The NYT has an interesting story on the culture of deafness and how it’s shaping the mess at Gallaudet:

The clash is also illuminating differences over the future of deaf culture writ large, and focusing attention on a politically charged debate about what it means to be deaf in the 21st century.
Should Gallaudet be the standard bearer for the view that sees deafness not as a disability, but as an identity, and that looks warily on technology like cochlear implants, questioning how well they work and arguing that they undermine a strong deaf identity and pride? Or should Gallaudet embrace the possibilities of connecting with the hearing world that technology can offer?

I’m reluctant to say much about “deaf culture,” but its apparent willingness to embrace the most extreme and self-destrucitve forms of identity politics is unsettling. I find this, for instance, outrageous:

One protester, Ronald Ferris, who is blind and deaf, said he believed that Dr. Fernandes did not connect with deaf people. In a measure of how personal the dispute has become, Mr. Ferris pointed to her choice of a husband as proof. “She doesn’t really feel us,” he signed through interpreters. “She’s very critical of deaf culture, because she married somebody who hears.”