The Mask of Confusion.

Abstract

The Mask of Confusion Donald F. Moores, Editor (In response to Dr. Lane) Lane’s response consists of two main arguments: First, the book was reviewed favorably in two other places, and second, I was either baffled by the book or I evaded his criticisms and fresh vision by pretending that everything is now fine with deaf education. The first argument is irrelevant. Lane must know that others have written critical reviews of his book. For example, I can refer to one by the sociologist Robert Scott, who, I believe, is not directly involved in education of the deaf. Scott (1993) states that Lane weakens his case by overrelying on ideology in place of serious analysis, and that Lane’s rhetoric is in the end self-defeating. Scott lists four concerns that seriously undermine Lane’s position, as follows: First, the author is not consistently sensitive to the heterogeneity of beliefs, attitudes, and values of people in the groups he attempts to portray. Second, his rhetoric is sometimes misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory, thereby contributing more heat than light to the issues. Third, his use of evidence is selective and uncritical. And fourth, vital parts of his argument lack historical and social context. (p. 84) Lane cannot believe that I think everything is fine in deaf education today. In the beginning of my review, I alluded to the serious problems we face. As I have stated frequently: we face enormous difficulties in the field. Also, I do not think I was baffled by a “fresh” vision. The basic premise of the book is that deaf communities have suffered repression, in all of its forms and consequences, in common with other cultures that were literally subjugated by imperial powers. In truth, I find his message simplistic. Rather than face complex issues he unfairly demonizes an entire profession. Lane claims that he identified five major issues that I avoided. I believe I did address them, and will go over them again. Is Deaf Education Oppressive? Lane retracts his overgeneralization and acknowledges that, “Indeed, it would be mindless to equate [sic] oppressive practices in deaf education and imperialism, and Mask doesn’t do it.” It is mindless, but I believe Lane did do it. Some quotes from the book: In fact I [Lane] was beginning a journey that would lead me to appreciate the profound commonalities between the cultural oppression suffered by the colonized people of Africa and that suffered by deaf communities. (p. 32) The universal properties of paternalism do show up in the stereotypes the colonial authorities and the hearing authorities create for themselves to rationalize and justify their predicament. (p. 40) It seems, then, that there are fundamental commonalities between the relations of colonizers and colonized on the one hand and those of audists and deaf people on the other. (p. 50) Yet if the experience of colonization is to be more than an analogy and actually a template for the experience of audism (p. 50) Lane claims that the book is a work of social irony. These statements seem straightforward, with no suggestion of irony. Lane now states that he did not mean them. Fine. [End Page 554] Now to the point: Is deaf education oppressive? Partly. For example, Gallaudet does have a legacy of oppression—35 years ago deaf students were not allowed into graduate school—but people of good will are working through remaining problems of bias and discrimination. The presence of a deaf president, vice presidents, deans, directors, and doctoral-level tenured professors provides evidence of progress that Lane casually dismisses. He dismisses these improvements in the same way that he dismisses leadership by deaf professionals in CAID and CEASD. Exploitation takes many forms. Many universities hire deaf instructors to teach courses on ASL at low pay but never provide opportunities for doctoral-level tenure track employment. This is exploitative if not oppressive. Northeastern University has had an ASL research lab for about 20 years, and has a Disability Resource Center with 40 deaf students and an interpreter training program. I would like to know how many doctoral-level tenured, culturally deaf professors Northeastern has had in the past 20 years. I...