Deaf Empowerment: Emergence, Struggle, and Rhetoric

5 The Deaf President Now Protest

5 The Deaf President Now Protest The era of the 1960s and 1970s saw the Deaf social movement move toward constituting the Deaf community as a linguistic and cultural group with a distinct identity. The separatist rhetoric that marked the changing consciousness of the Deaf social movement during that period paved the way to a strengthened "can do" rhetoric. Accordingly, the Deaf social movement began to align its new consciousness with demands for increased participation in the social and educational institutions that were involved with the Deaf community. The 1987 resignation of Jerry C. Lee, then president of Gallaudet University, presented an opportunity to communicate such demands. The Deaf community had expressed the desire for a Deaf president at the time of the previous few vacancies but without success. Thus, when Lee and the previous president completed brief administrative terms, the Deaf movement once again began the call. This time, however, a rhetorical moment had presented itself. It was a time of uncertainty, with upheavals tied to administrative turnovers. Further, the Deaf community was strengthened by its sense of being a distinct cultural entity, which produced a more assertive rhetoric of their abilities. However, the circumstances that greeted the Deaf movement at Gallaudet presented a shift in rhetorical context. For instance, how would dominant discourses that had prevailed at Gallaudet react to this new consciousness of Deaf people? Institutions such as Gallaudet constituted a paradox for the movement: it was a site primarily for Deaf people but most often run by hearing 99 100 The Deaf President Now Protest people. Prior to the Gallaudet uprising, there were a very small number of Deaf superintendents running residential schools for the deaf, and Gallaudet had never had a Deaf president. Consequently , as Deaf people began to assert "Deaf as good" and spurn the "Deaf as broken ears" image, this new sense of Deaf pride and "can do" rhetoric served to challenge the dominant hierarchy that placed hearing people in charge of their destinies. When in March 1988 the Gallaudet board. of trustees once again hired a hearing administrator during an era of increasing resistance toward the pathologizing of Deaf people, the Deaf President Now (DPN) uprising occurred. In the few weeks prior to the protest, Deaf leaders began organizing to build up the momentum for the call for a Deaf president. Letters, calls, and telegrams had been sent to the board oftrustees and congressional leaders. A rally was held to build up and stren.gthen support for the cause. The rhetorical moment for a "Deaf President Now" was set in motion. By the time the board of trustees made its announcement, expectations were very high. Mter all, of the three finalists, two were Deaf. However, the board of trustees announced their selection of Elisabeth Ann Zinser, vice chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, yet another hearing person. Students shut down the campus for a week. Four demands were established : the resignation of Elisabeth Zinser, and her replacement with a Deaf president; the resignation of Jane Bassett Spilman, chair of the board of trustees; a restructuring of the board of trustees to create a 51 percent majority (at that time, only four of its twenty-one members were Deaf); and no reprisals against the protesters. By the end of the week, the board of trustees had agreed to meet all four demands. In addition, Philip Bravin, a Deaf board member, replaced Spilman and became the first Deaf chair of the board. Where the choice of a hearing president at Gallaudet confirmed the prevailing pathological and paternalistic image of Deaf people, the demand for a Deaf president by the Deaf community The Deaf President Now Protest 101 challenged this perception. A Deaf president came to symbolize the rejection of the predominant pathological and paternalistic status of Deaf people. The Symbolic Force of Paternalism Dominant discourses of paternalism have always confined the Deaf community. Such rhetoric goes back to early Hebrew law: "If one exposes his cattle to the sun, or he places them in the custody of a deaf-mute, of a fool, or a minor, and they break away and do damage, he is liable" (Bender 1970, 19). The rhetoric of paternalism was also evident at the 1880 Milan Congress, when dominant discourses determined that the society at large was responsible for the care of Deaf people, perpetuating the myth that Deafpeople could not determine their own fates...