"Identity Politics Gone Wild"

No, this isn't like Girls Gone Wild and spring break. Well - in a way it is.

The Weekly Standard has published the above article about the standoff at Gallaudet University. I read through the article, which is full of criticism of the recent events at Gallaudet University.

And I'm not saying that I agree with everything that happens at Gallaudet or with everything in deaf culture. I don't. In fact some of the points raised have validity.

But to use language like

"All that was missing from this 2006 version of those heady days of 40 years ago was Mark Rudd and his famous bullhorn. That would have been unnecessary, however, for Gallaudet is a university for the deaf"

"yet another phenomenon forged during the 1960s and belatedly recapitulated last fall at Gallaudet: the mixture of anger, self-pity, and clannish exclusiveness that is radical identity politics" and

"or maybe--as a new argument went after the "not deaf enough" argument seemed to fall on deaf ears among outsiders, so to speak, and was quickly shelved-"

reveals a use of language about disability that is disturbing. What do I mean by that?

First I find its style to be sarcastic, which never bodes well in any intelligent discussion of a topic. Worse yet, this language also pokes fun at deafness as a disability. And there seems to be an agenda here about putting the deaf - and disabled - in their place. To silence them. To tell them to sit down at their desks, study and be good little deaf kids.

The reason we have identity politics in the first place is because of the very real oppression and silencing that has gone on for people with disabilities for thousands of years. And continues. And we are just beginning to be able to say what our experience of living with a disability is like. Radical identity politics are an outgrowth of our movement to find our voice.

The author refers to members of the autistic community as well. (She references them in the same breath as the chronically obese, apparently an ADA thing although I'm not sure.) This one or two sentence allusion to the autism community would hardly warrant mention here except that she brought it up, dropped it and failed to go into any explanation as to why people with autism, who are developing a strong voice, wish there to be change in how they are perceived.

There are legitimate reasons for not wanting to be perceived as "disabled" when such negative connotations still exist that are heaped upon us by our society. Although personally I dislike it when someone in another group finds it offensive to be considered disabled, thus adding to my oppression since I am a person with a disability, I do see that reaction as an offshoot of the original oppression we have all encountered. This disability hierarchy, in which those of us with disabilities at times oppress each other, has its origins in the oppression we all face from society.

The root of the problem is that being seen as disabled is still a slight, a put down, a tragedy, a disgrace, a shame, a punishment -well you get the idea. I'm not willing to say or do anything to compromise my right- or anyone else's right - to speak up about that issue. Just as I sometimes feel that people who leave comments make my point better than I ever could when they disagree with me, I feel those who are deaf who say they are not disabled are the best proof of the degree of oppression that people with disabilities still face in our society.