Erik's Experience with the DBC Protest at AGB Milwaukee

Erik Nordlof is a long-time member of AG Bell, having been involved with the LOFT (Leadership Opportunities for Teens) and LEAP (Leadership, Education, and Advocacy Program) programs and serves as the web liaison for the College Leadership Committee. He was born hearing, but became profoundly deaf due to bacterial meningitis. Originally from Chicago, Illinois his parents decided to relocate to St. Louis so Erik could go to the Central Institute of the Deaf, where he attended until 1994. He went on to become mainstreamed in the local district, utilizing CART in his classes.

A CI user, Erik joined the Deaf Teen Club in high school and eventually became treasurer and president of the club. This served as his avenue in learning sign language from his peers, which provided him with the opportunity to communicate with members of Deaf Bilingual Coalition. Here is his story of that experience.

--------

For those who don't know, I attended the AG Bell convention in Milwaukee, and the Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC) set up its conference and protest near the convention center. DBC had its own conference at a nearby hotel, and they held a protest on the sidewalk opposite the convention center, posting a banner that said, "A.G. Bell, tear down this wall!"

I had heard about the protest last spring, and I was turning over its message in my head, trying to understand what their goal was. When I was at the convention, I was across the street watching the protest and taking a couple of pictures. A deaf protester on the sidewalk with me approached me and talked to me about AGB's negativist philosophy about suppressing sign language. I listened with my arms folded, and soon enough I began responding.

I know sign language, so I was able to communicate with the protester with ease. He painted me his perspective of AGB, and I responded that it seemed to be an overreaction. The organization's goal was oralism, and the topics it offered were based on that. It didn't dictate to parents of deaf children how they should raise their children. I disagreed with the notion that AGB took an active role in suppressing sign language, pointing to the various accommodations that the organization made. For example, there was a sign language interpreter and an oral interpreter at the opening ceremony, there were exhibit halls from RIT and Gallaudet, and there was no staff that was tapping on my shoulder and requesting for me to stop signing with some of my peers.

I emphasized individual choice and how parents are able to decide for themselves how to raise their deaf children. I said that AGB did not come into parents' homes and deny them sign language. Since this protester (and several others gathering) were curious about my sign language, I explained my background, having learned it from a deaf teen club during high school. I just chose to keep up with it since I genuinely enjoyed the language.

I debated with about seven different protesters, so some topics were repeated. Looking back, I can't recall what I talked about with whom. I'm trying to cover all the important points that I felt I made. Several of them brought up the history of oralism, and I acknowledged that it could have been more progressive. However, I directed the conversation to focus on the now, since things have changed.

With the conversation in the now, the topic of parents came up. I repeated how AGB did not come into parents' homes and dictate how to communicate with their deaf children. A couple of protesters, including a hearing mother, thought that parents of deaf children were frightened and that AGB "preyed" on them. The mother called the parents "lemmings" for going to AGB (apparently, the mother was a former "lemming" who didn't take the plunge). Again, I emphasized that it was up for the parents to choose, and that parents are completely able to research the possibilities. AGB offers strategies related to oralism. At the time, I was not sure what kind of accessibility AGB provided parents to other methods, so I proposed a possible solution. I said that AGB was an organization with limited resources, and it was unrealistic to request for it to add new programs about other communication modes. At the time, I had proposed the possible solution of AGB listing the various modes of communication for parents and saying something like, "To learn more about sign language, you can visit the National Association for the Deaf's website." Afterward, I found out that AGB already provided such venues:

http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?p=Communication_Options

I don't know if I changed anyone's mind, but several protesters thanked me for giving them "access". I took this to mean that they were viewing AGB from the outside and may not have a true idea of what it was. Hopefully, being able to sign, and sharing my perspective as a member of AGB, shows some peple that it was not really the enemy DBC made it out to be.

My debate with the protesters ended partially because I was getting texted constantly (Valerie was retrieving my Blackberry from my waist and responding for me) and partially because apparently security was contacted. I had been surrounded by a LOT of people, and according to a friend of mine, a couple of staff members inside the center were worried about me. While I was slightly overwhelmed by the number of people and the cameras trained on me, I was still OK. Security moved the majority of the people back to the other side of the street, and I went to lunch with friends.

In retrospect, I think DBC did a terrible job of public relations. I don't think the sight of a protest is really attractive to any member of AGB. If anything, DBC has unnecessarily tried to make an opponent out of AGB, interpreting certain stances to believe that their language was being suppressed. I imagine that DBC needs to view AGB as intolerant so it serves as a driver for an organization, otherwise it cannot encourage its members into actions like protesting. I think it would be great if people could have a stronger understanding of ASL, but the protest seemed to have made DBC too adverse from the outside.

Debating with protesters was a little bit of a surreal experience. I haven't been caught up in anything like that, and it was different for me to take a sort of a middle ground (being bilingual) yet trying to discourage a combative mindset. From what I've read on a couple of blogs after the convention, some members are re-evaluating their perspective in terms of public relations and their own leadership. I wish them the best, as I think they could accomplish more by having a less aggressive approach.

- Erik