William C. Wantland

Transcription

“Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives with Commentary” [Raychelle, a white, slim woman with long, wavy light brown hair, wearing a dark taupe button-up shirt. Background screen is black.] Hello! I’m Raychelle Harris. Some of you may remember my prior video article, Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives. Some of you may have heard of the video, but haven’t seen it; some of you may not yet know of the video. Either way, I will go ahead and sum up what happened. I posted the original video this past Sunday night, and by the next morning, the video had rapidly been spread. I truly didn’t expect the video to become so popular so quickly! However, a couple of people then contacted me with some concerns. I immediately wanted to find out their thoughts, and they went on to share with me that there were some errors in the video. My producer, Summer Crider Loeffler, and I then regrouped, discussed the errors, and decided that it was best for us take down the video. We did not like the idea of the video nearly becoming viral with errors, and subsequently removed the video. Afterwards, we gathered more feedback, did some self-reflection, and then identified the problems in the footage. I admittedly did have some intuitive feelings that some of the content was rather sticky, but I still moved forward with publishing the footage. For that, I take full responsibility, as well as full responsibility for the errors in the content. In all, this was a really positive learning experience for me, and I appreciated learning from those who contacted me. I’m grateful and appreciative to those who let me know about the issues in the video, or discussed the video openly where I could witness the discussions and learn from them. Really: thank you. Now, some of you may be wondering what exactly I learned, or what was wrong with the original footage, that you did not notice anything when you watched it— but not to worry, I will go ahead and explain in-depth for those who are still asking what went wrong. I have edited out the errors in the original footage and replaced it with new, updated footage. I’ve left one original part of the erroneous footage so that it can be juxtaposed with added footage that explains why the prior information was wrong, adding in correct information with explanations. From there in out, the original footage resumes with some parts edited out as explained by the added footage. I really want to thank you all for your patience and your support. I know it was confusing and disorienting for the video to have been released and shared widely, only to be removed; and that many people started developing all kinds of worst-case scenarios about what occurred. Summer and I both voluntarily decided ourselves to remove the video. No one commanded us or threatened us to do this– really, no one. The two of us truly decided that we wanted to remove the video on our own, feeling put off that we produced something with wrong information, and wanted to remove our work. Again, we voluntarily decided to do this. [Text in video: white font against black background.] The Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives video article was previously posted online in early January with ASLized. The author, Raychelle Harris, and the producer, Summer Crider Loeffler decided to take the video down after approximately a day, due to some concerns about our video article. We wish to thank and honor those who taught us important lessons, and those who openly debated some problematic aspects of the video article so we could reexamine the video article more closely. Raychelle presents here the edited version, reflecting a more culturally respectful product. Raychelle will mention which sections ended up on the cutting room floor, and why, so others, particularly privileged people, can learn from her journey. The final, stand-alone, edited copy of the Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives will appear on ASLized! in early February, along with captions, image/text descriptions as well as a transcript. Thank you very much for your support and patience. [Background graphics of different shapes in a gradient of green colors, with white text font. Text: Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counter Narratives.] [Raychelle, a white, slim woman with shoulder-length wavy light brown hair, wearing a dark taupe button-up shirt. Background screen is black.] Hello, I'm Raychelle Harris. Today's presentation is titled, "Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives". [Image: Special effects, green stripes with "Academic Power" in blue]. Before we jump into the presentation, we need to discuss the term, 'counternarratives'. [Footage transitions into Raychelle against a black screen with longer hair, signaling the added-in footage.] One of the main mistakes I made- a very important one to point out to all of you- were racial analogies. I truly have learned from this mistake. Now, I already knew about racial analogies being wrong, but I still went ahead and made them. For that, I am very, very sorry, and take full responsibility for having done so. [On left of screen - Image description: There are four boxes. The first box depicts "Generous Offers" Through History. A person is holding up a sign, "We want land". Another person is seen storming off, saying "Ok, if you're going to get greedy about it... Forget it!" The second box: A map of the USA with very few partially shaded areas (showing the locations of Native American reservations) as opposed to "White Settlers" which has pretty much the whole map. Third box: South Africa, with Native Africans (Bantustans) and White Settlers. There's very little land for Bantusans. Fourth box: Middle East, with Native Palestinians and Israeli Settlers, with Native Palestinians having very little land.] [Text list appears at left of screen. Text reads: Indigenous Communities. Maori (Cram, Ormond, & Carter 2004]; African Botswana Community (Chilsa, 2005); Eastern Canadian Natives (Mi’kmaq College Institute, 200); Australasians (Australasian Evaluation Society, Inc., 2006); Navajo People (Brugga & Missaghian, 2003); Australian Aborigines (Gilmore & Smith, 2005); Alaskan Natives (Gilmore & Smith, 2005)] I specifically used examples from Indigenous communities and other People of Color groups, taking their resources and information about them to compare with the Deaf community. I thought it was fine for me to do this because I am a member of the Deaf community, I’m culturally Deaf, I use sign language, and so forth. But- I am not Indigenous or a Person of Color. I will never understand what it’s like to go through the violence, the systems (of oppression) they experience, and many more horrible incidents. I have never experienced those, and I never will: and for me to go ahead and discuss those experiences, to make analogies with those experiences was wrong. I have really learned to respect those experiences. While I can learn from and discuss those experiences, I cannot take those experiences and discuss them in comparative analogies. No- never. I must respect those groups and their experiences. However, I can definitely discuss the Deaf experience, of course! And what analogies can I use? Deaf and hearing people. For example: [Image: Famed cartoon by Maureen Kluzsa, The Greatest Irony. Two seated babies are wearing bonnets and diapers. The baby on the left has text and an arrow that designates the baby as “Deaf baby.” The baby is depicted as distressed and with a single tear falling down their cheek as their wrists are handcuffed. To the right is the baby designated as “Hearing baby,” who is signing the “I love you” sign, while smiling and laughing.] This image is an example of a counternarrative. Do I have to use racial analogies to expand on what I mean by “counternarrative”? No, not at all. I can easily use this image as an example of a counternarrative because of how it challenges the master narrative of researchers, doctors, teachers, school administrators who warn parents of Deaf children against signing with them, framing the choice of sign language as “ruining” Deaf children’s language development, of the choice causing cognitive delays. This narrative has been a dominant narrative for many, many years, and have ruined many Deaf children’s learning processes, with many of them struggling for access. This illustration, then, counters the imposed master narrative by pointing out the widespread trend of teaching hearing babies sign language in order to help their language and cognitive development. Yet… the master narrative said the same approach with Deaf children will cause them harm. But both the Deaf and hearing babies are just that: babies. And the hearing baby’s language development is encouraged via sign language, yet denied for the Deaf baby- and it truly does not make sense. Therefore, this illustration challenges this master narrative in a very clear way. Again, did I have to resort to racial analogies to make my point? No, not at all- I really did not have to do that. [Raychelle resumes signing, video fades to black.] [Image: Black screen with text in white. Text: "And now the rest of the video continues, with racial analogies edited out." (Last two words are in italics)] [Image: Screen is completely black.] [Raychelle, a white, slim woman with medium, wavy light brown hair, wearing a dark taupe button-up shirt. Background screen is black.] [Image: A plain tan-orange, old-looking textbook with the title "The Psychology of Deafness" visible, there are more words but the font is too small to read] This book was a bestseller at an international level. People used it for their work... those people were teachers, psychologists, administrators, supervisors, speech therapists, audiologists and more. This book was required for graduate school, universities, training, graduate and undergraduate classes ubiquitously. This book was first published in 1957. [Text: 1957 in large font with animation] The book sold out! A reprint was ordered in 1960. [Text: 1960 in large font with animation] A second edition of this book was published in 1964. This book was popular and sales were high! [Text: 1964 in large font with animation] 1964 isn't very long ago, isn't it? Classes would require this textbook way into late 1970s. The underlying message of this book is: Deaf people can't. Deaf people are limited, their brain capacity cannot function beyond a specific level, and no amount of teaching will make a difference. In other words, this book basically said it was worthless trying to teach deaf people. Their cognition is retarded. [Text: "retarded" appears in a typewriter-type of animation] That book included a summary of different tests done on deaf people saying that deaf people are… [Text: retarded, limited, inferior, deficient, problematic, immature, deficient, remedial, hypomaniac, dependent, schizoprenic, belligerent, neurotic and negative] [Image: Same old tan/orange book photo from earlier] This book was widely used, over a long span of time. The last publication was in 1964, second edition-- however, in our interviews with people, they remembered this book being required reading in their classes during the 1980s at Gallaudet College - when it was a college. The graduate program in deaf education (they had a different name back then) required this book. Imagine deaf students taking a course and having to read this required book? Thumbing through the book, deaf students would learn that they are cognitively limited and that they are retarded. There are so many diagnoses and labels thrown at deaf people in this book. That book is one example of a very powerful master narrative about the Deaf community. This book indoctrinated people in how they perceived deaf people and their beliefs about deaf people. As teachers enter classrooms to teach deaf children, they are thinking, it's worthless teaching them, but might as well try... trying is better than not trying. They are thinking - teach deaf children how to survive- by finding a menial job... because they will never become geniuses, doctors, lawyers, or pilots-- impossible. Feeling furious? Me too. When I read the book, I couldn't believe how dangerous this book was for our community. What do we do? How do we prevent this from happening? How do we stop this type of very harmful master narrative from spreading? [Image/text: "How to Seize Academic Power" in white/blue font among green shapes/animation in the background] The first category: "Recognize & Resist" [Image: Green animation and text in the background] First, we need to be able to recognize master narratives. If we aren't able to recognize master narratives, then how can we resist master narratives? By recognizing master narratives, we are able to resist the damaging discourse and replace these with counternarratives. By recognizing and resisting, we are challenging the master narrative - that's the first category. The first subcategory under "Recognize & Resist" is 1) Resist Outsider's Theories and Labels [Image: Green animation/background]. Resist outsider's attempts to label or define you. If they attempt to do so, resist by saying that is not how you would define or label yourself. A classic example is "hearing impaired". [Image: White ear symbol with a cross over it on blue background] Are you calling me hearing impaired? Well-- hey there-- time out. I'm impaired? I can't? I'm deficient? I have a problem? I have to be fixed? Whoa there-- time out. I'm proud to be deaf. I am resisting their labels by not accepting how they define me. I am educating them about how I want to be described. This resistance will multiply and help contribute to positive change. That's one example of resisting outsider's theories and labels. The second subcategory under "Recognize & Resist" is 2) Recognize Epistemologies [Image: Green animation/background]. Epistemologies refer to "knowledge". Western epistemologies do not really apply to us, hearing epistemologies makes more sense. Hearing epistemologies has been shared over many generations, and often has been forced upon us and our community. We often have to remind them that we have a different way of life and experiences. Here's one example: A Deaf charter school was housed on a hearing school campus, using same buildings, facilities such as the gym and library. There were scheduling agreements on facility usage. The hearing school had rules that the deaf school needed to follow. One rule was when students transitioned from a building to another building, they would need to walk in a straight line, typical of a K-8th school. Since the Deaf charter school was housed on the same campus, they needed to follow the same rule. The agreement was mutual. As time went on, the teachers at the hearing school started having concerns about Deaf students' inability to stay in a straight line. Seems their behavior couldn't be controlled? Were they having behavioral issues? The hearing school decided to inform the Deaf charter school about their concerns, specifically the Deaf students' inability to stay in a straight line, unlike their hearing counterparts who would stand impeccably in a straight line. The Deaf charter school employees took their concerns seriously and debated ideas on how to improve their students' ability to walk in a straight line. The discussions led to a profound paradigm shift. When standing in a line, where are the eyes? Standing in lines is a hearing construct, a part of hearing epistemology. Deaf people must have their eyes aligned with each other, where sighted space overlaps. They studied Deaf students walking in line, they were falling out of place because they had to shift their shoulders in order to communicate with the person behind or in front of them. This was a profound breakthrough! They came up with a solution rather than refuse to work with the hearing school. Double lines was agreed upon. The Deaf students were able to make eye contact and chat on way to their next location without having to shift their shoulders! The double lines for Deaf students were explained to the hearing school, along with a brief education about visual (signing) culture. They were astounded and grateful about the lesson learned regarding hearing and Deaf epistemologies. The third subcategory under "Recognize & Resist" is 3) Recognize (Academic) Gatekeeping Techniques [Image: Green background/animation] Not only academic gatekeeping-- there are gatekeeping techniques everywhere. Some gatekeeping techniques include allowing only good friends in, and not allowing strangers or people one may not be too fond of, perhaps because they look different, act differently, or talk differently. Admission is "controlled". Here's one example. A publication was originally submitted to another journal, a Deaf journal. We submitted our article, and it was immediately rejected with major revisions. We wanted to know why. This is an actual sentence from the editors of the journal: [Text: "...must the history of hearingness be repeatedly bashed over the reader's head?"] We were astounded and taken aback. We knew the importance of history in documenting pattern-based evidence and supporting the claims made in our article, justifying the reasons for a specific set of research ethics to protect the ASL/Deaf community. Authors of academic pieces know the importance of setting up a trail of historical evidence leading up to their theoretical claims and constructs. The editors who turned down our article felt that our emphasis on historical anecdotes of hearing researchers taking advantage of Deaf people were excessive and completely unnecessary. They wanted us to scale down the amount of examples and the tone of our writing. We were shocked-- however, we conceded. We toned down the tone of the article according to their feedback and resubmitted. They rejected the submission again, asking us to tone the article down even more. We toned it down so much that we felt the article was watered-down, and we were nauseated by the process. We resubmitted the article for the third time, and they rejected it again! We were fed up and decided to go with another Deaf journal, submitting the original article we wrote, with all the historical anecdotes justifying our claims. Our original article was approved on our first try! This experience hit us.... this is an example of academic gatekeeping! Recognize those types of gatekeeping techniques and resist by moving to another one, and by not supporting the gatekeepers through a subscription or purchase. [Text: The second category - Seize & Carve, in green large font and animated]. By seizing and carving, we are making a permanent mark; a metaphor for change. [Image/text: Reframing in green font, with green background and animation]. This anecdote reminds me of National Association of the Deaf's Monographs. On the side, there would be a photo of the author and their background. [Image: NAD logo with NAD in orange-red font inside a blue circle on a white background]. That section describing the author's background tends - have you noticed? - to include the author's decibel level, for example, right ear 90, left ear 110. [Image: An audiogram in white, on black background, showing a dip in decibels near right of the chart] Then the "cause" of the "deafness" would also be mentioned, for instance, meningitis, birth or gradual hearing loss. This type of writing shows there is a different way of framing one's background as deficient, problematic, broken or being proud of being deaf. What would our author's backgrounds be framed as if we were to challenge the master narrative? Certainly a shift towards a positive, cultural frame of our identity. [Text/Image: Privileging knowledge and Primacy of Experience, in green animated background]. When you see academic publications, you tend to see parentheses and a name & year inserted in middle, for example, (Jones, 2005). Authors are expected to cite publications in their writing, also called citing the "literature". Citing, or in other words, mentioning other people and what they say, and then you say something, then make a point about two other people saying something that could be synthesized into one new theory, and so on. That's pretty much how you write academically. The academic English writing culture is deeply rooted in citing other people's work. Now, let's think about the Deaf community, our culture, and ASL... are there plentiful of publications by us and with us? How do we cite our own? We're trapped in this academic expectations cycle by having to cite mainly academic publications. This is a quagmire where there aren't enough publications by our own people and we're yet still expected to cite people's work. More importantly, we know so many Deaf people in our community that are absolutely, incredibly experienced and brilliant. Our interviews with those brilliant and experienced Deaf community experts should be equivalent to, or supersede academic publications. Set aside the academic cultural rule that we are to cite publications by privileged people, and honor those with direct and authentic experiences, and many different types of experiences. All that is related to "primacy" of literature... or in this case, "primacy" of knowledge and experience, regardless of the number of publications or a terminal degree. They, to a degree, truly have a terminal degree in Deaf knowledge! Honor those individuals. [Image/text: Language of Publication & Press in green animated font/background]. The language of academic publication is generally in English. Lately, more people are publishing in English AND presenting in ASL - perhaps at conferences or at different venues. Why does the publication route have to always start with English first? Do you realize that means the first people who has access to this information are usually hearing, privileged people who are fluent and comfortable with academic English. Those people, having first access to the content, are able to participate in dialogue about the constructs presented in the paper first. Our community and cultural members are inadvertently neglected and set aside in this process. To honor our community and culture, we should strive to publish first in our language. Publishing our work in ASL first allows our community and culture to access the information first, and participate in a productive dialogue about the constructs presented in our articles. After our community has explored the article thoroughly, then submit the article in English to a journal. [Image/text: Third category - "Negotiate" in green animated font] [Image/text: First subcategory, "Ownership & Profit" in green animated font/background] Often hearing and/or incompetent signers tend to interview and collect data from Deaf people, their language, Deaf community and Deaf culture. [Image: Dollar bills are fluttering around] Then the hearing and/or incompetent signer makes some profit off their publication, increase their prominence in their academic field, and assume ownership of the data about Deaf people and their language. Who owns the knowledge about Deaf people and ASL? The Deaf community! So we, as Deaf people need to become negotiators when being asked to participate in research. Ask questions! Are Deaf people on your research team? Are you the sole hearing researcher? Or are there three hearing researchers? Where are Deaf people like me on your team? Negotiate, and refuse participation until Deaf people are on the research team. Emphasize the importance of having Deaf researchers on the team, so the Deaf participants will be more comfortable to share genuine, authentic Deaf perspective. One classic anecdote regarding research about teaching sign language to primates - hearing people would do the teaching, however, there were numerous Deaf people hired to teach too, but the recognition of the work went to hearing people. They also received honors, praise and accolades for their work. There was very high turnover for Deaf employees, due to different reasons such as low wages, lousy hours, and menial service work with very little or no compensation. This scenario is, unfortunately, not uncommon. Be sure to negotiate your terms with them from the start. [Image/text: In Front and/or Teams in green animated font/background] Research teams is an essential concept. The older, traditional model has one person on the top, with a hierarchical structure for the remaining members. [Image: A pyramid of white shaped people standing on top of each other, with one on the top] The person on top is typically hearing and male. The more culturally appropriate model would be a team concept, where everyone has equal status, with perhaps two leaders, one being Deaf and the other being hearing. Or a scenario where there is a Deaf leader, and a mix of Deaf and hearing researchers participating in and consulting on the direction of the research project. eaf-led research teams are crucial in keeping the research process genuine, honest and authentic. Finally, counter narratives are "attempts to rewrite and reright existing and often damaging academic research" (Gilmore & Smith, 2005, p. 71). Academic research has done a great deal of damage towards our culture, language and children... particularly our children who were and are being intentionally deprived of accessible language within our current educational system. Our job is to continue to challenge the master narrative and replace the narrative with OUR counter narrative. [Text: References. Full references are listed in the section below the YouTube video] [Text: Images derived from Google Images compliant with Copyright and Fair use under non-profit, educational media.]