John Egbert posted a blog in AGBell.info, exhibiting his paranoia and rumormongering regarding AGBell, especially when he suggested that National Association of the Deaf should have a black deaf leader to be the CEO of NAD to “frighten” AGBell before Congress. His first paragraph has a long running-on sentence, lacking punctuation and proper grammar, on the subject, apparently putting his identity/racial politics on the forefront of NAD’s search for new CEO by 2011. How credible John Egbert is with the D/deaf community and NAD nowadays is an open question. But his presumption that there must be a black deaf leader to be the CEO of NAD, that Congress would listen to only black deaf leader, and that NAD should get more black deaf leaders on the candidate list for CEO search bothered me on this level. This is clearly putting identity/racial politics ahead of one’s own qualifications, experience, merit, and competent leadership, regardless of race, gender, and identity.
I posted a comment to his blog yesterday morning criticizing him on that subject. Though Egbert moderates his blog, I expected my comment might offend his sensibilities enough to get it removed. Sure enough, I followed up to his blog this morning and my comment disappeared after being posted yesterday. Well, it’s his blog and I’m not going to cry over spilled milk or over that.
But I screenshot it before he has the opportunity! *cackled laughing* See below:
Now before you scream “Raaaaacist!!!”, allow me to be clear: I support the NAD’s mission to seek a qualified, experienced, and passionate Deaf leader of good character to be the next CEO of NAD, regardless of race, gender, or identity. Selecting a candidate on that very basis (race/gender/identity) is clearly discriminatory and could alienate some portions of the D/deaf community. The business and survival of NAD is now of utmost importance, for the future’s sake, given NAD’s growing clout in the nation and establishing an outreach to those beyond the Deaf community, especially the deaf/HOH who are more or less in the AGBell camp. For the last few years, NAD has been shedding away its militant attitude and embracing a more pragmatic attitude in the face of latest medical studies and new technologies addressing deafness, new financial realities, shifting cultural demographics, breaking barriers in communication and the markets, and a hearing public willing to listen and consider options other than what AGBell long advocated. This is about choices and giving the people and individuals the right to choose what they think is best.
Full disclosure: I’m a member of NAD. However, this op-ed blog do not represent NAD nor reflect its opinions or public statements. NAD has its own blog. Anything that I posted here reflect my own opinion on any particular subject. I may criticize or cheer NAD as I would do to other bloggers, news media, political pundits, organizations, and the likes.
I support Egbert’s right to his zealous grassroot efforts to educate the public about the problems with AGBell, promote the rights of the Deaf to use ASL, and conserve Deaf culture. More powers to him. However, I stopped cold on his call to implore NAD to appoint a black Deaf leader to be the CEO of NAD. He seems to operate on the assumption that the D/deaf community would back a black Deaf leader as the CEO of NAD, perhaps, fantasizing that the majority of them would welcome an Obama-like Deaf leader who would smooth-talk Congress and frighten AGBell. This is obviously putting identity/racial politics at the forefront and I won’t stand for that.
Egbert, the D/deaf community encompasses people of all races and diverse backgrounds, and NAD stands to represent these D/deaf and hoh people in the USA, especially on all deaf-related issues (captioning, legislation, etc.), whether they like it or not. Do you seriously think the majority of the community and NAD must oblige themselves to place a black Deaf leader to be as a CEO of NAD, just like the nation elected a black American to be the President of the US last year? Are you secretly screaming and cheerleading for a “affirmative action hopey’n'changey CEO”, Egbert? 
Are you trying to get the Deaf community to pressure NAD to commit “positive discrimination” upon their candidates, weeding out some Deaf people who are not black and keeping those who are black?
I won’t stand for that, Egbert. And I believe that NAD won’t stand for that, either. That’s why I’m hoping NAD would eventually pick someone who has the qualifications, experience, leadership, competence, and the broad public support of the Deaf community to become the next CEO, regardless of race, gender, or identity. I do hope whomever taking the role won’t be the next John Yeh (note to NAD: vet your candidates thoroughly!). Although, if that person happened to be black, a woman, of Asian, Hispanic, or other ethnic origins or whatever he/she came from, I hope these factors doesn’t come into play for NAD’s considerations in the search process. Equally, it’s important for NAD to look for character, passion, and respect in that person, too. Well, I would pick Dr. Robert Davila myself to be NAD’s CEO, but I believe he is looking forward to enjoy his retirement and life after being Gallaudet’s president. If he was any younger, he would have a very good chance in being one.
Removing my comment from your blog reinforced my hunch that you’re more interesting in pressuring the community and NAD to oblige and place candidates who must be black and Deaf and, perhaps, to weed out those who are not black and keep in those who are during NAD search committee’s consideration stage. It’s not right.
It is my belief, as an American who happened to be deaf, that we should look to and consider someone who has the qualifications and the experience, the leadership and the competence, the character and the passion, mindful of the future, someone who understand and strongly advocate the issues well, and have the broad support of the people, to lead one of the oldest civil right movements in the United States. Race, gender, or identity basis should play no part in the selection process, notwithstanding the politics in any business or organization.
