In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Deaf President Now Protest: The Effect of an Impairment-Specific Success The Deaf President Now (DPN) protest, which occurred at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., in March 1988, was a highly visible protest that was successful in attaining all of its demands. In addition, the link between the collective action and its success was quite clear. Here we examine the impact of this protest in the deaf community on subsequent contentious political actions by deaf people as well as by people with other types of impairments. There were a number of ways in which the DPN protest was similar to the protests held to demand that the regulations for the Rehabilitation Act be written.1 The Rehabilitation Act and DPN protests occurred early enough in the history of protests for the relevant communities that they were startling and apparently viewed as a new development for that community. The protests were very disruptive, and they were tactically similar. DPN and the Rehabilitation Act protest that occurred in San Francisco borrowed tactics from earlier protests in other social movements-the student and anti-war protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Both involved a takeover and a lockout.2 In the case of DPN it was the takeover of an entire campus instead of just one building, while the San Francisco protest involved the takeover of part ofa building. Although the DPN protest initially occurred only in one place, and so was different from the Rehabilitation Act protests, which began simultaneously in nine cities, at least seven other sympathy protests were held to support DPN as the week progressed. The DPN and Rehabilitation Act protests were focused upon very limited targets that had the power to right the situation. In addition, both sets of protests were disruptive and drew substantial amounts of media attention} Finally, the demands in both sets of protests were framed as civil rights issues (Christiansen and Barnartt, 1995). This protest was, however, also quite different in a number of ways from the protests held around the Rehabilitation Act. First, and perhaps most importantly, it was an impairment-specific protest. It was a protest about a deafness-related issue, conducted primarily by deaf people, about demands that had real meaning for only a small number of deaf people. Its demands were limited in scope, focusing on 192 The DeafPresident Now Protest 193 personnel at one institution. This protest was not about legislation, nor was it applicable to all people with disabilities. The DPN protest was not a campaign (Marwell and Oliver, 1984) within the larger disability rights movement. It was not planned, instigated, or in any other way caused by that movement. Although other disability groups expressed support for the protest, only a handful of representatives from other impairment groups or other disability organizations actually participated (Christiansen and Barnartt, 1995). Finally, the DPN protest lasted for only eight days, from March 6, 1988, until March 14, 1988, although there was a preliminary rally on March 1. The longest of the Rehabilitation Act protests lasted for twenty-five days. We might have assumed that, despite the similarities between DPN and the Rehabilitation Act protests, DPN would have made little difference to the activism of people with other types of impairments. The DPN protest directly changed nothing in their lives. We expect its greatest impact to have been on the deaf community rather than members ofthe larger disability community. But even though this protest was by deafpeople about a deafness-related issue, researchers have claimed that it had both a direct (Zola, 1992) and an indirect impact on the larger disability community. Shapiro (1994: 124) thinks the DPN protest was one of two "great consciousnessraising events of the disability rights movement." That it had an indirect effect on people with other types ofimpairments, through the passage ofthe ADA, was emphasized in 1992 when Justin Dart announced that Gallaudet students and faculty would be presented with the Distinguished Service Award of the President of the United States on October 30. Dart stated that "The long successful struggle by the students and faculty to replace paternalism with empowerment sent a vital message to the nation and [DPN] was a major contribution to the passage ofthe ADA." Even ignoring the political motivation such a statement might have had a few days before a presidential election, and the inaccuracies in the first part of the statement, it nevertheless supports the perception that DPN had an impact on persons with disabilities outside the...

Share