NTID ponders to remove the name of AGB from the campus - Page 2

Byrdie714 · 02-23-2008, 09:09 PM

Knowing that NTID is part of RIT....what's RIT's stand on this issue?

lumbingmi · 02-23-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Knowing that NTID is part of RIT....what's RIT's stand on this issue?

AGB's name is on NTID campus. It is a hallway and located between Tower A and Peterson building. RIT have 8 colleges and NTID is one of 8 colleges. So RIT just leave this matter up to NTID community.

Byrdie714 · 02-23-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumbingmi

AGB's name is on NTID campus. It is a hallway and located between Tower A and Peterson building. RIT have 8 colleges and NTID is one of 8 colleges. So RIT just leave this matter up to NTID community.

I knew that.....

I was wondering what RIT's stand is on this issue since the name of "RIT" is usually on the diploma's of NTID students......

I think RIT should have a say in it as well.....

lumbingmi · 02-23-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

I knew that.....

I was wondering what RIT's stand is on this issue since the name of "RIT" is usually on the diploma's of NTID students......

I think RIT should have a say in it as well.....

You know that hearing community usually would support whatever deaf community want therefore hearing wouldn't want to meddling into deaf affairs.

I am sure that Vice president of NTID will keep RIT president up to date and NTID VP have full support from RIT President.

Not many people realize the reason why NTID is having a committee meeting regard to this issue is to prevent protest from happening. NTID doesn't want to have another DPN on their campus. LOL

Buffalo · 02-23-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumbingmi

You know that hearing community usually would support whatever deaf community want therefore hearing wouldn't want to meddling into deaf affairs.

I am sure that Vice president of NTID will keep RIT president up to date and NTID VP have full support from RIT President.

Not many people realize the reason why NTID is having a committee meeting regard to this issue is to prevent protest from happening. NTID doesn't want to have another DPN on their campus. LOL

DPN?

jillio · 02-23-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

DPN?

Deaf President Now, Gallaudet campus and downtown Washington D.C. 1988.

Byrdie714 · 02-23-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumbingmi

You know that hearing community usually would support whatever deaf community want therefore hearing wouldn't want to meddling into deaf affairs.

I am sure that Vice president of NTID will keep RIT president up to date and NTID VP have full support from RIT President.

Not many people realize the reason why NTID is having a committee meeting regard to this issue is to prevent protest from happening. NTID doesn't want to have another DPN on their campus. LOL

Well AGB did marry a deaf woman. Name the building after her, afterall she did have to put up with him.

Buffalo · 02-23-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Deaf President Now, Gallaudet campus and downtown Washington D.C. 1988.

Ah

Buffalo · 02-23-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Well AGB did marry a deaf woman. Name the building after her, afterall she did have to put up with him.

My understanding is that Mabel Hubbard Bell want nothing to do with the deaf community. Naming that building after her is a moot point.

jillio · 02-24-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

Ah

YW!

***VamPyroX*** · 02-24-2008, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

But the organization that carries his name continues to promote discriminatory practices against the signing deaf today. He may be dead, but his philosophies live on.

Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

If you do believe that the building should be renamed simply because of a named organization, then I could do the same thing with NTID. The NTID building is LBJ. I could look up stuff on the actual person named LBJ and then set up an organization. I could start taking his ideals to the extreme even though they're old. I'll do it enough so that it starts pissing off the deaf students there. Then, they will want to rename LBJ to something else as well.

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did. So, I could set up an organization where we do things that other people don't want to do. Don't like my organization? Too bad. I'm simply following LBJ's ideals to the extreme.

Now, does that sound reasonable? No.

Buffalo · 02-24-2008, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

A G Bell served as a Chairman of the Board of Scientific Directors of the Eugenics Record Office. Eugenic Archives: "Alexander Graham Bell as Chairman of the Board of Scientific Directors of the Eugenics Record Office," Eugenical News (vol. 14:8)

jillio · 02-24-2008, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

If you do believe that the building should be renamed simply because of a named organization, then I could do the same thing with NTID. The NTID building is LBJ. I could look up stuff on the actual person named LBJ and then set up an organization. I could start taking his ideals to the extreme even though they're old. I'll do it enough so that it starts pissing off the deaf students there. Then, they will want to rename LBJ to something else as well.

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did. So, I could set up an organization where we do things that other people don't want to do. Don't like my organization? Too bad. I'm simply following LBJ's ideals to the extreme.

Now, does that sound reasonable? No.

The difference being, LBJ did not practice soft eugenics. LBJ did not promote oralism only. LBJ did not discriminate against the signing deaf. AG Bell did, and AGBad does. So to name a building after him on a college campus that has a name such as national Technical Institute for the Deaf is insulting.

Now, if you were to name a building after LBJ on a Quaker campus, as Quakers are known first and foremost for their religious stance on pacifism, that, too would be insulting. The man's philosphy is diametrically opposed to their belief system.

To name a building after the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan might also be acceptable for some. I doubt that it would be tolerated on, for example, the campus of Fisk University, a tradtitionally Black campus.

See the difference?

Byrdie714 · 02-24-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

If you do believe that the building should be renamed simply because of a named organization, then I could do the same thing with NTID. The NTID building is LBJ. I could look up stuff on the actual person named LBJ and then set up an organization. I could start taking his ideals to the extreme even though they're old. I'll do it enough so that it starts pissing off the deaf students there. Then, they will want to rename LBJ to something else as well.

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did. So, I could set up an organization where we do things that other people don't want to do. Don't like my organization? Too bad. I'm simply following LBJ's ideals to the extreme.

Now, does that sound reasonable? No.

How soon have we forgotten the Milan conference?

lumbingmi · 02-24-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did.

Apple and Orange.

lumbingmi · 02-24-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

How soon have we forgotten the Milan conference?

Yep. INfamous 1880 Milan Conference.

Thank God for Gallaudet as they perserved ASL.

Byrdie714 · 02-24-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

NTID Community:

As you may know, there have been a considerable number of concerns expressed by members of the RIT/NTID community about the name of the Alexander G. Bell Hall and commemorative plaque honoring Bell posted in the foyer of the building. It is argued by many that a number of attitudes, opinions, and actions that Alexander G. Bell promoted during his lifetime are not supportive of the diversity of people who are deaf, and therefore do not represent NTID.

Alan Hurwitz

Apparently when they constructed NTID, they felt that naming a hall after AGB was of importance in deaf education.

Why not track down those people that made the decision to inquire about naming the hall for AGB?

lumbingmi · 02-24-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Apparently when they constructed NTID, they felt that naming a hall after AGB was of importance in deaf education.

Why not track down those people that made the decision to inquire about naming the hall for AGB?

I bet these people are pro-Oralism and anti-ASL.

Byrdie714 · 02-24-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumbingmi

I bet these people are pro-Oralism and anti-ASL.

You never know.....

Boult · 03-02-2008, 11:33 PM

I came across a Google cache of "Ask President Destler" (RIT President) (apparently the page was updated and some information was not archived but luckily I was able to find it in Google cache so here's what was posted back then before the page was updated...
Ask President Destler

Quote:

Q: Before PepsiCo aired its deaf commercial called “Bob’s House” for the Super Bowl, an organization named Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) sent a letter to PepsiCo to “complain” about the commercial. The letter can be found at this link:

http://agbell.org/uploads/Pepsi3ltr.pdf

The letter implanted that an oral communication is the only choice for deaf and hard of hearing people to communicate. Historically, Alexander G. Bell does not support American Sign Language. He also thought deaf people should not marry each other and also cannot become teachers.

I highly recommend you to read a plaque at Bell Hall and I want your opinion on the plaque.

I strongly believe that people have rights to choose what types of communications they want to use to communicate.

Already, there is a Facebook group who want a rename of Bell Hall and a removal of the plaque from dorm. The petition has been circulated to ask for the rename and the removal of the plaque.

Would you consider renaming the hall and removing the plaque?

A: The concerns raised by members of the RIT/NTID community about the Alexander Graham Bell Association’s letter to PepsiCo, and the wording of the plaque in Bell Hall are important ones. Therefore, I have asked T. Alan Hurwitz, RIT Vice President and Dean for NTID to lead a group to assess the issues and make a recommendation to me. Dr. Hurwitz has asked Dr. James DeCaro, former NTID dean and Interim Director to work with him as vice chair. Included will be representatives from faculty, staff, student and deaf professional groups. If a name change is recommended, it would have to be approved by the President of RIT and ultimately the Board of Trustees.
For those readers unaware of the controversy, here is some information:
The AG Bell Association promotes the use of oral communication and technology for deaf children and adults. In its letter to PepsiCo, the Association said the company’s millions could have been better spent buying hearing aids for those who cannot afford them rather than portraying the small segment of the deaf population that uses only sign language to communicate.
The plaque in the foyer of Bell Hall reads:
Only six years before his death, Alexander Graham Bell looked back over his amazing life and wrote: “Recognition of my work for and interest in the education of the deaf has always been more pleasing to me than even recognition of my work with the telephone.”
A brilliant and innovative teacher of the deaf, Bell dedicated a great portion of his life to help deaf children develop this potential for listening, speaking and lipreading.
Today, NTID emulates the ideals for which Alexander Graham Bell worked.

While Dr. Hurwitz and the entire NTID community is supportive of all forms of communication, he also tells me, “I feel the Pepsi commercial was a clever way to expose millions of viewers to a brief glimpse of deaf culture. It promoted diversity and it apparently continues to be a source for a healthy discussion.” In letters to PepsiCo and Alexander Graham Bell Association, individual faculty and students have felt free to express their concerns or support regarding this commercial.
More important to our RIT community, I welcome the exploration of this issue by Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. DeCaro regarding the plaque and whether it should be removed or the wording changed.
Those wishing to be part of the discussion should contact Dr. Hurwitz’ office.

The Letter to Pespi is located in Newsroom section of AGBell's website
Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

jasin · 05-09-2008, 07:02 AM

Good!

ClearSky · 05-09-2008, 04:12 PM

How about Hellen Keller?

I really think that the AGB simply had a mind of the past. He probably didn't know any better.

Rainshower77 · 05-11-2008, 09:27 AM

Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.

People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.

shel90 · 05-11-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainshower77

Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.

People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.

It is not only the issue of sterilizing..AGBell forced many deaf people to be oral and banned them from using sign language. He took away their rights to full access to language and communication because he wanted deaf people to be the mold of hearing people.

jillio · 05-11-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainshower77

Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.

People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.

While there will always be people, in their mistaken and prejudiced minds, that will support some form of eugenics, it does not make it right. You can hardly compare elective choice with forced sterilization. In one, the individual is given a choice. In the other society forces it on the individual. Two completely different situations.

***VamPyroX*** · 05-11-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainshower77

Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.

People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.

That's right.

One of the unspoken rules of "Deaf Pride" is that a deaf person must have a deaf parent and a deaf other-half in order to be considered part of Deaf Culture.

Everyone's always playing the blame game trying to get attention when things are sometimes best left alone in history.

Buffalo · 05-12-2008, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainshower77

Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.

People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.

People would sterilized those that they consider to be a burdensome. Won't you object if I said that the hearing people ought to be sterilized because they are burdensome to the deaf people? Too many of hearing parents don't know ASL thus too many deaf people get behind in their education. Many managers won't hire deaf people so the deaf people end up on SSI/SSDI. If the manager do hire a deaf person then the manager could keep the deaf person in low salary bracket and might not consider promotion for that deaf person eventhough if the deaf person is good worker. Rainshower, you don't mind this at all?

Rainshower77 · 05-12-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

While there will always be people, in their mistaken and prejudiced minds, that will support some form of eugenics, it does not make it right. You can hardly compare elective choice with forced sterilization. In one, the individual is given a choice. In the other society forces it on the individual. Two completely different situations.

In sterilization case, there is no child to live or die. but it is force on them not to have babies because they themselves exist.

In a abortion case, it's is the parents that force their own child not to live at all. And the child does exist.

Rainshower77 · 05-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

People would sterilized those that they consider to be a burdensome. Won't you object if I said that the hearing people ought to be sterilized because they are burdensome to the deaf people? Too many of hearing parents don't know ASL thus too many deaf people get behind in their education. Many managers won't hire deaf people so the deaf people end up on SSI/SSDI. If the manager do hire a deaf person then the manager could keep the deaf person in low salary bracket and might not consider promotion for that deaf person eventhough if the deaf person is good worker. Rainshower, you don't mind this at all?

I don't agree with it, but many people have done abortion because it is a burdensome to them because of their disability... if they could screen genes for deafness durning pregnancy, you bet many hearing parents will abort (and I have heard deaf people would do the same thing... and one time I have heard that some have put their child up for adoption because he is hearing... they wanted a deaf child).

jillio · 05-12-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainshower77

In sterilization case, there is no child to live or die. but it is force on them not to have babies because they themselves exist.

In a abortion case, it's is the parents that force their own child not to live at all. And the child does exist.

Now you are getting into the morality of abortion, and that can be discussed in another thread. Abortion issues have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of soft eugenics ir the promotion of the well born based on something as superficial as deafness. One is an individual issue. The other is an attempt to do away with an entire population through extrodinary means simply because they happen to be deaf.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-23-2008, 09:09 PM	#31 (permalink)
Byrdie714 Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 8,946	Knowing that NTID is part of RIT....what's RIT's stand on this issue?

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-09-2008, 07:02 AM	#51 (permalink)
jasin Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Puyallup, Washington Posts: 1,537	Good!

05-09-2008, 04:12 PM	#52 (permalink)
ClearSky Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,154	How about Hellen Keller? I really think that the AGB simply had a mind of the past. He probably didn't know any better.

05-11-2008, 09:27 AM	#53 (permalink)
Rainshower77 Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 91	Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife. How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die. People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.