Panel

The panel accompanying the exhibition featured Chisom Ofomata, President of Disability Empowerment for Yale (DEFY), Daniel HoSang, Yale Professor of Ethnicity Race and Migration and American Studies, and Emily Yankowitz, Yale PhD candidate in early American history. Our moderators were Deborah Streahle, Yale PhD candidate in History of Science and Medicine and Kenya Loudd, Yale PhD candidate in African American Studies and History of Science and Medicine.

Transcript of the panel courtesy of CART captioning via Tennessee Captioning:

>> Moderator Deborah Streahle: I’ll start by introducing the first panelist Emily Yankowitz, one of the organizers of the symposium.

A First year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of History.

Her research examines how early Americans understood citizenship before the 14th Amendment to the constitution.

Received an M.I.L. with a concentration in archival management from Simmons University in January 2023.

She earned an MPhil in American history from the University of Cambridge generously supported by the Paul Mellon fellowship in 2018 and bachelor's from Yale in 2017.

Emily lives with ADD and dyslexia, and we're really happy to have her here.

Would you mind switching seats so that you're closer?

Thank you.

>> Panelist Emily Yankowitz:  I'm going to take off my mask in the hopes of trying to be clear.

So, as I consider this panel, it kind of caused a bit of personal reflection for myself.

So to be perfectly honest, before helping to co‑organized last year's symposium, I was really not public about my disabilities in any manner, shape or form, without any intention to be.

Kenya and I organized a lunch that the email went out to the entire University and I said, okay, here I go.

So, ever since, I have been trying to grapple with that question.

And, so, I'm an historian, archivist, if I can call myself that, and also somebody who has disabilities, and the ways in which these parts of my identity do and do not intersect.

The amount of times I've had people ask me you're an historian but you're dyslexic and you're supposed to read a lot, how does that work.

You have ADD but archivists organize things, how does that work?

I don't have an answer, it just works because I don't know how it wouldn't tore me.

But this now brings me to this weird question I is myself is if somebody for whatever reason wand to collect the archives of my life, right, would they be able to figure out if I had disabilities or not?

So if they were to go through my archives, they would be able to find lots of diagnostic tests, reports, requests for accommodations.

They would be finding me getting re‑diagnosed in England, prescriptions, so that's a medical aspect but doesn't tell you much.

In terms of the lived experience of it, they would be able to find drafts upon drafts of papers, bunch of failed math and French tests.

Maybe if they had access to my calendar, they would find every event has many alerts on it, or look at my handwriting.

You might have somebody doing bizarre diagnostic work which is what historians do not want to do, but that's also not totally who I am.

This brings me to the question of archives.

How do we handle archives of people who perhaps do not identify as having a disability at the forefront of their identity or definition that have changed in early America.

I want to high light two or three big challenges for the topic and then also turn to my iPad off and on for remarks about that.

One of the key challenges classified as a disability changes over time and is subjective.

So how a person identifies with their disability changes.

When you're trying to work with an archive it can be a big challenge but it's also important to consider that.

Another fact is we need to recognize that many people with disabilities are erased from the historical record, or you have to do hunting and pecking and reading between the lines to locate them.

Or even perhaps because of their disabilities, we cannot access what they've written and produced in the past.

So those are kind of some features.

Putting on my archivist hat.

Description, archivists are called to describe collections, and the way an archivist describes disability and whether or not the individual organization has to do with a disability matters because that's the way the researcher so going to locate the material, interpret the material, and that truly matters.

The other question is privacy.

HIPAA is crucial but improves communication in terms of medical records.

I'm not a big fan of theory.

But I do think there's this idea of complex embodiment which can actually work well for archivists in some sense, right.

So this is the idea that we recognize a person can identify as disabled as an individual decision, but it's also influenced by both internal and external forces.

Now, this complements the archival idea of taking into consideration the creator's purpose, right, so what did the person who is making this object or producing this record have in mind?

And, so, I think that's one way which archivists perhaps could be convinced or persuaded to take this into consideration.

Now, of course, this is complicated with older records.

For early America, basically most people look at physical disabilities with a prioritization on pension records.

So amazing work on revolutionary work, pension records and upcoming work on Civil War pension records.

But outside of that, and later on into the 19th century in the various institutions, it's hard to fete at those stories.

So my second key point is the idea of accessing archives.

I am not equipped to deal with all the challenges but I wanted to high light key facets of them.

One is archives are intended to make information accessible to the public.

What if the public can't get into the archive, can't move about the archive, can't access the information in this comes in a variety of forms from signage to are there ramps, is it wheelchair accessible, if there are elevators to they work?

And one kind of feature that I grappled with, because I was speaking with a friend who has diabetes because she needs to access food if her insulin levels block is lockers and access to lockers.

Can you get up from your table if you need to and go to a locker to get food and medication and come back?

Or do you have to go across the building to get that material?

That's something that I think is pretty, in some cases, not a huge adjustment to make.

So overall, I can have two big questions.

How do we recognize and celebrate and protect from being forgotten as individuals with experiences with disabilities or perhaps how they want to be remembered or represented in the past and how do we ensure the struggles and fights and activists and everyday people are remembered as well as the tremendous injustices that were committed against them be preserved without causing great harm.

I leave it there and I'm excited to hear what everybody else has to say.

>> Thank you.

>> Moderator Deborah Streahle: Thanks, Emily, next we're going to turn to Professor Daniel HoSang, Professor of Ethnicity, Race, and Migration, Yale University and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Political says and serves on the education advisory committee.

He received his bachelor's telling in history from Wesleyan University and Ph.D. from University of Southern California.

His research projects include "Under the Blacklight: The Intersectional Vulnerabilities that the Twin Pandemics Lay Bare," co‑edited with Kimberlé Crenshaw.

A collaborative history into research on eugenics and passive based projects on anti‑race curriculum and pedagogy for K‑12 educators.

Thank you for being here.

>> Hi, everybody.

I'm grateful to be here.

Thank you, Kenya for the work it took to organize this and this amazing week of events.

I want to talk a little bit about the history of eugenics research at Yale in the '20s and '30s and its after life, which very much include the building we're in now, and I'll say more about that.

I want to talk a little bit about the machine to our right that some people may have seen that's in the Peabody.

And I guess I'll just say, you know, part of engaging with the history of eugenics at Yale is we often think about questions of access and ability as we need to think about margins and exceptions.

Eugenics tells us these are not accidents, that the ablization of this University and others is very much predictable and by design because it reflects an understanding of the unequal distribution of intellectual capacity.

So what we understand to be barriers are not just incidental, they're actually built in and entirely predictable.

Quick background.

In the 1920s, the American Eugenics Society was located in New Haven, and its office was on The Green, 185 Church Street.

There used to be a Starbucks.

I don't think it's there anymore, but that was the headquarters of the American Eugenics Society was basically brought to Yale by a group of faculty including Irving Fisher, who was a prominent political economist.

He went to an international conference on eugenics research and advocacy in 1921 and believed there needed to be a new organization devoted toward educating the public and advocating for legislation around eugenics, headquartered in his office for a period of time, and eventually they got an office.

It was, as far as we could tell, a small office, but from the site all over the country, eugenics propaganda was distributed.

They sponsored fitter family contests at fairs all over where families could enter and be measured and probed and prodded as a way to envision what the "proper" normal family was.

They sponsored sermon contests judged by Yale faculty.

Many, many they lobbied against immigration and had a presence at the school of forestry, medical school, psychology Department, the law school, so the roster of their membership shows how wide and deep their presence was here at Yale.

Yale wasn't distinct from Harvard, Stamford, Caltech, they all had those things.

It's important to say knowledge about ability and disability is not just in the wind, it's actively produced at these institutions.

The device over here to our right, there's a wooden device that has a panel that separates the tester, which would be the side facing the back of the room with the wires, and the testee.

It was developed by a psychologist named Robert Yerkes when he was at Harvard.

It was the earliest it regulation of what we might today call an "I.Q. test."

It was administered at the Boston Psychopathic Hospital.

The people who it was administered to certainly did not give their consent and held under carceral conditions and it was definitely used, Yerkes first publication was about testing deviance and about pattern recognition and ideation.

What I find interesting is Yerkes is was recruited to Yale in a part of a eugenics hiring cluster in the '20s that brought prominent anthropologists, psychologists and other scholars here, is that the history of this device is often told from the perspective of the tester ‑‑ what does this button do, that button do, how does the technology work, et cetera.

It almost can't be told from the perspective of the testee, right, the person who, without their consent, was brought into this "psychopathic hospital," told to sit there and press keys and that the outcome of the keys pressed actually had a very material effect because it decided whether you were deemed to have intellectual capacity or deemed to be deficient.

So we have to think about this in the context of the Earl yes 20th century, the heightened period of Jim Crow and also resistance against it, riots, White race riots, that these cites of racial violence, this looks like a kind of innocent machine in a sense but it's also an instrument of violence.

It eventually gives away to a set of I.Q. tests administered to World War I soldiers that are used to prove "the intellectual support of native‑born Europeans" as against European immigrants, as against African‑Americans in the north and African‑Americans in the south, except this instrument, rather than saying "I'm determined that you are deficient," I don't have to do that.

It's the machine that's determined you're deficient.

I'm simply the neutral observer.

So rather than thinking of it as an iteration of technological observation, it produces worthy and unworthy.

Yerkes identifies this in the '20s and '30s.

He's on a list of events that happens in 1941.

As he's pursuing these, he doesn't give up his eugenic commitments.

The last thing I will say is throughout the '20s there's lots of contestation as of academics and others saying eugenics is not incredible, it's bunk science, and the eugenicists are aware of this.

In 1921 conference, they have the sense their authority is questioned and they want to come to Yale to give themselves credibility.

They say that very explicitly.

By the late 1920s, there have been efforts to create a eugenics chair at Yale, and Robert Engle, over the massive expansion of campus, said I don't think I can deliver that for you, and he was a eugenicist.

They built the institution of relations.

Sterling Medical Center is hear, but the I.H.R., in the ironwork and the freeze outside, was built over there.

There were observation rooms that faculty and scholars and other psychologists, psychiatrists, used to observe people.

Undergraduate student I'm working with now uncovered evidence they administered shock therapy tests there.

It's the fact that the institute of human relations is both visible, thousands of people see it all the tame, each week, and, yet, unrecognized as an example of the kind of afterlife of eugenics ideas, and I think that's what we have to wrestle with today, and I'm just grateful that we have this ‑‑ I'm sorry, the very last thing ‑‑ we finished a four‑week session with local K‑12 teachers on how to teach the history of eugenics in their own classrooms and high school students, and many were drawn to it because the students they work with are so disciplined by standardized tests, they come directly from here, and in some ways there's and origin story about their own lives that's evidenced in this material object.

Thank you, everybody.

>> Moderator Deborah Streahle: Thank you so much for that contextualization of this huge machine.

I'm going to introduce now Chisom Ofomata, a sophomore in Jonathan Edwards college and a current pre‑med student.

She's excited to support Yale's disability community and work with community members to make the institution more accessible for current and future students and staff.

Chisom is the current President of DEFY and American Sign Language at Yale.

He's a disability peer mentor and a member of the Nigerian students association, and a dance group.

She enjoys reading, watching movies, spending time with friends and family.

Thanks, Chisom.

>> Presenter Chisom Ofomata: Thank you for the opportunity to be here and kind of talk a little bit on disability empowerment.

First off, I wanted to talk about my own background with disabilities.

I was born Deaf, and, so, I kind of grew up learning the deaf perspective, and, so, that culminated into my experience in high school being one of me trying to hide my disability because I believed that was negative.

So my first change of perception was whenever I joined an A.S.L. class and learned about concepts such as Deaf Pride and people who were Deaf received its a positive rather than negative thing.

I realized that's how I wanted to see myself because I didn't feel like the medical perspective was conducive to myself and what I wanted to see for myself.

And, so, kind of that change in perspective, kind of seeing myself in more of a positive way, seeing Deafness in a positive way, I really wanted my experience to be one where I was working to put disability advocacy out front and I was more confident with my disability.

When I was researching, I came across disability at Yale guide and I was struck by it and the fact that there was this whole document, you know, for students who maybe didn't know what to do, didn't know what the disability environment of Yale looks like or what they would need to do to make sure that their accommodations were fulfilled.

I really appreciated having that survival guide easily accessible online.

I believe that survivors guide is supporting people, making sure there's a record of the transformation of Yale and kind of the connection of how accessibility has changed oaf time.

For example, we're updating the survival guide because there are so many disability efforts that are kind of changing the institution accessibility‑wise.

The manual talks about how it is for a community to be both in order to support social advocacy efforts.

And I really believe that, as kind of represented the change of DEFY, when I first entered DEFY it was on the focus of advocacy efforts.

My first semester, I didn't get a chance to build a connection with other people in DEFY.

And, so, right now, in DEFY, we're focusing more on community building.

Community building was so important to social advocacy efforts.

We're not able to make sure that social advocacy and disability advocacy efforts are representative and inclusive if you don't know what everybody has to off and what everybody's backgrounds are.

DEFY focused on community by doing community events where we can sit around with each other and feel more comfortable with each other because we really need to build the cold front and trust to share things that are vulnerable, you know, to be able to share kind of what we hope to see and how we hope to see change accessibility‑wise.

So I'm happy to see that community has progressed and how we've been able to forge more connections.

In the manual, with that community building and with that kind of expansion of perspectives, right, seeing what different people experience because I think one of the things I have to realize when I came to Yale is that, even though I was a Deaf person, I knew that I really just knew about my own disability, I didn't know about other people's disabilities.

So coming on to a big campus like Yale has given me a chance to see the wide disability spectrum and learn about other disabilities so I can, in the future, make sure whatever disability efforts I make are inclusive and make change for all disabilities rather than just my own.

So I'm really excited to see how disability efforts in time progresses, and develop advocacy efforts at Yale to make sure the institution is inclusive and accessible for everyone.

Thank you.

>> Moderator Deborah Streahle: Thank you, I'm going to introduce our moderator Kenya and have us do choreography at the table so we can put the laptop in the center of the table so that, during our conversation, we can make sure that the captions come through.

First of all, I'll introduce Kenya and we can have our musical chair in a few moments.

Kenya Loudd is a third‑year doctoral student in African‑American studies and science and medicine.

Her research explores the lived experience at the intersections of race, disability, education, institutionalization and the incarceral state.

In her dissertation, she considers how segregated institutions that serves deaf and blind African‑Americans beginning in the post‑reconstruction era protected geographies and educational pipe license while challenging historic understandings of the term "asylum."

Kenya is producing an accompanying documentary film that underscores this history.

Additionally, she's one of the co‑organizes of the symposium and, yesterday evening, had the pleasure of viewing the documentary that she began working on last year alongside our first annual symposium and the documentary is entitled Calculus, Factoring in Disability at Yale.

So why don't we ‑‑ moving around.

If we can just put the chairs in a little bit of a V shape.

>> Okay.

>> Moderator Deborah Streahle: Chisom, if you wouldn't mind moving to this chair here and I'll move here.

I think if you just angle your chair.

>> I'll slide slightly this way.

>> Can we just make sure.

Thank you for indulging me.

>> Captioner.

I can hear you.

>> Presenter Kenya Loudd: Wonderful.

I would like to thank you all ‑‑ that's correct you all ‑‑ hello people in the back of the room.

My name is Kenya, as Deb so lovingly introduced me.

The most wonderful introduction I've ever had, thank you, Deb.

But I'm so excited to be here.

It was ‑‑ this whole thing came as a vision.

I wanted something different for us as, you know, the disability community.

I feel like we're often kind of excluded there these types of interactions.

So I'm glad we were able to have this close and intimate pop‑up exhibit.

I'd lake to say, again, echoing the thanks to Kathleen, Patricia, and Melissa, thank you for helping this help.

Thanks to Deb for taking my thing and making it a thing.

Thank you, Deb, for all you do.

I don't know what I'm going to do when you leave next year.

But all of you, thank you so much panelists, for these wonderful introductions and really contextualizing these exhibits.

They really put a lot of things in per executive for me.

Thinking through something you said, Professor HoSang, about how we have to re‑think how we're thinking about how these technologies are taking form and, as technologies, as Chisom said, with her ability to assess ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ be able to have access to the survival guide before she got here really assisted her.

How might we be able to lack through both those things, both the survival guide in its visual form and this intellectual tool that Yerkes invented as a wee to re‑think how technology can function for us.

How might we be able to flip what Yerkes invented and flip it on its head to serve people with disabilities in these spaces.

You, Chisom, whichever one wants to go next.

>> Presenter Daniel HoSang: I'll go back a little bit to the device, which is what I think is an interesting question, because this is early 20th century where there's all kinds of new technologies emerging under different sites of authority, what will the technology do.

The fact that there's a really interesting transaction happening with this machine, which is that, you know, the whole premise that you could ‑‑ that there is something called intelligence and something called a single measure of cognitive ability that can be laid out from one end to the other is itself deeply contested, right.

There's many forms of knowledge, many forms of wisdom.

So the notion that, to use technology to kind of declare, that's not the case.

There's only one kind of knowledge and I've devised a test to assess it and put you on a spectrum, all of that is new to everybody.

It's not functional.

No one is saying by pressing the correct keys it results in anything.

Your keys have to spend a lot of time saying why these keys relate to something meaningful.

It's not given at all.

So there's a way in which the technology there is an alibi to a form of violence in hierarchy that he believes in ideologically.

It's like if you don't believe me, believe the machine.

The machine opportunity lie, right ‑‑ the machine doesn't lie.

I think we can see that today with the medical advances that fetish‑ize technology and technology in and of itself.

You can never separate technology from underlying ideology about human difference, ability, human worth.

I think from my perspective, that's part of the insight and lesson is it's not just what the technology can do but what assumptions are embedded, and it's clear that, for Yerkes, the test is ‑‑ he already has his sense of his order of the world and the technologies used to affirm and produce it.

And, so, the technology ‑‑ we have to start with a different world that's anti‑eugenic, that's rooted in independence and reciprocity and vulnerability is all something we all share and building technologies around that.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Chisom, do you have any thoughts?

>> Presenter Chisom Ofomata: My thoughts, a lot of times if I have done a lot of virtual events, right, because there are varying levels of in‑person events, I want to make sure I'm going to community meetings and have a chance to do that.

So we're utilizing a hybrid model where people can join online and in person just to make sure we're providing that opportunity for community to everyone who's interested.

And I also think that technology has so many different ways of being used by people with disabilities.

For example, for me, technology has been useful to me closed caption‑wise.

I utilize Communication Access Realtime for classes and remote.

I think also there's many ways technology is beneficial.

Because it is technology, sometimes it can fall short for students who are not knowledgeable about technology or maybe don't know how to use it properly.

For example, this semester, I've had two really, like, Professors to utilize things like closed captioning on videos, and things that are easy for me to remember, or easy for people in my generation to remember, but may not be easy for professors or professors who are not used to doing that.

So technology can prose problems for professors who can't utilize the technology.

So I think it's important to have maybe more required training for professors just to make sure they know how to make their classroom accessible proactively, kind of teaching the professors how to do things just so the professors know how to do it as long as they're teaching because it's always important to practically make your classroom accessible.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Thank you so much for that, Chisom, and Professor HoSang.

Really appreciate it.

Emily, I'd like to turn to you.

So, okay, so one thing, you know, when I came in, for those of you who don't know, I'm legally blind.

So one of the things I asked lie Prince Harry and archivists when I came in is what can't I touch, tell me what I can't touch so I won't touch it.

But, when moving ‑‑ you know, when in those spaces where there are things that people absolutely can't touch, as an archivist and a lay brainer and historian, what are some things that you could, like, offer up for us to be able to do ‑‑ to still make those things accessible in a way and, you know, for me, there is something about the touch, like being able to actually ‑‑ like the energy exchange that happens when you're touching something that may have been held by ancestors, someone you directly identify with, what are some ways we might be able to supplement that?

I don't want to put you open the spot, but I would love to hear your thoughts, and even Chisom, if they have thoughts about how we might be able to make things more accessible and allow people with disabilities to have that access to them without destroying the historical artifact.

>> It's a wonderful question.

I'm most certainly not an expert on this, but I think one approach in terms of objects, right, is if there is somebody else in the room who can touch the object, have the person describe the object is not a great solution by an option.

Digitization, removing touch, doesn't really help either.

For me, when I look at documents, it's much easier to transcribe in ‑‑ describe in person than photo, and I spend most of my time transcribing from photos because you can zoom in and out.

I'd love to turn the question to you, Kenya, my fellow panelist.

Do anyone else have any thoughts.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Daniel HoSang, Chisom.

>> Audience Member Michelle Morgan: I ask the moderator to answer the question.

>> This is interesting.

I've asked a question that I can't answer.

But these are the types of questions that we need to be thinking through when we are, as historians and archivists and librarians, when we are the keepers of these kinds of things librarians, thinking about these things.

One thing I have been thinking through in my own work is how can we create archives that are resistant to these types of things.

For instance, I strongly believe that this symposium is a sort of, you know, like, artifact within itself, right, someone at some point in time, maybe 100 years from now, like we're doing with Yerkes' object, someone will come back and say what was going on in Yale in 2023?

Why were people, like, asking for accessibility and accommodations?

What was going on in the disability community?

And this might be at a place in time where, you know, medicalization has taken on a whole new form and some of the disabilities that we deal with now are not a disability 100 years from now, but how do we go about preserving the history where we don't exclude people in the future.

I think historians and librarians and producers of knowledge now have to be thinking fast forward because we can't fix what's already broken, but how might we be able to re‑think how we're producing our knowledge now in order kind of interrupt or destruct those norms.

Chisom, Professor, do y'all have thoughts?

>> Presenter Emily Yankowitz: I think it's important for people who are making things when it comes to archive is come to reproduce whatever thing they're reproducing, trying to reproduce it in different ways.

For example, I would think if you have an image, write in the image description, but having that from the perspective of the person producing it will be more accurate than someone who's in the future looking at something and having to write an image description that best fits whatever the person who was producing it had.

Making sure we produce our work in different forms that will be accessible to different people, so that's coming from us.

Not everybody is able to get that equal perspective and understanding of the material.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Yes.

>> Presenter Daniel HoSang: To build on what you just said, again, how to we tell the history of this object not from your piece, the designer with all the ableist, eugenicist visions, but from the perspective of the person.

I thought of this it's kind of like two crimes.

There's the crime of what happens, in some cases including sterilization, there are crimes against humanity, but there's also the crime of kind of covering it up, forgetting about it, nothing happened here, because it doesn't give us the ability to interrogate.

This is a world designed in some ways to favor some interests over others.

And, so, that crime is still happening, you know.

And there are so many places on campus where you can see evidence of the eugenicists of the world.

The fact that we have been robbed of the tools and language and history to critique it and understand it to move past it is something that's ongoing and something that archivists of ancient history, we can recover.  

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: That was wonderful.

I have one closing question, but I did want to open it up to the audience, if anyone has any hot and burning questions that you would like to ask the panelists.

Does anyone have a question?

You can say me because I won't see you if you hold your hand up.

Okay, no hot and burning questions.

Okay.

On to my hot and burning question.

So we're talking about preservation and thinking futuristically and both historically.

So I wonder all of our panelists, if you're going to create an archive of yourself for the future, what would you include in the archive and why, if you could do two or three things?

Feel free to use this in your class or whatever, your meeting later.

Just put my name at the bottom, thank you.

But what would you include in the archive and why?

>> Presenter Emily Yankowitz: So I think I addressed a little bit in my comment that I think it's a tough question that's hard to come up with an answer.

I think my thing I would have to grapple with would be how to I ensure that what I have is accessible in terms of the future, right, how to I create many different versions of what I am producing.

A lot of computer files, right?

How do I ensure these can be accessed by technology in the future or by printing them how am I making them available to people with various disabilities.

That would be something I would have to really grapple with because we're both trying to anticipate future technology which we don't know and also try to accommodate a variety of people.

That's my answer for you.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Chisom, what's in your archive is this.

>> I think one of the things I would definitely put in my archive is this shirt I got that says "Deaf" on it.

I think I would put it in my archives because it kind of represents my journey, being able wear something like that that I know people are going to see, kind of escaping in my childhood, right make sure that people couldn't see instantly that I was Deaf, to wearing it across my chest in a bold form and being able to express myself more authentically.

I think I would definitely put that in my archive.

To make sure I was more accessible, I would type a description of what it means, maybe how it feels.

And I think another thing I would put in my archive is maybe something about American Sign Language.

Just having that form of communication, something more accessible to me, something that's meaningful to people on campus and a way to think about how I would want a change in accessibility‑wise, how to provide more access, kind of how that shaped my journey so far.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Thank you.

>> Presenter Daniel HoSang: I would just add the dominant archive is a eugenic archive, represents equality, degradation, tolerance, suffering and dehumanization.

There's an anti‑eugenic archive that was always, always contested, all these people believing it's not what it's meant to be.

All the chances I've worked with teachers and high school students to create eugenic plans to meet the needs to have the student is an archive of people who encounter this world and imagine other possibilities.

I have to remind myself about that to not be too fatalistic and accept other kinds of possibilities.

So that's what I would want, maybe less of myself and more about the moment and what's being built here is, from the institution's perspective, it's about accessibility, which I think it is but there's something else happening which is a different world view, a different set of ways to relate to one another.

I think that's something we have to remember.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Thank you all so, so much for this wonderful panel.

I've really, really enjoyed myself.

I invite everyone to please take a look at the comment again before you leave, maybe you will see it with some fresh eyes or with some different understandings.

Thank you all so much for coming.

A reminder that we're all on virtual, all online tomorrow.

All the organizers understand we're going to be in our pajamas all day long.

It's going to be great.

On Thursday, we're all in person at the sterling memorial library, beginning 9:30 a.m.

We have three very wonderful panels, one thinking about disability and employment in New Haven, another thinking about Deaf experiences on the Ellis campus, and the last one where we'll be looking at the accessibility and accommodation of needs and being able to meet those needs here at Yale University, followed by our disability lunch.

There's food all at a long, breakfast and lunch.

So please come and eat some of the food and enjoy some of the wonderful conversation.

Thank you all so much for joining us.

>> Moderator Kenya Loudd: Also, there's takeaway containers if you want to take any of the food, please do.

Thank you all.

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. CART captioning, Communication Access Realtime Translation captioning, is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. Any video that has been reproduced in text format is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act under the Fair Use Doctrine. This file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.