amount to anything.

French said he accepted to do the work for $10,000. He originally wanted $14,000, but he agreed to lower the price to support Gallaudet; his uncle, Benjamin French, served on the Board of Trustees from 1865 to 1869, so this relationship was probably one of the reasons for the cost reduction.

Gallaudet had an argument with Ballin on June 2, 1887. Ballin wanted to open the process again and submit his design, and also wanted to see Chester’s model of the sculpture. Tresch wrote an angry letter to Draper, asking him to reconsider the decision. When Draper declined to do so, Tresch again wrote to Draper, and accused him by calling French a “pet friend of yours and Gallaudet.”

French made his models of the Gallaudet Memorial Group in NYC. The model went through several revisions until reaching the final stage, probably about August of 1887. Gallaudet and the committee went to New York City to see the work, and were impressed with what they saw. However, the statue would not be ready in time for the NAD conference. It was finally completed in 1889.

NAD member C.K.W. Strong felt a pedestal should be built, with the bill paid by the federal government, because initially it was assumed that the statue and pedestal came together. But French was only providing the statue, and thus there was no base. But Gallaudet said any pedestal couldn’t be paid for by government funds. However, others disagreed,and argued that many memorials in D.C. were paid for by the government, and also reminded people that Kendall Green was government property.Therefore it wasn’t inconsistent for the government to pay for the base or a pedestal. This controversy went on for 14 months.

Finally, the committee asked French to do a base for the statue for$1,200. As far as the statue’s design, French probably copied it from a carved bas-relief done by John Carlin that shows Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet with his pupils. This bas-relief is now at ASD, in Hartford.I think French chose to recreate this largely based on the positioning [points to slide of bas-relief] - Gallaudet is seen here with a child. So French just did a variation of this for his commission.

The NAD conference was scheduled for June of 1889, and this would be the time of the unveiling. Ground-breaking at the statue’s site took place in May, 1889. The base was engraved by a Deaf artist from New York, William Caldecott, who graduated from Fanwood. When I found this out, I hadn’t realized the base was engraved by a deaf sculptor. The stone base was put in place on June 24, just two days before the convention started. The statue itself arrived the next day, and in pouring rain, French supervised the placement. The very next day was the scheduled unveiling, on June 26, 1889. I’m surprised they left something like this up to the very last minute.

Luckily the day itself had perfect weather. Many well-known Deaf people were in attendance. First was a presentation by Robert McGregor, a poem by Laura Redden Searing (who was not in attendance) and the NAD president at the time,Edward Hodge, and of course, Edward Miner Gallaudet. [Shows slides of pictures from the unveiling] There’s a bit of a surprise here. Look at this picture (large group picture). Can you see anything unusual? [The next slide is a close-up] Yes, there’s Alexander Graham Bell [he is lounging in the lower right hand corner]. He attended the ceremony and contributed $10 [audience laughter] That was a lot of money back then — the top individual donor gave $25, while the smallest contribution was a penny. As you can see in this last slide, the ASD alumni are proud of the statue as well. Here you can see Melville Ballard and James Denison in this group photo of ASD graduates.

My Commentary: This was an interesting presentation. This paper focused on a piece of art on campus, but I’d love to know more about other pieces elsewhere around the nation. I also wonder if there was a committee on campus regarding this piece of art? How influential was EMG in the project from start to finish? Was this the first and only time the NAD has commissioned an art piece? There are so many questions and potential offshoots from this paper. I’m also curious as to Olson’s sources. Was it all based on newspaper accounts and the diaries, or are their other private papers?

Q & A for the preceding three presentations

Question for Olson about French and the Lincoln Memorial statue related to Lincoln’s hands.

Olson: This is a myth. There is no evidence French purposely had Lincoln fingerspelling “A” and “L.” Mere speculation, and we’ll probably never know.

Arlene Kelly: Olson, did you see any significant role women played in project?

Olson: Yes, in some photos, we see women, and 18 members—some were women. I can’t recall who now off the top of my head.

Jane Norman: Great presentation. It’s good to see validation of deafarts, participation of deaf artists. I want to mention that at the SLCC there was a plan for a deaf time line in the building. This part of the SLCC concept was to be by the Audiology testing area, so people who are bringing children in will have to walk past this depiction of Deaf history and see the people and events in the timeline. But unfortunately, funding was cut for this, and now it will simply be reduced to the size of a TV screen, and I think the timeline is far more important than the present concept. I think when we construct new buildings and commission new pieces we need to consider these things carefully. So community demand for a Deaf view is still with us today.

Olson: Yes, I also want to add to your mention of this that the Edward Miner Gallaudet statue on the mall, when it was first discussed, they were going to choose a deaf sculptor. This was in 1969. It was going to be Ambrose Grastinas from Austria, a rather well-known sculptor. He did busts and sculptures of the pope, Mussolini, and other notables. A very talented and well known artist.

The GUAA wanted him to do the EMG statue. However that was soon put to an end, and instead, a hearing sculptor was chosen; a man named Lazare,whose daughter Nina attended Gallaudet.

Lois Bragg: A question for Kent Olney. I just wanted to make a correction. Gallaudet was not Episcopalian, he was Congregationalist.Clerc was originally Catholic, but then his sons became Episcopalians.Why were Episcopalians eventually replaced by Methodists?

Olney: Episcopalians and Congregationalists are strong in numbers and had a large influence in the Deaf community, but the influence of John Wesley promoted Methodism, and this appealed to Deaf people. In the early days of the American Deaf community, Episcopalianism was widespread, but then Methodism overtook it, but then in turn was
supplanted by the Baptist faith.

I feel Congregationalists and Episcopalians were somewhat elitist andmany of their members were middle to upper class, while Methodists were considered more egalitarian, so it had to do with class.

Doug Bahl: This is for Olson: I saw this videotape a while back andsomeone mentioned that Edward Miner Gallaudet didn’t want the statue in front of Chapel Hall because of an oak tree that was there, but the committee wanted it there and so did French. Then lightning struck the tree and split in half—true?

Olson: Yes. I had a limited amount of time, and in the end I had to leave this bit out. But yes, this story is true. French’s wife wrote a memoir about this time in their life, and mentioned this incident.apparently Gallaudet’s daughter played in the tree, thus EMG didn’t want it torn down. Not sure if it was an oak—could’ve been an apple tree [audience laughter]

French acquiesced to Gallaudet, but then a week later there was a thunderstorm, and the tree toppled, Gallaudet let French know, but then Gallaudet’s daughter said that tree still alive, so it was left alone.Another week passed, another storm came through, and the other half that was left standing was gone. [audience laughter] There was no more opposition, so then the statue was put there.

Bahl: During my time as a student, we were always told there were seven errors in the statue [David Evans here: we were told that when I entered Gallaudet as well]. Is that true or not?

Olson: That’s a myth. The statue is perfect. There are no errors,there’s no documentation of seven errors.

Elizabeth Bush: A question for Olney. You showed a slide with a list of schools that Hasenstab visited in the South. Did he go to any schools for the black Deaf?

Olney: Good question. There isn’t much information about Hasenstab’s visits with the black Deaf community. I only named the states that Hasenstab went to. Some of those states did have separate schools. He probably did make two visits, one to the white school, one to the black school.

There was a church in Chicago for the black Deaf and for five years every Sunday afternoon, Hasenstab did a sermon for the whites, then in the evenings did sermons for black members. It’s in the newsletter.This was in the early 1900’s. Other than that, there’s no other information.

Patti Durr: A question for Olson. In any of the controversies, was there any mention of wanting to include Clerc, or was it just Gallaudet? Did anyone in the Deaf community at the time want Clerc to be in the Memorial Group? Also, in the old NAD films, Hotchkiss comments on this issue. Any effort today to remedy this?

Olson: In all my research, there’s no mention of Clerc ever being in the statue from the start; only Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet and Alice.

Question: Any history of busts by deaf artists? Also, any questions about the design itself? There was a controversy about the sculptor,but was there any uproar about the design?

Olson: The two statues of the Gallaudets were done by hearing people,and the same for the bust of Clerc– that too was done by a hearing artist. Andrew Foster’s new bust was done by a hearing black woman. The Garfield bust was done by Daniel Chester French. Oh, there is one. The bust of Edward Miner Gallaudet in Chapel Hall was done by a deaf artist named Hanson. There may be others, but not many.

Question for Olney, relating to McPherson’s keynote speech: Was there any particular theology that influenced Hasenstab, and what influence did Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet’s thinking or religious beliefs have on Samuel Hopkins or Jonathan Edwards?

Olney: not aware of any influence from the elder Gallaudet. Hasenstab was good friends with Edward Miner Gallaudet, but no real influence from Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, and certainly didn’t know him: THG died in 1851. Hasenstab’s main religious influence was probably John Wesley, founder of Methodism.