150 Years on Kendall Green: The Blog

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.

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.

Ben Bahan and I. King Jordan are relieved that the power is still on. This is especially true for Ben. King is wondering if there are any more photos of the SLCC in the remaining presentations today and tomorrow.

In reality, this picture was taken shortly after the Q & A session following Jordan’s keynote speech.

Uh. This is the flyer advertising Deaf History 101, right? No? Where am I supposed to go, then? These two conference attendees are enjoying a relaxing moment during the mid-morning break.

As Denny Voreck confidently makes his way back into the auditorium, others are wondering if they should follow his lead or march to a different drummer.

Jeff Brune correctly identifies an important part of his anatomy as fellow diners enjoy the luncheon during the second day of the conference.

People are enjoying the conference, but as always, they are enjoying the opportunity to relax and get to know each other over food and drinks.

Here, you can see even more people as they enjoy their mid-day meal. We’re all catching up with old friends, but quite a few of us are enjoying meeting new people as well!

Evans, is that you? Gad, you’re the world’s worst photographer! [Yes, I know-- I need to take the TFP course all over again, I guess. Maybe Teri Sentelle can help out...] Fortunately for the cameraman, Rebecca Edwards [left] and Chris Krentz [the deer in the headlights look right] are remarkably forgiving. Both presented their papers today, and during this evening reception, they are more than ready to meet and greet.

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.]

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.

Hello, everyone! I just want to take a moment to check in. First of all, I’m noticing a number of comments. For the most part, they’re great, and I hope more of you will start to feel comfortable with joining in and commenting. I plan to respond and join in as well, once I’ve finished with these posts. That’s my priority right now. Regardless, I encourage you and any readers that are lurking to join in the dialogue. I’m also hoping that conference participants and presenters will also add their thoughts at some point.

However, since we’re on the subject of comments, I want to remind everyone of the house rules. There have been a handful of comments that are inappropriate/irrelevant. I’ve had to delete or moderate them. If you are here to share your thoughts, have a conversation about the history involved, or even debate a historical theory, so much the better. If you are going to make throwaway, one-line attacks or ad hominem assaults on any person’s character, your comment will either end up in moderation or be deleted. This is not something I enjoy doing, but this blog is not a freewheeling, “anything goes” place; it is for everyone, yes, but it is an academic forum first and foremost. As such, there are limits and rules. Please review them.

Finally, I want to mention that while I know some or all of these posts have or will generate a great deal of interest, they are primarily summarizations/transcripts of the work of scholars. They are not verbatim accounts. It has come to my attention that some people are excerpting or linking to this blog and its posts. That is acceptable, as long as you credit me and this blog (it would also be nice if you acknowledged the presenter as well). To do so otherwise is dishonest, and is more commonly known as plagiarism. Please remember to cite your sources and give appropriate credit any time you quote from or reference any material from this blog. Thank you for your time. Now let’s get back to the conference! =)

Roberto Sanchez is now introducing our next speaker, Kent Olney. His presentation is “Gallaudet Valedictorian Influences Deaf Midwesterners: The Story of Philip Hasenstab.”

Just as Bambach delivered a biographical sketch of a 19th century Deaf clergyman, so Olney will do the same, albeit not in the first person. His subject is the Reverend Philip Hasenstab. Olney received his Master’s in counseling from Gallaudet 22 years ago, and is happy to be back on campus. The Reverend Philip J. Hasenstab and Olney have a few things in common: Hasenstab graduated from Gallaudet exactly a hundred years before Olney, in 1885; they both grew up in the Midwest, with Hasenstab in Indiana and Olney in Michigan; and both men spent many years working in and around Chicago. They are also both ordained clergymen. Hasenstab came to speak at Gallaudet College for its 75th anniversary in 1939, where he delivered the invocation. Olney is now at the 150th celebration of Kendall Green. He will not deliver an invocation, but will instead deliver a biographical sketch of Hasenstab.

I will first provide background on Hasenstab, then talk about his work in Chicago and the Midwest, and then finally talk about his legacy, his message, and why he is still important today.

Hasenstab was born in NYC in 1861. At the age of two, he and his family moved to Indiana, and around the same time he lost his hearing due to an unknown illness. When he was 8, he entered the Indiana School for the Deaf, where he remained until 1879, when he entered the National Deaf-Mute College. At college, he was captain and quarterback of Gallaudet’s first football team. He weighed less than 140 pounds– imagine playing football when you only weigh that much, especially with the rules of football back then! After graduating from college, he obtained a job at the Illinois School for the Deaf in Jacksonville as the boy’s dormitory supervisor. After one year, he then became a teacher, and continued teaching for the next seven years. While he was teaching, he met his wife, Georgia Ellliott, who was a pupil at the Illinois School.

Illinois’ superintendent Gillette heard that a parish in Chicago needed a preacher, and they preferred a graduate of a residential school. Gillette decided to answer the “job ad,” and went to deliver a sermon. People at that church were satisfied, and wanted him to return on a monthly basis. But his superintendent duties and other responsibilities precluded his doing this. Instead, he asked Hasenstab if he would be interested; Hasenstab certainly was, and so he took the train to Chicago, a 250-mile trip one way at a time when transportation was much slower than today, delivered the Sunday sermon, then quickly caught the train and headed back downstate in order to be at work on time for Monday’s classes. Hasenstab did this monthly for four years, then finally resigned as a teacher to become a pastor full time. He relocated to Chicago, where he founded the Chicago Mission for the Deaf. He remained in Chicago and worked there for over fifty years, from 1890 until 1941. He was ordained the first Deaf Methodist minister in 1894.

The average number of parishioners in his church was around 100, and this waxed and waned depending upon events. In 1927 church attendance reached an all-time high of 450 in attendance, of whom 400 were deaf. His work was not just limited to sermons: he conducted bible studies sessions, home visits to parish members, prayer times, and numerous other obligations. The Chicago Club for the Deaf opened near his church, so this area was a center of sorts for the Deaf of Chicago.

Although Hasenstab assumed numerous responsibilities, he also made sure he had capable assistants to delegate to when needed. He did not work alone, and there were four people in particular who were important in his professional life: his wife, Georgia Elliott Hasenstab, Henry Rutherford, Vina Smith, and Laura Sheridan.

Georgia Elliott was one of the first females admitted to Gallaudet in 1887– she didn’t graduate, but she did attend until the end of her sophomore year, when the Missouri School for the Deaf offered her a teaching position. She was a popular teacher during her time there, but ultimately resigned to move to Chicago and marry Hasenstab. She helped with the church’s Ladies Aid Society, leading Bible classes, and on occasion, in her husband’s absence, she delivered sermons on Sundays. Rutherford was a student at the Illinois School for the Deaf, where he graduated in 1896. He attended Gallaudet College for one year, then became a farmer. In 1900, he joined Hasenstab in his work. Rutherford helped with the church’s outreach efforts, visiting far-flung Deaf Methodists in small towns and rural areas in Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. Vina Smith and Laura Sheridan helped both of the Hasenstabs, and Sheridan, like Georgia Hasenstab, sometimes gave the sermons in the Reverend Hasenstab’s absence.

Hasenstab also communicated with his flock and other interested parties via publications such as The Silent Herald, a church paper that was published for nearly 40 years on a monthly basis. This periodical included church information, transcripts of sermons, community events, and his travel schedule, among other items of interest. When Hasenstab traveled, the people he was trying to reach out to responded enthusiastically and made efforts to be able to see him. On on cold day in 1904, one man sledded 18 miles just to see Hasenstab. Another man once walked 30 miles to be able to meet Hasenstab. Hasenstab’s organized and covered church-related efforts not just in Chicago but an entire region in the Midwest. He and Rutherford split this territory, and they traveled through an area that was 240,000 square miles wide. Hasenstab’s Chicago grew rapidly, from a moderately-sized regional city that served as the Midwest’s economic and financial center to what was eventually the second largest city in the United States at that time. In 1914, Hasenstab was granted an honorary Doctor of Divinity; he continued his work ministering to the people of Chicago and the Midwest almost up until his death in 1941. His importance today stems from his outreach efforts and his influence in establishing the Methodist Church as a home for Deaf people.

My Commentary: Olney has contributed to our knowledge of Deaf clergymen of the 19th century, just as Bambach did. My only criticism of both their talks is that we received so much biographical information, and not enough about how the work of these two men influenced the present day, or how their minstries affected Gallaudet or Gallaudet-bound individuals in their regions. For example, did the periodical that Hasenstab published lead to other papers being printed? Did Hasenstab as editor correspond with other editors within the “Little Paper Family”? Are there church publications or outreach efforts later in the 20th century that owe their existence/influence to Hasenstab? The same is true of Koehler’s work. Finally, given the inordinate influence of religion on Deaf education and Deaf life, did either Hasenstab or Koehler give any thought to the dominance of religion in determining the destiny of the schools, the community, its philosophy, and the directions that Deaf America took?