I think I spoke prematurely yesterday about my experience at the front desk at Gallaudet’s Le Hotel Posh. Earlier in February, after attending the Blogging/Vlogging conference at Gallaudet, I bemoaned the desperate lack of ASL skills exhibited by the front desk staff at the GUKCC. I had hoped that someone, somewhere, in the bowels of campus would pick up on this lack of communication and correct it.

Yesterday, I thought perhaps someone had indeed started reading the Sandbox on more than a casual basis, because the clerk, while hearing and clearly not fluent in ASL, nevertheless knew more than “thank you” and was able to understand what I said. This was a vast improvement, and I noted it in my last post.

However, earlier this evening, I needed to replace a lightbulb that wasn’t working and to make a minor request. I confidently went downstairs, strode across the lobby, and approached the desk. I started signing. The clerk took one look at my hands, grabbed a piece of paper and a pen, and proffered them to me. *SIGH*

Ok, my penmanship is not as pretty as my ASL (which isn’t as pretty as my typed English), but here goes. I wrote down in my doctor’s handwriting (or perhaps surgeon’s handwriting? I’m not winning any penmanship awards, I’ll tell you that), handed the paper back, and was soon given a lightbulb and my request handled. The only sign I saw the entire time was, “Thank you.” (I assume the clerk also knows the sign for “hello,” “goodbye,” “eat,” “time,” and one or two other words, but I don’t think I’ll stand around and test his proficiency in American Survival Sign (ASS))

This is NOT acceptable, folks. I’m thinking I should refrain from being a cybernaut and instead bang out an old-fashioned letter upon my return home, and send it on to the appropriate people. As I’ve noted here and elsewhere, communication is Gallaudet’s raison d’etre, and at the root of many of its flaws. If you’re in a front-line position at Gallaudet, whether clerk, faculty, staff, DOSS/DPS officer, or another similar high-contact job, you need to be far more proficient in ASL than you think you presently are.

I sincerely hope the third time’s the charm, and I see some permanent marked improvement the next time I stay at the white elephant Kellogg Conference Hotel.

I’m in DC for the Deaf history Conference at Gallaudet, a gathering that will honor the 150th anniversary of the establishment of Kendall Green and the subsequent history of what has since become Gallaudet University and its affiliated schools (MSSD and KDES).

On the way to campus, it was really remarkable how the surrounding area has changed, even since my last few visits. There’s now a spiffy new charter school on Florida Avenue, just catercorner from the infamous Em-Kay Liquor store. Across the street from this spanking new school is an abandoned lot, next to the Burger King. There’s a billboard there advertising a future high-scale housing development. On Florida Avenue across from campus, some of the houses have been renovated or replaced, and they look much better. That isn’t to say that the entire area has been 100% gentrified, but it’s definitely well on its way.

Once I got to the hotel at the conference center, I went up to the counter to check in. Recalling my experiences from my last visit, I didn’t have high hopes. But to my surprise, the clerk was able to read my signs, and to sign back to me. It wasn’t outstanding, and she’s hearing, but it was a *major* improvement over last time, when I had two totally clueless clerks who couldn’t sign worth shit. Obviously someone with some influence was tipped off as to the situation, and things have changed. This is good, considering there are quite a few deaf people coming into town for this conference.

I still think hearing employees should be partnered with deaf employees wherever possible, and definitely until the hearing employee’s ASL skills are fluent enough, not just at “survival level.” Still, this is an improvement. So to whoever realized a change was needed, many thanks!

Right now, I’m either safely in my seat, chewing some gum and reading a magazine, or (more likely!) dozing off to sleep as the stewardesses bustle up and down the aisle. I’ll be leaving on a jet plane this morning for DC, so it’s highly doubtful I’ll have updates for you at this site until I return. If I can manage it, I will. More likely though, you’ll have better luck seeing what I’m up to over the next few days here. Check it out; I aim to please, and hopefully you won’t be disappointed.

In the past, I’ve kidded a bit about “blogger wars,” usually focusing on Ridor and his antagonist du jour. While there has been additional sniping in other quarters between bloggers, for the most part, we respect each other and interact with each other to some extent. I respect the majority of my fellow bloggers, and openly admire some of them. The discourse we’ve had in public forums has, I think, raised everyone’s consciousness to some extent.

However, I was recently involved in a conflict myself, just last week, and not for the first time. A number of you know or have heard of Brian Riley, a hearing man who was a Gallaudet grad student in the 1980’s. He was involved in the recent unpleasantness at Gallaudet last year, and runs a blog called “Gallaudet Protest Legal Issues.” He’s also garnered quite a reputation over at GallyNet-L, to the point that he’s apparently alienated a number of its readership.

My original entanglement with him involved Riley’s obfuscation of his identity to [former] Board of Trustees Member Bill Graham, and Riley’s subsequent defense of this deception. I’m not going to re-hash that now; you can find the whole story here. Since then, I put the incident largely out of mind, until Riley posted an entry at his blog claiming that I. King Jordan “invited himself” to deliver a talk at the upcoming Deaf history conference at Gallaudet next month [Full disclosure here: I’ll be live-blogging the conference] .

First, I’d like to make it clear I have no love for Jordan at the moment; while I’ve met him several times, and he’s quite charismatic (I think just about everyone, save perhaps Riley, can agree with that!), his actions and statements during the past year left a lot to be desired, to say the very least. His Op-Ed in the Washington Post in January of this year left a bad taste in my mouth, as it did for a lot of people. I too agree with many people that Jordan owes the campus community an explanation for his part in whatever actions he and his administration took that led to the recent Middle States Association report earlier this year; regardless of what he did or didn’t do, ultimately, as head of the university at the time, he must shoulder some of the blame.

That said, Jordan is no longer affiliated with Gallaudet beyond his role as President Emeritus. His presentation at the conference will be a historical retrospective on the DPN Protest in 1988, which I find ironically appropriate. Regardless of what you or I think of Jordan, he played a central role during that protest, and subsequently led Gallaudet for the next 19 years. He is, like it or not, a part of Deaf history.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear I have nothing against Riley as a person; we have never physically met in person (and probably never will). He could, for all I know, be a charming and delightful person. He could also be a very unpleasant individual. I DO have a problem with his online persona though, and I think I make my displeasure and rationales for that known on the two blog posts I previously cited, in addition to what I’m saying here now. Riley’s seeming vendetta against Jordan disturbs me, and his use of the royal “we,” along with hints and his own statements (since conveniently “disappeared”) that he is not alone in determining the content on and control of his blog, suggests there’s more to Riley’s crusade than meets the eye.

I’ve helped organize a conference in the past, and I’ve known quite a few people who have organized or been part of organizing committees for conferences, including the upcoming conference. Speakers, presenters, and panelists do not get to “invite themselves.” It just doesn’t happen. So I decided to comment on Riley’s post, and ask him for proof. You can see the majority of our exchange there.

This is a rather long introduction to the point I really want to make here, and I apologize for that. I merely want those of you who are unfamiliar with what happened to have some sort of understanding of what transpired up to this point.

Most of my responses and remarks are in the comments section of that particular post. However, Riley initially refused to post two of my replies, while continuing to respond to me as if my comment was visible to the general public. After a private e-mail exchange, he finally posted *one* of the comments. I found out during the course of the evening that at least three other people (three of whom e-mailed me separately, once they realized what was happening) had their comments suppressed as well. Since then, of the four of us, only one comment was released: one of mine (but not the other).

What bothered me (aside from Riley’s general evasiveness and unwillingness to directly debate or discuss a point, as illustrated in the recent exchange between Riley and Mike McConnell on DeafDC) was not only Riley’s classic “I think what I think because I’m right, what do I need proof for” behavior, but his bias in suppressing comments at will.

Eventually, I decided we were at an impasse, and I let it go. But the issue of comment suppression gnawed at me, for a few reasons: 1) Riley’s tendency to clamor for the “truth” and “openness” about Jordan, Jordan’s administration, and the problems Gallaudet has had; 2) the notion that blogs are open forums, miniature Greek democracies, if you will, where everyone and anyone can come and have their say; and 3) how to determine when a comment should be deleted or not.

But I digress… as the title indicates, the issue I really want to discuss here concerns comments. When should we allow comments? Should all comments be permitted, regardless of content? When is it appropriate to censor or suppress comments? It’s something that’s been on my mind lately for another reason as well: an online friend of mine who also has a blog has recently removed comments that they found counterproductive to the post and the blog as a whole. While it was an agonizing decision to make in some respects, once the decision was made, that was it. This individual isn’t in the habit of deleting comments, but I know this blogger’s not alone. For all the swagger about openness and a free forum, several of the more well-known bloggers have edited or removed comments left on their blogs. Quite a few have moderation filters set (including Riley). I have yet to encounter problems (other than spam, which bedevils us all!), and have only removed two legitimate comments thus far– both were at the original authors’ request. I’m not sure why that is– maybe I’ve just been lucky so far…

To me, simple disagreement is not sufficient grounds for denial. Riley’s apparent predisposition towards comments on that basis strikes me as inconsistent with his message of “truth” and “openness.” Now, Riley aside, I’m wondering just what kind of limits we in the blogosphere, whether deaf or not, should place on our blogs. As Ridor likes to proclaim from time to time, “It’s my domain.” McConnell states that anyone who doesn’t follow his “rules” will be censored or banned. Others have posted similar strictures. Lest you think I’m complaining about this, I’m not– each person has control over their own blog, and that’s how it should be. Ultimately, it’s Riley’s right to decide what he does with his blog; I don’t have a say in that, nor does anyone else. But I do wonder what it means in terms of a truly free discourse when comments are suppressed for reasons beyond bad language or gross indecency/inappropriateness (for example, if anyone posted a death threat or a similar hostile remark here, I’d yank it– there’s no question about that). Where do we draw the line? Should we draw such a line? Can such boundaries become slippery slopes? Should people say whatever they want, and contribute to the overall discourse, or if it happens, be allowed to make fools of themselves? What if one tailors comments on a post to skew or overtly influence the conversation at hand or to avoid embarrassing questions or challenges? Is that acceptable? Why or why not?

What do you think? I haven’t finalized my answers to these questions yet, and I’d be curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter.