A group of people tried to use the term “audism” to ban others from DeafVIDEO.TV and DeafRead. There were people who were vlogging about deafhood and cochlear implants. To the group’s disgust, deafhood was not supported and cochlear implants were supported.

The truth is it wasn’t about audism at all. It was about censoring them. I’ll tell you how I know.

A walkout was staged at DeafVIDEO.TV. The first few were silent walkouts, meaning they did not publicly announce their departure. They didn’t even say why specifically they were leaving in their e-mails to me. “Personal reasons,” they said. People join and leave DeafVIDEO.TV all the time, so I didn’t know they were the beginnings of a walkout. Then the vlogs started popping up announcing their departure. The first few said how they felt DeafVIDEO.TV was unhealthy. A few more walkout vlogs later, the word “oppression” turns up. Finally, the term “audism” shows itself. If there were a badly planned walkout, this was it.

Before long, audism was being used as the primary reason of their walkout. I had not heard of any complaints about audism on DeafVIDEO.TV before this. When I vlogged, “DVTV is for everyone“, I said that I had not gotten any e-mails complaining about audism occurring at DeafVIDEO.TV. So the walkouts were premature. There was no dialogue about audism. Of course there wasn’t, because it was not the reason of their walkout.

After my vlog where I said I hadn’t gotten any communication about audism, I started to get them. To my surprise, the e-mails were saying that audism was when someone disagreed with deafhood. I quickly responded by making a vlog, “Audism and Deafhood” . The vlog basically reminded that audism was oppression toward the deaf, not deafhood.

That’s when I realized there were people who did not understand the term audism. I acknowledge that there are different ways of how audism is interpreted as a term. But no way can audism be interpreted to be oppression against deafhood. I explained in the vlog that deafhood was a concept, a theory. Something that people choose for themselves. Deafhood can be persecuted, discriminated, or oppressed upon, yes, but that is not audism. Deaf and deafhood is separate.

In the “DVTV is for everyone” video, I stated that audism was not allowed at DeafVIDEO.TV, that it falls under the harassment rule. That was not enough for them, because it would not get these people banned. That said to me, it’s not about audism. The term audism was being abused and manipulated.

All the while they were trying to censor, they were oppressing. Censorship is a form of oppression. Oppression of the freedom of speech. Right to their opinion.

Because I lack the experience, knowledge and authority, I refuse to embed the term “audism” into the guidelines. Doing so would have significant impact on the deaf community and would not be able to bear the responsibility of forcing the wrong interpretation upon the community. Until there is greater consensus on “audism”, therefore having less room for it to be abused, the guidelines will protect DeafRead by the “excessive negativity” clause and DeafVIDEO.TV by the harassment rule. Following this fiasco in which audism was exposed to be both widely misunderstood and abused, I retracted my committment to Patti to add it to the guidelines. As Patti and I agreed more recently, I will instead work with the DeafRead team to incorporate a broader term that will offer tighter protection than that of the “excessive negativity” clause.

I’ll start by telling you I didn’t plan any of this. It all began with Patti’s (second) boycott post. What I thought was a healthy dialogue that resulted in a good agreement–was broken by patti’s impatience. I was being pushed. I was peeved. One thing led to another.

I will have you know that I came up with two post ideas that were about two persons. I am deciding not to do them. They were not attacks, but posts that by revealing truths, my name would be cleared. I’ve been put through a lot of crap the last month, and things were said about me that were not true. It was until Patti’s post that I chose to be silent. No more. I am tired of people walking over me. I will not even try to set the record straight with these people, but share my opinions and ideas. Moving ahead.

This is my personal blog, where I reserve the right to share my opinion. No matter how many times I repeat it, people continue not to understand that there are two hats that I wear, the DeafRead hat and the one that I am wearing right now as I write this on y³. It is because of this that I cut down on blogging my opinions.

For newcomers: DeafRead is 100% transparent, because everything is published. You can check on our work by checking DeafRead Extra. Anything that’s not published to the front page is published here. By seeing everything, you can check on our work. Over the years, we’ve proven ourselves to be neutral when wearing the DeafRead hat.

That said, I have a couple of posts coming up.

Oh by the way, some people are (still) insisting that we NOT be neutral. We will not concede to this demand, and we feel that we reached some kind of compromise by building DeafRead Hide. We do realize that this is not enough for certain people.

I’m tired of being “professional”. I’m going to say it outright. DeafRead, no matter how low the numbers are, never dies. It is simply dormant, hibernating. DeafRead is the deaf community’s pulse. Whenever a controversial issue gets on DeafRead, the numbers go up. The hotter it is, the higher the numbers fly.

So when it appears as if DeafRead is “dead” (I prefer the term sleeping), that is the pulse in the deaf community. They almost perfectly mirror each other. When the deaf community is quiet, so is DeafRead. Want to feel the deaf community’s pulse? Check DeafRead.

In my professional role, I tried to hint at this some time ago. Perhaps the message was lost in the “professionalism” of the post. Here’s the post.

DeafRead reached the mainstream public (at least in the deaf community) due to the Gallaudet Protest of 2006. This was a big issue, hence the big traffic surge we saw. Immediately after Fernandes’ termination, traffic fell back almost to what it was previously. Pulse. We’ve seen this time and time again with various issues over the years. The heart beats. We’ve not shared statistics because ultimately that is not the goal – no matter what you want to believe. We believe as serving as a communication platform on which anything can be discussed. To empower writers, we try to mirror the freedom of speech amendment.

Even you can detect the pattern. To cite an recent example, the numbers surged when the four finalists for Gallaudet President were announced. Even more recently, the numbers are surging following Hurwitz’s selection.

When people hear of something happening in the deaf community, they know to go to DeafRead. They yearn to read something, to know as much as they can.

Think of a Hollywood movie. No good Hollywood movie would sell if it didn’t contain a climax, a conflict. Human nature draws them to conflicts, drama.

Think of a newspaper. I only buy newspapers when my favorite baseball team wins the World Series. When two airplanes plow into high-rise towers. Otherwise, I don’t pay as much attention to the news. That’s human nature, guys.

If you are interested in statistics, I can share with you. This is when DeafRead is sleeping. So this is the baseline. 900 to 1000 people visit DeafRead daily. That’s on slow days.

Yesterday I wrote: “Hurwitz and the Board will bring everyone together while respecting their uniqueness.” Imagine my surprise when I read Scoggins’ quote on NAD’s post published a little later: “We at the NAD stand ready to be of support as he begins the Herculean task of bringing together the diverse communities within and outside of Gallaudet University…“. Reading the quote inspired me not because the opinion is mutual, but because it stands in the face of people who are urging for non-diversity and singularity. This requires bravery and courage, as good leadership must.

I applaud both NAD and Scoggins for vowing their support for the Board’s selection of Dr. T. Alan Hurwitz as Gallaudet’s 10th President. I join with them.

I read your letters. “Fear-mongering” immediately comes to mind. You blasted sim-com as a failed communication method. Allow me to play Devils’ Advocate: If sim-com gets me two President positions, sign me up for it!

Promote sim-com? Do you have any evidence that he promotes sim-com? Without presenting any, it appears as if you are trying to instill fear in people. “Gallaudet University will become sim-com”. That is absurd, Brian. Hurwitz comes from NTID, which for decades have said that their campus doors are open to anyone of any communication usage. See my earlier post.

I don’t know where you’ve been, but Gallaudet University has changed their attitude in the last few years. An attitude of accepting all people for who they are. That’s why Hurwitz is perfect, when it comes to adopting communication diversity.

Another point of yours is that the Board was flawed when actions were taken “which eventually resulted in a change in the membership of the Board”. You also added that “[t]his action likely caused in a change in outcome in the presidential selection process.”. You wrote this assumption as if it was fact in a press release. A dangerous rhetoric.

I wrote earlier that there is a certain group in Bay Area rumored (again, I say rumored) to plan a protest against the BoT’s selection of Hurwitz as President. PSAC made it clear that they were open to community input, and this group apparently did not take advantage of this opportunity. This point is the same in your flawed-board argument. Why didn’t you object BEFORE the BoT announcement? You’re just bringing it up because you don’t like the selection. Should’ve said something earlier. If Rosen was chosen, would you have objected based on the Board? I strongly doubt it because you’re also badgering on Hurwitz’s sim-com usage.

Hello John. I’m not publishing your comment because it is off-point, but thanks for leaving the comment. If you are frustrated with people serving their own self-interests, then stop reading them. If they don’t have an audience, they will have no one to write for. And to hold me responsible for allowing “oppressors [to] dominate their agenda” is unfair. You have not understood over a period of three years that DeafRead is a media, much like a newspaper. There cannot be bias. This is true for everyone, including yourself. You are free to dominate your agenda on DeafRead. If someone told me to shut John Egbert up because he was dominating his agenda, I would tell him just the same. You just need to get more bloggers and/or write more posts, instead of quitting. That or ignoring the distractions that are proving to be completely unproductive. If your heart is set on deaf education, then don’t waste time reading posts and telling people they are wasting their time, instead do work that is productive toward better deaf education. Work with NAD or whatever organization that you feel has the best chance of accomplishing your goal.

Back to the point of DeafRead being free of bias, you really need to understand that if I banish a certain group of people, DeafRead will become one-sided and people will come into DeafRead and see this and not find it reliable because it does not allow all viewpoints to be published. This will appear as propaganda. When all information is published, they can see that the site has no control (or doesn’t try to control) information, it’s then that they can trust the site, and decide for themselves. If I choose what information gets to be published on DeafRead (not publishing them is censorship), DeafRead will hold no credibility. I have repeatedly tried to help people understand, but it seems to be beyond their comprehension. This includes you. Just think about how newspapers are run in the United States, and what ethics they are held to, journalism ethics. This is one of America’s most valued virtues: freedom of speech and press. To be trusted, they must publish all information. When there is trust, there are more readers. With more readers, you reach more people. Is that not the goal?

Hurwitz’s selection is the second time a NTID president has come to lead Gallaudet University. One is directly succeeding another. But do not blame them. They worked hard. Over their long tenures, they have proven themselves. It matters not where they come from, but what they stand for. We saw that in Davila, being proud Gallaudet alumnus. Only now Hurwitz is not Gallaudet anything.

When I waged my 8–year campaign (granted, most years were silent, but perseverance to the end!) to remove the Alexander Graham Bell plaque from one of the buildings on NTID campus, I waged on the platform that Bell’s singular communication philosophy contradicted that of NTID’s – which was of communication diversity. Eclecticism was actually the word NTID used. So when Hurwitz agreed to write a letter to the RIT board asking that the plaque be removed, he showed me that he was indeed for communication diversity. It was only right, because it is after all NTID’s proclamation.

That is what he is bringing to Gallaudet University. What he is bringing from NTID is what Gallaudet University has been attempting to embrace these last few years. Nothing, ASL included, will be excluded. We are all deaf. Hurwitz fits this vision perfectly. Hurwitz and the Board will bring everyone together while respecting their uniqueness. He will respect you for who you are.

You did not list one of the reasons people might protest to Hurwitz’s selection. He’s not deaf enough. Oh my gosh. There’s been mutters of “deaf-centric president” demands. Oh my god. There’s rumors swirling around that certain people from the Bay Area may stage a protest against the BoT for their selection. Oh my ass! I can understand why you like Hurwitz, you work at NTID. Maybe you can use your connections and convince these folks to give Hurwitz a chance. Or maybe you don’t want to burn bridges. Maybe that’s why you did not list this “not-deaf-enough” reason. Which bridges are more important to you? A difficult question, I recognize. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Conflict of the priorities! What fun.

What gets me is is why they didn’t object when the finalists were announced – BEFORE the selection. Looks like they weren’t fulfilling their alumni responsibility, being lazy–hoping that BoT’s selection of someone else would save them the effort. They had plenty of opportunity and time to voice. PSAC made it crystal clear they wanted community input.

There will not be a protest. Sorry – there’s not enough “Galluadet United” this time. Hey, BoT, I can relate to you – there’s no making everyone happy. Give BoT a chance! Give Hurwitz a chance! Gallaudet needs more than anything to move forward. Any movement that is not forward will be damaging of the permanent kind. Gallaudet’s future depends on it.