Posts tagged ‘NAD’

Meaning of “Militant”

Mr. Moiwai,

I am writing to address your use of the term “Deaf militants” in the e-mail sent out to Z employees and associates. I have enclosed the text of the original e-mail below. I respect the intent behind your message that your employees refrain from reflecting poorly upon Zvrs by visibily participating in online dialogue, I take issue with only your use of the term “Deaf militants.”You tweeted to Erin Esposito that you “regretted” the use of the phrase and that the corrective action has been taken.
I sure hope you don’t mean disciplining employees for sharing internal memorandum or that you regret getting caught with your pants down. After all, that e-mail was authored by you and you were the one who chose to use the term “Deaf militants.” You seem to not understand the politics of the word “militant” so allow me to enlighten you. This will be posted as an open letter on my blog, shared on Facebook and Twitter, and shared with the NAD Board of Directors. I share this openly in hopes of educating the community about the term, “militant” and its historical use as a tool of oppression and suppression.
“I do not think it is appropriate ever to use the phrase “militant” in a figurative/non-literal manner, no matter what group you are talking about. My reasons for this are threefold: First, the original literal usage — meaning engaged in or favoring actual military action — is still quite common. Second, which usage of the word is intended is largely determined by the group to which it is attached. Third, and most importantly, it seems to me that when the group in question is advocating in favor of a historically oppressed classification, they are far more likely to get the figurative usage. And that to me sounds like an attempt to slander and squelch.”  (http://nojesusnopeas.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-i-oppose-figurative-use-of-term.html)
The term “militant” must be understood within its historical context. This term was primarily used to discredit feminists, civil rights activists, and other marginalized peoples who had the courage to speak up and act for change. This term is laden with historically racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic meaning. Others have written eloquently on the subject.
Here are excerpts I find most relevant: (from  http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2012/03/militant-atheists-and-uppity-niggers.html?m=1)
“Both terms were invented and popularized as a derogatory term by those with social power to denigrate and marginalize a potential challenger. They serve as an inoculation in the brain against the messenger of change. The instant the messenger starts talking, these memes spring forth to shut down the brain from listening. “This is just another one of those damned uppity niggers/militant atheists who doesn’t know his place.”

“What is needed to impliment this type of tactic is a dominant social group with an interest in preserving its status who read each others’ work, and who have the ability to use a particular term over and over again before various audiences. We do not need anybody making a plan in a back room somewhere. One person uses the term. Others like it (because they feel that it will be effective in preserving their status), so they adopt it, and the term spreads.”

“An important feature in both of these terms is that they are both descriptive and prescriptive – or, more precisely, pejorative. They are used to generate in the agent an immediate emotional reaction – a feeling of contempt – for those members of the target group that dare to challenge the status quo.”

“These emotional associations are important. They help to control the thinking of those afflicted with these memes. they help to make the brain unreceptive to the challenger’s message.”

By using the term “Deaf militants,” how do you think your memorandum shaped the participation at the NAD conference, face to face dialogue, and influenced the result of the NAD election? After all, your memo only prohibited Z employees from using social media but did not prohibit discussion of the election or the issues at hand in face to face interactions, in lobbying efforts at the NAD conference and elsewhere, and since a number of your employees were directly involved in the elections, your use of this term likely influenced their thinking as they voted on proposals and new officers of the Board of the NAD.
“I would suggest using a similar tactic against the “militant atheist” meme. It is, as I said above, a term invented by those with social power for the purpose of marginalizing and denigrating those who challenge their supremacy. The use of such a term (except in certain contexts by members of the target group themselves) identifies the user as a bigot seeking to preserve a system of injustice by promoting a social aversion to the members of the target group.” (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2012/03/militant-atheists-and-uppity-niggers.html?m=1)
Is this the position that Zvrs has adopted? That those who speak out against injustice must be put in their place because you want to preserve the status quo? Was it your intent to create a social aversion among your employees and the people they interacted with toward the marginalized folks who spoke up for equality and inclusion?
What is militant about our desire to speak openly about changes we believe in? What is militant about pointing out that people of color and lgbts feel excluded, marginalized, and deserve an equal place at the table? Are we bombing buildings or destroying property? Are we chaining ourselves to fences? Are we participating in hunger strikes? etc? No. We are asking for open, authentic dialogue with the dominant majority. Our issues were not about “D”eaf issues vs. “d”eaf issues but about race, gender, sexuality, class, and other aspects of our experiences that has been largely ignored in the past or has come up as issues in the recent discussions surrounding the NAD’s decision to invite Governor Daugaard which revealed long standing sentiments of marginalization and exclusion.
Mr. Moiwai, you owe us an apology. For using such a pejorative word. For participating in the marginalization and suppression of those who want to speak up. For influencing the thinking, perspective, and dialogue of those employees subjected to your memorandum who then attended the NAD conference and participated in the NAD processes. For marginalizing your employees who have chosen to speak up about their experiences of exclusion or inequalities- not only within the NAD or the deaf community, but in the larger world. Do you have any employees who spoke out against Proposition 8? Any employees who speak out against racism, sexism, and other forms of -isms outside of the deaf community? Are you calling them “militants” too? Are we all to remain silent in the face of oppression because the mere act of speaking up is considered “militant”- a pejorative word laden with historical meaning?
For Mr. Wagner, this is the first test of his presidency of the NAD. He has taken pains to include inclusion and diversity on his platform. As the new leader of the NAD, he has the task of healing the wounds that emerged from the discussion of recent months and the election last week. How will Mr. Wagner respond to his employee’s use of this term, “militant,” given its laden historical meaning often used to suppress those who are merely speaking openly about uncomfortable issues? Is this a reflection upon Zvrs’ company culture and does he participate in that thinking?
What is the appropriate course of action here? I look forward to your response as well as Mr. Wagner’s.
Best,
Tavian, an outspoken progressive liberal and white ally.

Team, please take a moment to read the important message below from Julian:


Good evening, Z employees and associates:

 

Greetings from Louisville, Kentucky! We have been busy engaging ourselves with the 2012 National Association of the Deaf Conference goers all week. However, it is not slowing us down!

 

You might be aware of the NAD Presidential elections. Chris Wagner – our Senior Vice President of Business Operations and Marketing – has been selected to serve as the NAD’s next president. Regardless of your support prior to and after the elections, I would like to ask you to do us a favor.

 

ZVRS is currently being bombarded on social media by Sheri supporters or so-called “Deaf militiants.” Please do not participate in any means of communication by putting gas into this flame.

 

If you come across something that appears offensive or defamatory toward ZVRS, please send a direct link to my attention, and it will be followed through.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Julian Moiwai

Social Media Coordinator

The Z | CSDVRS, LLC.

Message to NAD Delegates

Greetings NAD Delegates,

I wish you all a productive and enjoyable week at the NAD Conference in Louisville. You have an important burden facing you as you vote for the new Board of Directors and for proposals. You are determining the direction of the NAD for the next two years and the effectiveness of the NAD in its fight to preserve deaf schools, ASL, accessibility, and the various civil, human, and linguistic rights that concern deaf Americans. I offer a few thoughts today before you depart for the conference.

First, I endorse Sheri Ann Farinha for President of the NAD. She is a proven passionate advocate for ASL and for the rights of deaf children to education. Farinha also has a keen understanding of inclusion, diversity, and coalition building. It is important that we have a leader that can mobilize many people under a single banner and carry on the good fight. I believe Farinha is capable of aggressively pushing the NAD forward in a positive direction. She has many testimonials of her leadership abilities from many prominent leaders and figures within the deaf community. She has gotten the “ear” of the California legislature. Farinha has my full confidence.

Second, I would like to speak to Chris Wagner and CSD. I do NOT suggest that the CSD is some sort of evil entity or that CSD is a poor model of governance. I appreciate those affiliated with CSD who have given their time, energy, and fiscal support to the NAD and its objective to improve life for deaf Americans.   Rather, I suggest that stagnant leadership in itself is problematic. It does not matter if it is CSD or Gallaudet or what not. The specific individuals have changed over the years but the fact remains that for 14 of the last 19 years, the President of the NAD has been closely affiliated with CSD, serving in executive positions. 25% of the current Board has a relationship with CSD.

This presents many potential problems. For one, stagnant leadership. CSD has its own culture, its own way of doing things, its own philosophy. Those who work at CSD and rise up in its ranks are bound to inherit and practice that culture, that way of doing things, that philosophy. Then they carry that thinking and way of doing over into the NAD. When we have the same way of thinking, same way of doing, same way of seeing, for so long, it can be hard to adapt. It can be hard to react to new pressures and situations. With all of the complaints and issues that have emerged as of late, especially with the NAD’s poor use of public relations and new media (slight improvement as of late but much more can and needs to be done if we want to be effective in the 21st century as advocates for schools for the deaf and ASL), it is perhaps time to flush out old ways of thinking and doing and bring in a new way of thinking and doing.

I also am concerned about potential gray areas developing. As a historian, I understand and have seen how past NAD presidents along with the NAD itself were influenced by the leadership’s personal biases, work, and experiences. Often, those influences are not intentional. Often, the leaders want to act in an ethical way (and do). Often, leaders believe strongly they are indeed carrying out the mandates/resolutions passed by the membership. But yet, influence creeps in. More weight is given to particular issues than others. The responses to pressure and crises are shaped by the individual’s worldview. Despite Wagner’s best intentions, or Scoggins’ for that matter, we cannot claim a complete divorce between their positions as Officers of the NAD and their employment/lived experience. What will Deaf Historians discover in 20 years’ time as we come back to the late 1990s and early 2000s to study deaf activism for equal access to citizenship? Biases are often difficult to uncover in the present but with historical analysis, they are rather obvious. I’d hate someday to see somehow, due to biases and influences now invisible to us, we failed to act as efficiently and expediently as possible to preserve deaf schools, ASL, and ensure access for all deaf people.

Third, last but not least. I love Kelby Brick’s proposal.  I think it’s necessary. And absolutely perfect. Some have described it as radical. But really. Over time, everything that has been progressive, just, and necessary was once labeled radical. Many progressive ideas considered “way out there radical” are now the standard. For example, educating girls? Teaching little girls how to read and write? Whoa, how radical! Now that’s standard. There are many examples out there, but you get the idea. So with 100% of my being, I endorse this and hope you will too!

Have a great time. I wish I could join you this year. Remember. The Future of the NAD and Deaf America is in your hands. That’s a huge responsibility. Treat that trust with care.

Cheers,

Tavian

Alec McFarlane Follow Up

I posed some questions to Alec McFarlane regarding the NAD’s response letter. Your thoughts on his response or any further questions?

From me to Alec McFarlane:

Alec, Some questions have come up regarding your letter. 1) What was Alice doing at the ALA conference on behalf of the NAD and the Deaf community that required her to be reimbursed by the LFS funds? 2) Was that a wise use of such a significant portion of the LFS funds (2,500 out of 4,000) which may have been used for other purposes that would have maximized the LFS/Deaf Culture section goals? 3) Are you satisfied with the NAD’s response to your questions about the donations? 4) Do you plan on a follow-up?

Alec’s Response:

To answer your questions… 1)Alice L. Hagemeyer and I were at the ALA Midwinter Conference in Dallas to push our agenda on the establishment of the DCDL (Deaf Cultural Digital Library) nationally. We gave a presentation to the ALA and a 2nd presentation to the deaf community at the Dallas Public Library. Our mission, our agenda, without fail is related to the Library and the Deaf community. People should understand that the American Library Association is a 60,000+ member organization that SUPPORTS the DCDL, and will be very important in the national implementation of this concept. 2) Over some 36 years Alice has traveled extensively promoting library issues on her own dime, and in particular the last 20 for the LFS and this is the first time ever that she has been reimbursed for travel expenses. Her “in kind’ donations, money spent on behalf of the deaf community, the LFS and others amount to tens of thousands of dollars. It is further notable that a few years ago her husband, Ted, resigned from the NAD in protest because the NAD had not reimbursed them for a series of rather minor expenses taken on behalf of the LFS and the NAD. 3) The NAD’s response is an outright denial that can be written only if they ignore the points we raise. 4) We plan a follow up, but first I will produce a vlog explaining my letter. I will probably have to make two or three volgs, each focusing on one thing at a time. I would like to add a note that Alice L. Hagemeyer and I are leaving this evening to go to the ALA Annual Convention in Anaheim, California and we will be doing what we always do; promote deaf related issues. We have 1) a resolution going before the ALA to recognize the 300th Birthday of Abbe l’Eppe, 2) a program scheduled in our SIG or Special Interest Group called “Bridging Deaf Cultures @ Your Library” on the 23rd, and 3) we will be sharing the stage with the ALA president, Molly Raphael, who is an ardent supporter, 4) as the SIG leader I will be making a brief report to the ALA Board on our work, 4) we will NOT get reimbursement for this trip from the NAD LFS. Forgive the typos, I made 5 points up there…

 

NAD Responds to McFarlane’s Letter

Visit Deaf Politics to read NAD’s response to Alec McFarlane’s Open Letter to the NAD. 

If you have any thoughts, comments, or questions regarding McFarlane’s letter or the NAD’s response, please comment on the Deaf Politics page.

 

Open Letter to the NAD: Questions of Ethics and Legality

Upon Alec McFarlane’s request for wide dissemination, I am republishing his letter below.

An Open Letter to the National Association of the Deaf

The Board of the National Association of the Deaf
15 Members
The Library Friends Section
75 Members
The NAD Membership
Unknown Number of Members
The Deaf Community
Estimated at 35 Million People

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board

In regard to the actions taken by some NAD Board Members named herein, we are filing complaint and notice of intent to sue. The NAD Board, over a course of almost 20 years has actively oppressed, suppressed, and discriminated against the Library Friends Section of the NAD and the Deaf Community at large. We will present matters and evidence relating to the last two years and relative to the current Board.

We are calling for Article 4.14 and 4.13 due process hearings for the named individuals who sit on the NAD Board and we are calling for expulsion of these individuals on the grounds of Personal Conflicts, of Withholding Materially relevant information, of discrimination and of Civil Rights violations. (more…)

Zeroing In Our Focus

I want to clarify something from my previous post because there have been comments on Facebook-

I am not targeting individuals such as Soukup, Scoggins, Wagner, or Gilliam nor am I saying that CSD is an evil entity. What I AM saying is that the NAD, as an organization, has issues with transparency, communication, public relations, and I do have my concerns about the NAD leadership, as a whole, not maintaining firm boundaries to preserve the integrity of the organization’s leadership and election processes. My message to the membership is to monitor their delegates and the election processes in an effort to maintain adequate sovereignty, both perceived and real.

Our Spotlight Is On What? The NAD’s Election Committee and the Overall Election Process for NAD Board from now until Election Day.

That. 

NAD Leadership & Transparency

Fostering Trust

Starting us off with a Tweet from Marlee Matlin, Deaf America’s leading celebrity and Oscar winner. “Trust is hard to earn when it is met with silence. Stay silent too long & people will reach their own conclusions. Be honest; be loud.”

I e-mailed the National Association of the Deaf on Tuesday, June 5th. This was my message: “Given the questions surrounding transparency with the NAD, we would like to know who the members of the election committee are.”

Mr. Rosenblum’s response as of 9:26 a.m. on Wednesday, June 6th:  “I am forwarding your request to President Bobbie Beth Scoggins for further discussion.”
As of the morning of June 8th (today), there has been no response. Why did I ask? Because community members have raised concerns about the integrity of the election process for the upcoming elections for the NAD Board.
What Do We Know?
Three of the 12 elected Board Officers of the NAD have close ties with Communication Services for the Deaf. That’s 25% representation. Current President Bobbie Beth Scoggins, Vice-President Chris Wagner, and Region III Representative Judith Gilliam have held or currently hold high-ranking positions with CSD or its affiliates. Chris Wagner is also a Senior Vice President at ZVRS. CSD remains a major shareholder in ZVRS. Wagner is now one of the two candidates for the Presidency. The NAD Presidency has been in the hands of individuals closely affiliated with CSD for 14 of the last 19 years. Those former Presidents also serve on the President’s Circle and influence decision making processes. Which means there will be not 1, not 2, but 3 CSD-affiliated folks advising the next President of the NAD.
According to what I have gleamed via multiple sources, two of the five election committee members are: Ben Soukup, the very face of CSD, and Bobbie Beth Scoggins, current NAD President who worked as Chief Operating Officer of CSD.*  I asked Rosenblum to release an official list of election committee members. Just for transparency’s sake. So that the community can sleep easy knowing the election processes are being held in a transparent manner and the best leader to best deal with contemporary challenges will be elected.
After 2 days of no response from Scoggins, I wonder just what there is to discuss.