Denver – Good afternoon, everybody! I hope your summer has gone well. I have been busy conserving fuel by hitch-hiking across the country. It was hot outside! Cars zipped past! People waved and honked! And then I finally arrived at my destination – the newspaper outside the front door of my house!
I am not kidding you!
HaHa!
I’m just messin’ with all ya’ll. Can ya dig it, ya’know what I’m sayin’?
Anyway .. I am sorry I have not blogged much lately. And to be quite honest with all ya’ll, I have been keeping track of the DBC/Deafhood scandal as it continues to grow online.
What I mean to say is that there was nothing new for me to add until just recently. And as is my customary habit, I waited until I had read enough different opinions and perspectives to begin my own commentary/blogging. And then I discovered an interesting twist to the ongoing DBC/Deafhood scandal.
A DeafRead Editor has recently revealed that she was a former founding member of the Deaf Bilingual Coalition and requested/demanded the current DBC leaders – a “trio” of Deafhood proponents – resign from their posts within the DBC. Such is the need for “transparency” that many people are asking the DBC leadership to “come clean” or face further criticisms from the deaf/hoh blogosphere.
Another of the former founding members of the DBC stated the Deafhood Trio had unethically overtaken the DBC leadership. In fact, the reason why former founding members of the DBC waited so long to go public with their demands for transparency has to do with fear and “oppression.” She states:
I felt like going back to square one, being totally oppressed. It reminded me of old days at Gally when everything was nearly always behind closed doors.
The DeafRead Editor has admitted she was not being transparent in regard to the DBC leadership, yet she allowed the DBC’s postings to be picked up on DeafRead. Not too long ago, Rachel was banned by DeafRead, and the explanation states:
The lack of transparency also violates the trust of DeafRead viewers.
DeafRead does not tolerate any deliberate deception by any blogs. DeafRead values its credibility and embraces impartiality by enforcing its guidelines.
The DeafRead Editor remained mum regarding the DBC’s lack of transparency while Rachel’s banishment swirled throughout DeafRead. Instead of enforcing the Guidelines and banishing the DBC from DeafRead (as well as the Deafhood “trio”), the DeafRead Editor choose to hide the obvious and blatant hypocrisy exhibited by DeafRead’s decision to ban Rachel – much like the revelations concerning the Deafhood group seizing control of the DBC leadership.
So, let’s review: the DeafRead Editor has allowed other people to experience the DBC’s “oppression” for as long as the Editor has been a former founding DBC member. And as a DeafRead Editor, in which calls for banishment on DeafRead were issued by DBC leaders, the Editor choose to remain silent about the DBC’s lack of transparency and “oppression” for whatever reason(s).
If people want real accountability, then DeafRead owes Rachel a major apology; and if the Editor truly wants accountability to take place by the DBC leadership in the form of resignations, then the Editor should resign as DeafRead Editor. She should resign because she failed by selectively allowing other people (Rachel) to experience the very same forms of “oppression” “summarily” applied towards herself and other former DBC founding members. Or, she selectively and conveniently allowed the DBC and Deafhood articles to be picked upon DeafRead – despite the clear violation of the Guidelines (lack of transparency) that have been known to her for a long time – and continued to perpetuate the “oppression” she seeks to end.
Anyway, I have to go now – I need to go to the nursery for gardening supplies – but the point of today’s article is not that the Editor may have deceived DeafRead readers and violated their trust by withholding information and engaging in conflicting, double-standards with regard to DeafRead’s Guidelines. The point here is that integrity-driven accountability has to be practiced before it is preached – not conveniently after the fact.
The DBC still sucks!
DUH.
UPDATE: The DeafRead Editor described DBC leaders as (in the same article):
“Instead of being willing to discuss this with the concerned members of the Deaf Community, they attacked those who gave them constructive feedback, using intimidation tactics and utilizing some of theirs followers to speak up for them.”
Let’s review s’more of her comments on her blog dated 7/11/2008:
“The deprivation of fully accessible communication is forbidden in prisons as an unusual and cruel punishment.”
“The Deaf leaders should be able to handle constructive feedback professionally without restoring into negative and destructive attacks to denigrate concerned Deaf people.”
“I hope DBC will continue to be successful. All I am asking is the organization to show transparency, integrity, and tolerance for Deaf members.”
January 24, 2008, I published an article in response to the same Editor’s emotional outburst against a CI-friendly commentator (note: I have long stated the Editor in question has been blatantly anti-CI in her “research” efforts, to which I have alluded as a form of seeking acceptance from DBC leaders)
December 21, 2007 – AGBell.info (DBC web site) – Mr. John Egbert states:
“Paotie,
I had to delete your comment on this post because I am doing this for your own good because people may start wondering if you have a sociopath personality.
Look up this,
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
John”
“I had brain tumor taken out of my head two and half years ago but I feel great. I don’t want to use that as an excuse but I might not be 100 perfect.” – John Egbert
Deaf Pundit (a former founding member of the DBC) issued a complaint to John Egbert regarding Deafhood and the DBC on December 16, 2007:
” .. but you and your friends, all proponents of Deafhood, are constantly preaching that the Deaf Community has to have open dialogue so we can grow”
Deaf Pundit also commented at another DeafRead Editor’s blog dated 6/26/2008:
“And I have to add: I am also very glad to see that DBC has become more professional. This is what the Deaf Community needs.
I wish everyone at the DBC conference good luck, and PLEASE stay safe – be prepared for AG Bell supporters to be hostile to the point of physical violence. Don’t let them drag you into that.”
John Egbert’s 12/16/2007 demand to “REMOVE THOSE DEFICIT THINKERS!”:
“Should someone have a poll and see what the faithful DeafRead.com Blog/Vlog readers feel about the parasites deficit thinkers before 2008 DeafRead Conference?”
DeafRead Owner/Editor states in a DeafRead posting dated 12/17/2007:
“Nor is it about telling you what you can write, and what you cannot write.” [Note: I have been told by more than two DeafRead Editors to change/modify/edit an article of mine]
“Keep your friends close, but keep your enemy closer”
Brian Riley, DBC “core” member states, 12/16/2007:
“It’s also John’s [Egbert] prerogative to try to convince the [DeafRead] owner(s) to kick out the trash talkers.”
Ben .. you asked a great question: “How did the Deafhood group ‘overtake’ the DBC?”
The answer is simple, my friend: DeafRead. Everything stops and starts with DeafRead when we’re talking about Deafhood and the DBC. Without DeafRead, neither organization would be where they are today, as evidenced by the outpouring of alleged evidence against the DBC/Deafhood leadership – which first appeared ON DeafRead (and later went to Deaf Village – as you know, was borne from DeafRead’s lack of transparency).
Be good .. or be good at it.
Paotie
Sphere: Related Content
