NAD: Personal Reflections III
*whew* Who would have thought a three-day jaunt to the wilderness (and at times it feels like the deaf community is spending 40 years there!) would have generated so much bloggable material? I have a little more I want to bare in the way of personal opinions about my experiences at NAD; as always, these are my personal experiences, my opinions, and my conclusions. You may have been there at the same time, the same day, maybe even sitting next to, behind, in front of, under, or above me at the exact same moment, but you'll have come away with a different perspective-- and that's how it should be.
Saturday night heralded a different event: the College Bowl. This biennial entertainment is something I appreciate, as a long-time Jeopardy! fan, but also as a Bowl alumni. Quite a few people were in attendance who had participated in College Bowl, and it was great to see them again, and catch up on where we were in our lives. One of the judges and several of the committee members had also participated in years past. I looked online at NAD's website, and scanned the names of past participants. To my surprise, ever since College Bowl started nearly twenty years ago, I have known or have since met (and gotten to know) at least one person from one of the teams from each Bowl. The Tenth College Bowl at Palm Desert would be the first time I didn't know anyone from any of the three teams (and for those of you who were keeping track with me earlier, no-- my wife doesn't know any of the twelve either, so I have absolutely no association with any of them!). In any event, I was looking forward to the evening.
After making my way as far forward as possible, with my pom-pom ready, I vicariously participated in the competition. This time, I was on the other side of the fence, and I'm glad of it. Let me tell you, the competition is nerve-wracking enough without the heat (and accompanying sweat!) of the klieg lights above, shining down on the stage. There were a few changes, but much of it was similar to when I participated. The cups were new to me, and I greatly enjoyed RJ Kidd's constant ritual of standing or half-standing, pivoting his head from left to right, then solemnly placing the cup down in challenge.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed in the quality of the questions-- some seemed way too easy to me, while others precipitated controversy. Regardless of the merits of a disputed question, if there is a problem with a question, then it probably wasn't well-written to begin with. As someone who knows Ty Giordano, I thought the Gally team were fools for wasting time and potential points challenging the (in)formal use of his name (for what it's worth, I talked about it with Ty afterward, and he found it hilarious) as the answer to the question about him. While the question regarding semantics was somewhat picky, I was bemused: I wish all those people, professionals, well-meaning teachers, officials, parents, and others who assert that deaf people aren't capable of mastering English had been there to witness that particular moment. We may never be disc jockeys or air traffic controllers, but our minds, capabilities, and intellectual accomplishments are equal to any hearing person.
My biggest beef was the question about Deaf Smith. As a trained historian and amateur Deaf historian, I knew that Deaf Smith hadn't died at the Alamo; San Jacinto sounded plausible, but I vaguely remembered in the recesses of my mind that he'd been present at the surrender of Santa Anna -- that hardly sounded like he'd died on the battlefield. As soon as the answer was revealed, I knew immediately that it was wrong. I used a few precious moments checking on my Sidekick (hurrah for portable technology!), and confirmed what I suspected: Erastus "Deaf " Smith, a hero of the war for Texas' independence, died peacefully at a friend's house in 1837. Armed with this knowledge, I approached the judges' bench, and presented my information to them. They listened politely, and took my correction under advisement. Thankfully, Gallaudet pulled so far ahead that publicly acknowledging the error and adjusting the score wasn't neccessary. But I do hope in the future the NAD considers handing the question-writing chores to someone else. For a full run-down on the Bowl, check out Jared Evans' summary of the competition.
In the wake of the Bowl and the College Bowl reception, I meandered downstairs to the area around Starbucks and witnessed what a friend termed "the meat market"-- the mostly single deaf attendees in their 20s and 30s, mingling earnestly, most with a drink in hand. Being an old married fella, I decided to head on back upstairs and grab some much needed sleep.
We had planned to leave on Sunday, but decided to attend one more workshop: JAC's take on think tanks, titled "Deaf Think Tank Is the Now Thing!" While I was already slightly familiar with the concept, since I knew of JAC's group in the San Francisco Bay Area (BADTT), I wanted to hear more.
Think tanks aren't new, and as Roger Kraft pointed out during the Q&A session, think tanks' functions have been conducted informally among deaf people for decades. But formalizing a group that will then discuss, analyze, and implement ideas and solutions to community issues and challenges is a new concept in our community. It is also an idea that could facilitate the concept of Deafhood from the personal and abstract to the applicable; by using think tanks on the local level to engage local communities, we can build up connections across the aisle to various constituencies, groups, and individuals, whether they be other deaf-oriented groups such as SHHH (now known as the Hearing Loss Association of America), local politicians, governing boards, business associations, or influential community individuals. Think tanks in a sense have already existed: chapters of state associations for the deaf could be considered think tanks of a sort (maybe not these days, but definitely in past years!), and university alumni associations have long had the potential for such formal intellectual discussions.
I'm not sure how effective think tanks will be outside of the Bay Area, or how long-lasting they will be, but this workshop and others attest to Eberwein's comment regarding the "politics of the possible;" for too long, as JAC pointed out, we react to situations, we assess and contain the aftermath of events. It's time for us, as individuals and as a group, to take the bull by the horns and shape our own destinies and the destiny of our community, rather than letting others define it for us. In political parlance, we need to frame the debate, not be framed.
While the workshops I attended were fantastic, and others that I heard of were interesting or went smoothly and stretched people's minds, I'm disappointed that some of the more mundane bread-and-butter issues of the community weren't presented, such as un/underemployment. Often we have diverse workshops, novel issues, or breakout sessions on various technological or cultural advancements, but there are still fundamental challenges that I think NAD and the community need to take on.
Originally we planned to leave Sunday afternoon, but my walking partner wanted to attend another workshop, and we both were curious about the relatively impromptu FSSA rally in the late afternoon, outside the exhibit hall. The rally was a curious undertaking; in itself, it was nothing more than a "feel-good" moment, replete with chants, brief speeches, and ASL poetry. For those of us who were unable to attend the FSSA workshop, whether due to arriving afterwards (plenty of attendees in the LA area and other regions of Southern California had to work Friday, and arrived late Friday eve or early Saturday morning), or attending the Deafhood session (again, poor planning on the scheduler's part!), or other reasons, all we got was essentially a pep rally.
The real flashpoint were the circles of concerned individuals who huddled afterwards, discussing the protest and its current state of affairs in depth, bringing each other up to date, conversing about who did what and who said what when, and comparing different ideas for how to proceed. I missed Friday morning's session, but for me, this was the high point of any FSSA/Gallaudet-related gathering or discussion. From time to time, people gathered here and there, commenting on the appearance of Jane Fernandes, or I. King Jordan, the recent Gallaudet communiques, various personalities (especially the number of bloggers present at the conference and their involvement or lack thereof thus far). I participated in my fair share of conversations on the subject, but the overall spirit I felt was one of a community trying to move beyond the controversy, trying to separate the divisions at Gallaudet from the future of the community. This is a process that can and must happen. Regardless of what happens later this summer or in the fall, we must move on.
How successful the message of Deafhood, and the various ideas and concepts presented in Palm Desert are will be determined in the year to come, and the year after that. By 2008, when we gather once again in New Orleans, it will be interesting to see whether this conference marked a sea change, or if it was just another step in the ongoing growth and development in our community.
Saturday night heralded a different event: the College Bowl. This biennial entertainment is something I appreciate, as a long-time Jeopardy! fan, but also as a Bowl alumni. Quite a few people were in attendance who had participated in College Bowl, and it was great to see them again, and catch up on where we were in our lives. One of the judges and several of the committee members had also participated in years past. I looked online at NAD's website, and scanned the names of past participants. To my surprise, ever since College Bowl started nearly twenty years ago, I have known or have since met (and gotten to know) at least one person from one of the teams from each Bowl. The Tenth College Bowl at Palm Desert would be the first time I didn't know anyone from any of the three teams (and for those of you who were keeping track with me earlier, no-- my wife doesn't know any of the twelve either, so I have absolutely no association with any of them!). In any event, I was looking forward to the evening.
After making my way as far forward as possible, with my pom-pom ready, I vicariously participated in the competition. This time, I was on the other side of the fence, and I'm glad of it. Let me tell you, the competition is nerve-wracking enough without the heat (and accompanying sweat!) of the klieg lights above, shining down on the stage. There were a few changes, but much of it was similar to when I participated. The cups were new to me, and I greatly enjoyed RJ Kidd's constant ritual of standing or half-standing, pivoting his head from left to right, then solemnly placing the cup down in challenge.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed in the quality of the questions-- some seemed way too easy to me, while others precipitated controversy. Regardless of the merits of a disputed question, if there is a problem with a question, then it probably wasn't well-written to begin with. As someone who knows Ty Giordano, I thought the Gally team were fools for wasting time and potential points challenging the (in)formal use of his name (for what it's worth, I talked about it with Ty afterward, and he found it hilarious) as the answer to the question about him. While the question regarding semantics was somewhat picky, I was bemused: I wish all those people, professionals, well-meaning teachers, officials, parents, and others who assert that deaf people aren't capable of mastering English had been there to witness that particular moment. We may never be disc jockeys or air traffic controllers, but our minds, capabilities, and intellectual accomplishments are equal to any hearing person.
My biggest beef was the question about Deaf Smith. As a trained historian and amateur Deaf historian, I knew that Deaf Smith hadn't died at the Alamo; San Jacinto sounded plausible, but I vaguely remembered in the recesses of my mind that he'd been present at the surrender of Santa Anna -- that hardly sounded like he'd died on the battlefield. As soon as the answer was revealed, I knew immediately that it was wrong. I used a few precious moments checking on my Sidekick (hurrah for portable technology!), and confirmed what I suspected: Erastus "Deaf " Smith, a hero of the war for Texas' independence, died peacefully at a friend's house in 1837. Armed with this knowledge, I approached the judges' bench, and presented my information to them. They listened politely, and took my correction under advisement. Thankfully, Gallaudet pulled so far ahead that publicly acknowledging the error and adjusting the score wasn't neccessary. But I do hope in the future the NAD considers handing the question-writing chores to someone else. For a full run-down on the Bowl, check out Jared Evans' summary of the competition.
In the wake of the Bowl and the College Bowl reception, I meandered downstairs to the area around Starbucks and witnessed what a friend termed "the meat market"-- the mostly single deaf attendees in their 20s and 30s, mingling earnestly, most with a drink in hand. Being an old married fella, I decided to head on back upstairs and grab some much needed sleep.
We had planned to leave on Sunday, but decided to attend one more workshop: JAC's take on think tanks, titled "Deaf Think Tank Is the Now Thing!" While I was already slightly familiar with the concept, since I knew of JAC's group in the San Francisco Bay Area (BADTT), I wanted to hear more.
Think tanks aren't new, and as Roger Kraft pointed out during the Q&A session, think tanks' functions have been conducted informally among deaf people for decades. But formalizing a group that will then discuss, analyze, and implement ideas and solutions to community issues and challenges is a new concept in our community. It is also an idea that could facilitate the concept of Deafhood from the personal and abstract to the applicable; by using think tanks on the local level to engage local communities, we can build up connections across the aisle to various constituencies, groups, and individuals, whether they be other deaf-oriented groups such as SHHH (now known as the Hearing Loss Association of America), local politicians, governing boards, business associations, or influential community individuals. Think tanks in a sense have already existed: chapters of state associations for the deaf could be considered think tanks of a sort (maybe not these days, but definitely in past years!), and university alumni associations have long had the potential for such formal intellectual discussions.
I'm not sure how effective think tanks will be outside of the Bay Area, or how long-lasting they will be, but this workshop and others attest to Eberwein's comment regarding the "politics of the possible;" for too long, as JAC pointed out, we react to situations, we assess and contain the aftermath of events. It's time for us, as individuals and as a group, to take the bull by the horns and shape our own destinies and the destiny of our community, rather than letting others define it for us. In political parlance, we need to frame the debate, not be framed.
While the workshops I attended were fantastic, and others that I heard of were interesting or went smoothly and stretched people's minds, I'm disappointed that some of the more mundane bread-and-butter issues of the community weren't presented, such as un/underemployment. Often we have diverse workshops, novel issues, or breakout sessions on various technological or cultural advancements, but there are still fundamental challenges that I think NAD and the community need to take on.
Originally we planned to leave Sunday afternoon, but my walking partner wanted to attend another workshop, and we both were curious about the relatively impromptu FSSA rally in the late afternoon, outside the exhibit hall. The rally was a curious undertaking; in itself, it was nothing more than a "feel-good" moment, replete with chants, brief speeches, and ASL poetry. For those of us who were unable to attend the FSSA workshop, whether due to arriving afterwards (plenty of attendees in the LA area and other regions of Southern California had to work Friday, and arrived late Friday eve or early Saturday morning), or attending the Deafhood session (again, poor planning on the scheduler's part!), or other reasons, all we got was essentially a pep rally.
The real flashpoint were the circles of concerned individuals who huddled afterwards, discussing the protest and its current state of affairs in depth, bringing each other up to date, conversing about who did what and who said what when, and comparing different ideas for how to proceed. I missed Friday morning's session, but for me, this was the high point of any FSSA/Gallaudet-related gathering or discussion. From time to time, people gathered here and there, commenting on the appearance of Jane Fernandes, or I. King Jordan, the recent Gallaudet communiques, various personalities (especially the number of bloggers present at the conference and their involvement or lack thereof thus far). I participated in my fair share of conversations on the subject, but the overall spirit I felt was one of a community trying to move beyond the controversy, trying to separate the divisions at Gallaudet from the future of the community. This is a process that can and must happen. Regardless of what happens later this summer or in the fall, we must move on.
How successful the message of Deafhood, and the various ideas and concepts presented in Palm Desert are will be determined in the year to come, and the year after that. By 2008, when we gather once again in New Orleans, it will be interesting to see whether this conference marked a sea change, or if it was just another step in the ongoing growth and development in our community.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 7:20 PM
<< Home