I am back with another dialogue about the phrase “the elephant in the room.” I am positive that most have heard this phrase before. The problem is that there are so many different interpretations that my friends and I decided to dissect it.
The conversation started because there has been an election. The National Association for the Deaf (NAD) presidential election. Shortly after the election, conversations from both sides—those that are happy with the outcome and those that opposed the outcome—erupted. It was almost like an implosion.
It didn’t make sense to me because I thought that an election meant that whoever won, the victory was based on merit and in compliance with the organizational constitution and by-laws. Well, here was another thought in which my friends disagreed. Each one of them had a strong opinion and position and I am simply naive.
The background information of the election is that two individuals competed. One male (a former vice president), and one female (an outsider NAD member with a strong background and credentials). Word on the street – again among my friends and conversations, was that the lady was favored to win because of her strong advocacy background. Most malcontents opined that the former vice president is from the “old boy’s network,” and would not bring about changes.
These are words on the street with no factual basis. I am old enough to know that sometimes humans will talk and build conversations without facts. Most of these conversations can be very distorted and it still doesn’t stop humans from talking. Like it or not, it is human nature. I entertain these thoughts and share them with my readers and hope to learn something new.
During the heated dialogue about why the President elect won fair and square, I raised the issue that this was one of those conversations—an elephant in the room—conversations. One of my friends asked me why I was making that analogy. I offered different answers.
First, speaking openly and expressing one’s point of view about an election is a very difficult topic for some people, ergo the elephant in the room. I opined that it opens a can of worms; emotions that are often not openly expressed among friends. Without care, it could drive a wedge between friends that are unable to view a dialogue as just that—a dialogue.
Second, I opined that the D/deaf community with respect to the NAD conversation is also a difficult one – the elephant in the room. Because there is an obvious divide, a sense of favoritism, and a concern for other isms that has created this division. An xample of the divisions include but is not limited to the fact that NAD has never been an inclusive organization.
The NAD’s focus has been on an elite group of grassroots white Deaf. This division led to the formation of other organizations that serve people of color such as the National Black Deaf Advocates, the Latino Deaf and Hard of Hearing Association, and the Asian Deaf Association. It is only recently, perhaps a few years ago, that a person of color finally served on its board.
You guessed it! My friends could not help or wait for me to finish. ASL “agree to disagree” overlaps exploded around the table. My friends were divided on my explanation and examples.
One friend disagreed. She said that the notion that the NAD has focused on elite Deaf whites is bogus! She continued with examples. She said that one of the reasons why we often arrive at the elephant in the room is that we choose to see what we want to see.
Excellent point! My mouth almost hit the floor!
She continued that NAD has historically advocated broad issues that have benefited all D/deaf individuals and groups. Some examples include the recent NAD fight to get Netflix to caption movies, the collaborative efforts with other organizations to improve captioning, and other initiatives that benefits all D/deaf. She ended with a note that we should not make sweeping generalizations without considering the global perspective.
Another friend agreed but disagreed. He agreed that NAD has made some positive strides. He agreed that we should look carefully and examine things carefully and not be one sided in our review of the NAD. He disagreed that some of our points equated to an elephant in the room conversation.
His perspective is that a discussion should ensue regardless of how uncomfortable it makes some people. Through these discussions, we could all learn from each other’s perspective to arrive to a win-win situation. We shouldn’t have to worry about the discomfort.
Before another friend could respond, I interrupted with these questions: What color elephant are you looking at? Are you sure you understand the meaning of the elephant in the room?
My friend stopped me. She wanted to add something to our other friend’s point of view about the NAD’s successes. But before she went on, she wanted to offer her interpretation of the elephant in the room. She warned us not to take things personally because she planned to be very candid with us.
She said, “The NAD is the elephant in the room. The NAD is an organization that is racist, sexist, and oppressive to those that are not from Deaf families – emphasis on the big D.”
I thought to myself, Ouch!
She continued that most Deaf people would disagree with her. Her examples offered me some analytical insights. She took a very strong position and had most of our friends in silence.
She said that recently the NAD has offered organizations of color free membership and delegate positions. Why now? Why not 1880 when NAD was founded? Why is it that NAD all of a sudden wants people of color to come to their 51st conference as delegates? What took the NAD so long? What is the NAD’s motive?
I don’t know about any of you reading this but I have no answers. I have some theories but no answers. She was making some valid points here.
She continued that even the current election is a sham because the winner, the President elect, works for ZVRS. Many of the board members work for ZVRS. This leaves room for possible, if not blatant foul play with the election.
“Whoa!” I interjected. “That sounds like a serious accusation. I have a theory but it is not in the line of foul play. I will hold my theories for later.”
Another female friend agreed completely and added, “The other elephant in the room issue is the issue of leadership within the NAD. She said that the NAD had a history of favoritism among its leadership. Favoritism runs deep within the NAD and that is why there isn’t much diversity on its board and among its delegates. That is why the NAD is now putting on window dressing as if it is sincere about people of color.”
Another ouch if you ask me.
Another friend had something to add. He hadn’t been very vocal up until now. I know this friend is very outspoken so it was a bit strange to see him observing and not saying much.
He asked all of us one question. His question was this: “Are any of you here members of the NAD?”
Guess how many heads turned on both sides.
None of us were members. He continued with another question. “If you are not members, what authorization do you have to criticize the NAD?”
We all started signing the same time. He sat there and calmly waited for us to calm down. Then another question: how did we expect to bring about change in anything if we are not participants in the change and instead are calling our conversation the elephant in the room?
I was thinking to myself that he had another excellent point. I was thinking that maybe there wasn’t an elephant in the room after all. Then I stopped in my tracks. Wait a minute, I was a member! And then I revoked my membership when I felt unheard. “Yes! I was a member! I attended two conferences and then I stopped my membership.”
“Why?” My friend asked.
First, the reason was because I did not feel welcome at the conferences. None of the topics that were covered related to me or people that looked like me. I even expressed my resentment to one of the Board members that I knew from college. I hoped that at my second conference I would see something different. To my surprise, nothing was different when I attended the second conference. I stopped paying my membership dues.
My friend now returned to encourage me to go back to being a member. He said that for him the elephant in the room is that we are all critical of things we are often not participants in. It was hard for him to tell us frankly that we should be conscious of Ghandi’s quote: “Be the change you want to see in others.”
I was smiling now. I am just so blessed to have my friends. All of us are so similar and yet so different in our thoughts. Some opinions are stronger than the others but overall we are just a bunch of friends who are Deaf or deaf and hard of hearing.
My friend continued, telling me that he admired my input about the different issues that we often discuss. At the same time he did not appreciate how we, in the the D/deaf community, continue to avoid real issues that impact us with negativity and “crab theory.” He thought that the elephant in the room concept and application to this situation was a moot point because the election is over. What we should probably focus on is to giving the President Elect our support as a community instead of resorting to petty speculations about the election process.
He added that a house divided would not stand. We as D/deaf people should come together and rally behind whoever our leaders are and offer them our full support. He said that to expect the NAD to be perfect is not realistic.
On that note I had to jump in. I was not preaching perfection. I was preaching about being used as a token. I was preaching about paying money to an organization that continues to ignore my pleas for change, for inclusion, and for acceptance. I was preaching about an organization that has not in its past or present done anything for people that look like me.
I would like to see the sincerity of the free membership by making the NAD board 50% people of color, those with cochlear implants, and those that are not from big D families. That is change. That would show the world that the NAD wants to work with all D/deaf people. That will level the playing field for all D/deaf. That is not about perfection. That is about change.
My friend asked me if I shared these thoughts with my NAD friend. I have, and that is why I am no longer a member. I am not here to bash anyone or send the message that I am unhappy with the outcome of the election. The voters have spoken.
I am writing to point out that a lot of our conversations are difficult “elephant in the room” conversations. For some reason, some members of our community are sensitive to conversations that make them uncomfortable—a different kind of truth. And I found that talking to my friends about the elephant in to room helps me gain a better understanding about the topic that makes me uncomfortable.
I have my opinions about everything. My friends have their opinions about everything. Sometimes our opinions collide and make us uncomfortable. In the end, I have found that taming the elephant in the room requires deep appreciation for dialogues—a place where we can respect our opinions, and agree to disagree.
I wish the NAD President Elect good luck. I know him from college. He was elected the first Deaf Vice President to the Inter-fraternity Council (IFC) and I was elected the first Deaf Greek Council President. At the time he was the first Deaf person to win that position, and it was the same for me. We worked well together and broke the glass ceiling at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Before our elections, no other Deaf people ran for these positions.
The thought of running at the time was scary. I know him and have worked with him and expect great things from him. I am also realistic that he cannot do this alone. I am realistic in that we all need to rally behind him and support him. He is not perfect or flawless and I believe that our focus should not be on his flaws.
I also believe that the real elephant in the room is the question of when we can actually put our differences aside and work together as D/deaf people. It is always easier said than done. I believe it is possible.
All that said, I will reinstate my NAD membership. My friends are right and I want to be the change that I want others to emulate. I want to be part of a strong foundation which the house can stand on. That is my new elephant in the room conversation for you.
[Editor's Note: The original version of this article was published in the author's blog on July 7th, 2012.]