There is a recurring yet common theme I keep seeing in some segments of the Deaf community and that is the constant attempts to restrict choices whether it's choices on communication options or about competitions or of ideas.
Let's begin with Deafread, a blog and vlog aggregator site.
In the beginning many liked what Deafread was doing. So did the people who linked their cochlear implant, AVT, oral/aural blogs and by bloggers who may be critical about some ideas or people in the Deaf community. This was soon met with a gradual backlash by some segments of the Deaf community believing it was time that Deafread needed to refuse blog links on those very subjects. Deafread refused and believe that readers have the right to choose their own subjects or topics for their reading pleasure. It is an aggregator site.
Let's look at DVTV, a mostly signing vlog aggregator website.
In the beginning many liked what DVTV was doing. So did the people who did their videos on many subjects even by some vloggers who may have been critical about some components of the Deaf community. This, too, was soon met with a gradual backlash by some segments of the Deaf community believing it was time that Deafread needed to be shutdown over certain controversies. DVTV didn't bow to their demands. Viewers and participants have the right to choose their subjects for their viewing pleasure.
Let's look at the recent AB2072 bill controversy. It was a bill about choices where ASL was quickly amended to this bill along with many other communication options to help make available to parents of children with hearing loss so they can make an informed decision. But many Deaf people were against this bill outright. Many Deaf people were in favor of the concept of that bill and supported it. And many Deaf people were against it unless amended to their satisfaction.
Promoting Veditz's 1913 speech.
Veditz at the time was for the preservation of sign language (ASL, BSL, etc). His support for it was valid at the time. But today's technology makes a huge impact on communication choices and how it has fostered competition over ideas. Over time the educational component improved in its understanding on what works effectively and in what particular environment for a child with hearing loss. Just as well over time we saw information on these communication and educational options become increasingly available and easy to access over the internet. Compare this electronic access to information of today to parents of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and even into the 1990s who had to struggle to get their needed information and the people they needed to contact in regard to their child with a hearing loss.
Using Veditz's "enemy" speech is an outdated attempt to try and squelch choices and competition. An attempt to try and squelch other hearing loss support organizations that may be more favorable to other communication or educational options. What people tend to forget is that parents of children with hearing loss have the trump card. It is they who have the duty and right to make an informed choice on the decision for communication and/or educational options. The decision does NOT belong to any one deaf/hh or Deaf organizations or groups of people. The child belongs to the parents.
Veditz lived in a time when there were NO form of technology that can help with the communication and educational components for people with hearing loss. It made great sense at the time about sign language since technology simply did not exist. Yet, sign language is still valuable today. However, using Veditz's speech today in the attempt to call out other hearing loss organizations as their "enemies" will simply not work. Why?
1) It's because of our improving technology and greater understanding on the educational component for children with hearing loss.
2) Secondly, it will not work because doing so make them look like an extremist group who are against choices, competition, and the free exchange of ideas.
3) And thirdly, there is no one size shoe fits all for all children and adults with hearing loss.
This is all about choices.
There is so much what technology has to offer for people with hearing loss and understanding that it is technology that ensures choices will remain on the table and not be restricted by any one hearing loss organization or culture group.
Compared to 15 to 20 years ago what we have now we didn’t have then or the improvement we have now. It might seem snail pace but if you put everything together there has been leaps and bounds on the improvements in communication and technology in virtually in all areas.
*Internet relay service
*Automatic transcriptioning of videos on YouTube (accuracy varies)
*Video phone
*CART
*Communication Devices (UbiDuo)
*Enabled smartphones for people with hearing loss
*Video relay service via smartphones
*Instant Messaging (AIM, Yahoo, MSN, etc)
*Real time texting, simultaneous communication via smartphones (UbiVia)
*Email
*Movie theater captioning
*DVD/CD/Tape movie CC
*Real time human captioning
*Free subtitling/captioning software
*Digital hearing aids
*Cochlear implants
*Blogging
*Vlogging
*Internet video captioning (e.g. Project ReadOn)
*Automatic real time captioning (non-human, continues to improve)
*Core computer chips by improving efficiency, speed and performance where we go from dual core chips, to quad, to 16 core, to 32 to soon in a few years a several thousand core chip that will help in the area of communication including ASL recognition software (ASL to voice, ASL to text, text to voice, voice to ASL, Voice to text, voice to translated voice and so on).
The United States is the most technologically advanced along with vast support in the social services on providing the most communication access and choices for people who are deaf and hard and hearing. In fact, we are the most "spoiled" bunch of people in the world in that respect but at the same time we continue to bethe proving grounds for the world to see on technological advancements for people with hearing loss.
Choices. It continues to grow. Technology will ensure that.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Freedom is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
:)
They still need to choice to raise a deaf child in a bi-bi school without a hearing person stepping in and tell their school and children need fixing with HAs/CI/Cued speech/SEE/ etc. They have the rights to exist, the rights to communicate in ASL and the right to be educated in ASL.
Anony,
Parents hold the trump card. It is they who have the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding their child with a hearing loss. You, the Deaf community, and etc do NOT own that child. Nor do you make parents' decision regarding their child. It's a hard reality to accept for some Deaf people but that is the reality.
Parents need to make an educated choice, and are likely to be prey to technological claims that puts sign language in a minor role for profoundly deaf children.
They need to be told that although they hold the trump card, the deaf child will likely grow up to embrace the Deaf Community as a preferred language and community orientation. They need to be told that when they embrace the community themselves they have the best chance to keep their child close to the family for life.
Too many assumptions are being made that don't take into consideration there is a large gap between the profoundly deaf who need visual input; and those who have usable hearing and who can benefit the most from aided hearing technology.
Hi, Mike! Great post. And you're right on all points. Yes, it is the parents' decision; yes, technology has opened up a new realm; and, yes, it can be very upsetting to deaf/HOH people.
Everyone has their own opinions and it's hard to step away and understand that there are many factors to consider. Not the least of which is that it isn't your kid and it isn't your decision.
I do feel it's unfortunate that, when a hearing parent has a deaf child, they are bombarded with people trying to convince them that the child needs to be fixed.
I wish there were more pro-Deaf Culture advisors out there. Heck, one for every pro-CI advisor would be a nice start.
http://DeafExpressions.blogspot.com
Hello from Georgia!
Choices, choices, choices everywhere! Ain't technology GREAT? Good blog!
0Lois
about the trump card. That who I was talking about. The deaf parents. They are the ones who have the rights to exist, raise their children in deaf culture in ASL, in deaf (bi-bi) school, etc. without hearing people stepping in and telling them that they need fixing or their school need to cater more on speech and hearing and less on ASL because it is a "disability" school and so on.
Whether it's "fixing" or not, as long as the parents are informed, they make their own informed decision regarding their child with a hearing loss. If it means not using ASL, they deserve our respect for their informed decision on communication and educational options.
Mike,
You said:
"Whether it's "fixing" or not, as long as the parents are informed, they make their own informed decision regarding their child with a hearing loss. If it means not using ASL, they deserve our respect for their informed decision on communication and educational options."
On your post, seems that you are saying that Deaf people are not allow to "educate" parents of deaf babies.
Can you clarify by who is acceptable to educate naive parents of deaf babies before they become fully informed to make the final decision?
Thank you,
John Egbert
John, do not put words into my mouth. I am for informing parents of all possible communication and educational options. I have said this repeatedly. You continue to ignore my stance. Hence, it is why I say "informed decision" for parents to decide.
I support parents making an informed decision regarding their child with a hearing loss.
Mike,
You are not answering my question:
Can you clarify by who is acceptable to educate naive parents of deaf babies before they become fully informed to make the final decision?
This is a serious question that you are being evasive about answering it and I am not putting words in your mouth.
John Egbert
John, I just did! Read between the lines.
As long as parents get the necessary information to make an informed decision then I am fine with it. How, who, or where these information come from doesn't matter as long as the parents get their full information in order to make an *INFORMED!* decision. And when they do, I respect their decision. Will you? I think not.
Parents make the decision. It is the hope that it's an informed one.
YOU DO NOT DECIDE!
YOUR ORGANIZATION DOES NOT GET TO DECIDE! THE DEAF COMMUNITY DOES NOT DECIDE! ANY ORGANIZATIONS OF ANY STRIPES DO NOT GET TO DECIDE!
John, I'd like to respond to your question. (KP can respond for himself.) Your question is a rhetorical, loaded, and leading question. "Who" decides "who" is "acceptable" and to "whom"? Let me think - the parents? The second not-so-subtle clue is calling parents "naive." What, exactly, makes them "naive"? Is it because they might choose something other than ASL, and that's just plain wrong? I happen to think ASL for deaf babies is a grand idea, but you aren't promoting it in a positive way. how long is it going to take you to get a clue?
Mike,
EXACTLY
YOU DO NOT DECIDE!
You say that only hearing people can only give full information to parents of deaf babies instead of deaf people.
Reread you post again, plesse.
This is where you are so wrong and biased!
To the anonymous,
Majority of the parents always say, "help me", we do not know anything about deafness or whatever word they use and they are asking for information which means that they don't know.
Does that define naive?
We Deaf experienced people are willing to help but seems that there are other groups saying that hearing people know more than deaf people such as Mike McConnell trying to tell you according his message on his blog.
I used to think John was merely a doddering old fool but after the above, the newly coined word is not allowed to be printed here.
Tousi
What are you saying, John?
That only deaf people are qualified to tell parents what is best for their deaf/hoh child?
That is not being "informed".
Being informed is getting information by many sources. Parents will weight all the information they get and decide what is best for their child. Not you, nor I.
What you are proposing is not necessarily a good choice for ALL deaf/hoh babies. That's not for you to decide.
If you truly want to advocate for ASL, telling parents that ASL is the way to go without allowing them to be informed of other communication options will only create resentment by these parents when they find out that there are other choices they could have considered.
What you're implying is ASL is the only way to go for all deaf/hoh babies and that is not true. It's not the only way. I do advocate for ASL but I would never push it on parents. Parents need to know about all communication options. Other communication options provide language acquisition via spoken language: English and it has worked for many.
Candy,
Read Mike's post.
I have not said anything about ASL is the only way to go for all Deaf babies.
This is where everything is getting blown out of proportion with your comment.
This is all about educate for parents of deaf babies and Mike seems to say that only hearing people knows all the information, not deaf people.
Both hearing and deaf people should work together to help parents of deaf babies.
You are projecting, John. Again, I said "It is they who have the duty and right to make an informed choice on the decision for communication and/or educational options."
Key word is "informed." As long as parents get the necessary information by whatever means, from whoever, from wherever and how in order to make an informed decision. That's key. I made no distinction on whether such information must come from hearing people. I made it clear it is INFORMATION parents need to have in order to make an INFORMED DECISION.
Got it?
And secondly, it's very unprofessional for an organization like DBC to try and smear a citizen in a blog piece rather than simply to promote a positive picture about ASL.
Yes. I have that screen capture.
Very...very....unprofessional as an advocacy organization.
I've seen worst. lawyers promoting for Obama.
But I don't see him doing anything professional. He simply asked you if a deaf professional from ASL culture should be able to inform parents their side of story.
John..
I don't see anything in the post that says only hearing people know all the information, not deaf people.
You want to point out to a specific sentence or paragraph that made you think he did?
Howdy!
I can't say much in support of the above blog because I don't necessarily agree with it, but, of course, Michael is entitled to express his views and I respect that.
Please allow me, if you would, to question a thing or two regarding this blogpost:
How is it an "informed" decision when there is only information being provided from one side of the spectrum?
...and please don't deny the monopoly and the hijacking done on behalf of a hearing ideology because you and I very well know what is going on...
Yea, though it is, indeed, a hearing world alright, that doesn't mean the hearing are always right. We are, after all, the products of what was "best" and what was "right" yesterday.
Technology will never, in a million years, find its way to being perfect.
You see, something newer and better always comes along and the best that was, is now the worse that is. In fact, the best cochlear implant available today isn't going to be available until 5 years down the line, until they can profit all they can today from the best that WAS 5 years ago. That is the way the game is played.
Besides...
Informed means to get information from ALL sides and angles of the options that are available.
So...
Do we see Deaf adults and professionals being called upon to provide their wisdom, experience, and expertise to these parents?
You tell me...
And one more thing:
Thank you.
An "informed decision" automatically implies all necessary information to make a decision. In this case, it's about all of the available communication and/or educational options out there. This includes meeting people whether they're professionals, educators, people who wear cochlear implants, people who use cued speech, and so on and so forth. This includes doing their own research as well. An informed decision requires a process beforehand before arriving at a crucial decision.
Yes, and it does include ASL, SEE, PSE, etc..etc..
Alright, Mike, it's your blog and your views. I won't argue further because you're where you are with it and you're comfortable there.
I can understand that.
We all, yourself included, know what is up in the hospitals, clinics, etc, and so on. I need not say more. I'll leave it at that and, yes, I appreciate you letting me express my views here.
Again, Mahalo.
Diversity is essential to any 'community' it cannot exist any other way. Acceptance of diversity is also essential for harmony, however there seems a poor understanding of that within the deaf area as a whole. We are united by difference, but the differences are all negative so far. Perhaps if we don't argue any more the community will simply collapse... what else unites us ? it is certainly not hearing loss, deafness, or culture, or communication... Deaf TV was a bad move, it re-isolated them from everyone else and it provides an area for paranoia to fester, and allows an area of deaf.read to take them on at distance. So the deaf TV people go their own way, not doing a damn thing is it here or there.
Anyway, just keep those "all communication" options people out of bi-bi school. Because one of those option that deaf parent choose for themselves is ASL full time with their child, even in schools because they want their child get the social skills that they need. Without professionals stepping in and say your school need to provide "all communication"
What does Deaftv.com have to do with this? Are you saying that deaf people should not have their own tv channel? I support deaftv channel and I hope I see it on my cable tv in the future like they already have for spanish speaking people and BET channel for African Americans.
to Jeffrey: one significant point of conflict between the supporters of "all communication options" vs. the supporters of "ASL for all deaf babies" is the assumption that something nasty is going on between the medical establishment, including cochlear implant manufacturers and centers, the AGBell Association, and the dominant, ignorant hearing society that wants only to "fix" something it doesn't understand. You make generalizations like "we all know what is up in the hospitals, etc.," but don't include *me* in your sweeping "we all." I don't share your perceptions. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not there's a huge, malignant conspiracy against Deaf people. And that hearing parents who are just beginning to learn about their child's deafness need to be protected and steered away from them. I don't claim that nothing bad ever happens to any parent or any deaf child as a result of bad advice, but I don't claim that professionals who work with parents of deaf children are all bad apples either.
John, "naive" means deficient in judgment. It implies a value judgment on your part. Who's to say that parents of deaf babies are naive - you? (laughs) Parents of deaf babies are on a journey of discovery. The experience will be different for each family and each child. It's a very personal and individual matter. I would never presume to *know* what they should do and be so confident that it would always "work" in every situation. But I understand not everyone has my ethics.
to the previous Anonymous (9:24): there's a group of Deaf people who feel that DeafVideo.tv is not Deaf-friendly. They include Patti Durr, Ella Mae Lentz, Joey Baer, among others - all Deafhood people. This group and their followers don't want Barry Sewell, Mike McConnell, Russell Errigo, and others to be able to post their vlogs on DVTV at all. Tayler Mayer, the Deaf man who owns DVTV and DeafRead, was pressured to exclude any vlog that criticized Deafhood. But you can see that DVTV and DeafRead are still around and going strong. Praise Tayler for his courage to stand up to the Deafhood cyberbullies who want to deprive d/hh of their right to know all opinions.
Anony 11:07,
Can you please tell me if the medical establishment, in all its transparency, has provided any statistics showing the negative outcomes of cochlear implants?
Can you also please tell me what is wrong with raising children bilingually?
Hmmm?
Please enlighten me with your response and, hey, if you feel offended by my bunching you up in the whole, my apologies to you.
On a final note, I have parents who went through what many parents do when discovering that their child is deaf. My views and sentiments are reinforced by their experiences with the medical establishment.
Gracias,
J
oh, that site. I thought MM was talking about DeafTV.com instead of DVTV
Still don't understand his problem with Vlogs and why he think cause problems.
To anonymous 11:36
Patti Durr has actually been advocating for DR / DVTV to take a stand against audism. ("The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears."Dr. Tom Humphries)
DR / DVTV do have guidelines prohibiting attacks against folks based on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation in DR / DVTV but none re: ASL Deaf folks.
Patti also opposes DR / DVTV carrying entries that involve cyber defamation in the form or spreading false information while stating they are facts or involve sending (or the claim of sending) FALSE reports to Dept of Justice, State Senators, Licensing boards
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (MLK)
Patti doesn't have an issue with folks posting v/blogs about CIs as long as they r truthful. And as long as the DR editors are not putting up a short blog showing someones CI bear but regulating posts about Deaf clubs or other important events to Deaf Extras. She even defended Rachel (of CI Online) right to stay at DeafRead - just didnt want any post she or Patti or anyone generate that was full of audism to be carried by DeafRead - just as a Jewish aggregator would not be carry any blog entry that was anti-Semitic in nature
Patti might not always fancy the opinions of some of the folks named above (or even her own at times) but she will defend their right to say it and say her stuff too as long as no one is engaging in slander, libel, cyber harassment or cyber defamation
i know cuz - im patti
and I be on a truth campaign
Mike - it seems your blog entry is saying that Oral/Aural Only approach is ok? but ICED just said it is detrimental and Deaf babies and children should not be denied the right to natural sign language.
Perhaps maybe it is your thinking that is outdated and not Veditz's?
No one i know of is advocating for an ASL only education. We all know that would be detrimental to the child also. Natural Sign Language A-N-D the dominant language of the country is what ICED and WFD are advocating for now. (ya know multilingual)
It may be an old idea but it has not been fully explored or utlized since the infamous ICED 1880 Milan oral / aural only mandate
its a good ole new dawn mike
veditz should be happy, u should be happy, ur daughter heather should be happy, i should be happy, just about everybody should be happy
the only folks who might not be so happy are the ones who practice selective listening and choose to omit "remember history" re: respect and accept all languages and all forms of communication in their efforts to play Deaf and Dumb about the New Era document declaring that oral / aural only ain't cool no more (ya know the folks at volta place)
peace
patti
To anonymous 11:36
Patti Durr has actually been advocating for DR / DVTV to take a stand against audism. ("The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears."Dr. Tom Humphries)
DR / DVTV do have guidelines prohibiting attacks against folks based on race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation in DR / DVTV but none re: ASL Deaf folks.
Patti also opposes DR / DVTV carrying entries that involve cyber defamation in the form or spreading false information while stating they are facts or involve sending (or the claim of sending) FALSE reports to Dept of Justice, State Senators, Licensing boards
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (MLK)
Patti doesn't have an issue with folks posting v/blogs about CIs as long as they r truthful. And as long as the DR editors are not putting up a short blog showing someones CI bear but regulating posts about Deaf clubs or other important events to Deaf Extras. She even defended Rachel (of CI Online) right to stay at DeafRead - just didnt want any post she or Patti or anyone generate that was full of audism to be carried by DeafRead - just as a Jewish aggregator would not be carry any blog entry that was anti-Semitic in nature
Patti might not always fancy the opinions of some of the folks named above (or even her own at times) but she will defend their right to say it and say her stuff too as long as no one is engaging in slander, libel, cyber harassment or cyber defamation
i know cuz - im patti
and I be on a truth campaign
peace
patti
One of the issues is a deliberate prevention of access to them,to non-signing people, we cannot break down barriers while that is happening. Sign isn't universal, ASL/BSL/ISL whatever they are not universally accessible by other deaf. If we are honest, and an pure BSL vblog is put up, you can see the ASL user's eyes glazing over, what is that about ? I'm interested in the deaf viewpoint, just not able to sign well enough, I represent probably many deaf people who cannot follow ASL or even BSL signed vblogs, how do you raise cultural awareness by making sign inaccessible or difficult to follow. There seems a determination to keep certain deaf sectors out of the picture, and their views, by using sign as an barrier. I'm not demanding those who cannot provide access do it, but it does seem those NOT providing the access are those most capable of doing it.
Mike - it seems your blog entry is saying that Oral/Aural Only approach is ok? but ICED New Era just said it is detrimental and Deaf babies and children should not be denied the right to natural sign language.
Perhaps maybe it is your thinking that is outdated and not Veditz's?
No one i know of is advocating for an ASL only education. We all know that would be detrimental to the child also. Natural Sign Language A-N-D the dominant language of the country is what ICED and WFD are advocating for now. (ya know multilingual)
It may be an old idea but it has not been fully explored or utlized since the infamous ICED 1880 Milan oral / aural only mandate
its a good ole new dawn mike
veditz should be happy, u should be happy, ur daughter heather should be happy, i should be happy, just about everybody should be happy
the only folks who might not be so happy are the ones who are devoted to promoting oral / aural only (ie speaking and listinging only) – ya know the ones who actively EXCLUDE and are EXTREME in their lack of options.
ya know the folks at volta place and the "Option" schools where they deny children the right to do that which comes natural – access language through their fully functioning unaided sense of sight and/or touch (if Deaf-blind)
We really should be asking how r THEY – AG Bell and Option Only folks gonna reconcile this disconnect between their practices and value system and AVT certification etc
also what is the CI surgeon in New Mexico gonna do? This bloke requires parents to sign a form saying they will raise their child orally only.
in a pickle they be
all the bells and whistles are still gonna have to hear the New Era shout out to end oral / aural only. But good try at ur spin and hey - i LOVE veditz so we might just have to dance to the tune of "as the blogsphere" turns another time
peace
patti
sorry for all the repeated posts
originally the system said me comment was too long so i broke it down into 2 entries (and added a bit)
looks like mike may have accepted the first long long one as no trash bucket symbol for me to junk it and leave up the two separate ones
sorry again for the repeats
mike feel free to delete the 12:56 Deaf cinema entry
thanks
peace
patti
"...recurring yet common theme...in some segments of the Deaf community and that is the constant attempts to restrict choices whether it's choices in communication options or about competitions or of ideas."
Yet, you, I, and others who've advocated different views and choices have never called for boycotts of DR or DVTV or for restricting interaction about certain subjects online, when some ppl didn't agree with you.
Heaven forbid that this very same "segment of the Deaf community" be barred from access to the internet, which was one of Vint Cerf's brilliant ideas come to fruition in leaps and bounds. Without it, we wouldn't be "communicating" here on this very blog.
Ann_C
Your point is what? The needs of the deaf remains the same since Veditz's time. We still need ASL despite the technology available because it is a HUMAN language that cannot be changed. We are hardwired for a visual language due to a loss of one of our 5 senses. That is that simple.
Some of us can use CI or hearing aids, but many of those STILL need ASL regardless.
So I find your claims invalid.
to Jeffrey:
has [the medical establishment] provided any statistics showing the negative outcomes of cochlear implants? Yes.
what is wrong with raising children bilingually? nothing. It's what I would choose if I had kids, and it's what Mike McConnell has chosen with his hearing children. Another person may not choose to raise their child bilingually. I'm fine with it. Why aren't you? And why is it your business? You aren't raising that deaf child.
I have parents who went through what many parents do when discovering that their child is deaf. guess what - I do too. I'm an adult now. are you? I've moved on. Have you?
to DeafCinema: Dr. Tom Humphries' definition notwithstanding, no one agrees what audism is. therefore, judgments as to what is audistic are totally subjective. What you call "audism," I might call "diversity." It's my personal observation that many Deaf people who use ASL exclusively have a disturbing tendency to call deaf/hh people who prefer amplification and speech "audists" simply by virtue of the fact that they don't use ASL and make it known that they don't want to, for whatever reasons of their own. Making a choice to be oral does not equal disrespecting ASL or Deaf Culture.
What you call "cyberbullying" I might call "difference of opinion."
Defamation in whatever form is illegal. If you have proof, tell it to the police. if you don't have proof, then you're the one who is defaming others. Your truth may be my lies, and vice versa.
and one more time: no one here is advocating oral-only as the only option. I believe Mike is advocating "informed choice." How can this concept be made more simple? Unless you're in the early hearing detection and identification profession, none of us have any control over how parents of newly identified deaf babies go about getting their information and making their decisions. The only thing we can do as advocates of our respective approaches is to put the information out there and make sure it gets into the right hands.
Castigating one another for our positions isn't accomplishing that. We can all get along. There's plenty of room in the wide world for all different opinions and options.
to CAM: another tendency I've noted among the DH, AFA, DBC, etc., crowd is to perceive all deaf people through the tunnel vision of their common life experiences. For most of them, it means being frustrated with oral-only methods, and finding happiness and satisfaction with ASL and the Deaf Community. Because that was THEIR experience, ALL deaf people must have had or will have the same experience. I wish for those Deaf people to understand that not all deaf/hh people are like them. Birds of a feather flock together. When one's deaf-world is very narrow, one begins to think that everyone else's deaf-world is the same as yours. I'm here to tell you deaf people are not all alike, and that's why there must be options. Because amplification and oral approaches didn't work for YOU and everyone else that YOU know, doesn't mean they won't work for someone else. You will never encounter those oral deaf people who are happy and satisfied integrated into the hearing world. I'm not saying that one or the other is better or worse, just that they both exist.
To CAM and Anony@5:32 pm:
Which is why communication options, with the plural 's', or choices, should be out there for parents of deaf infants. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, because every deaf child is different. I know, I was born deaf and raised oral, did well at hearing/speaking without a second thought, so being oral deaf is not better or worse than being ASL Deaf, just different.
Ann_C
"ICED New Era just said it is detrimental and Deaf babies and children should not be denied the right to natural sign language."
No, Patty. What ICED mean are ban on ASL as one of the communication options were detrimential. ICED never say "ALL Deaf babies and children should not be denied the right to natural sign language". ICED respect all communication options, mean accept AVT and cochlear implants. Same with natural sign language as one of the communication options.
In reality, there was never a ban on signed language. The wording used was: "declares that the oral method should be preferred to that of signs in the education and instruction of deaf-mutes." Should be preferred to that of signed language. That's not a ban. But, people took it as a ban because some countries actually did away with sign language, but America did not.
Accept and respect all language and all forms of communication options means we shouldn't be arguing about that at all! ;) If parents opt for ASL, no one should be crying foul. If parents opt for CI/AVT, no one should be throwing a fit.
Accept and respect. simple.
You are beautiful...,
no matter what they say.
ily,
JAR
Candy, thanks for pointing out the wording... I was not aware of it.
I recently met a family (a single hearing mom, an old friend of mine, who has two deaf boys with CIs who are mainstreamed) and I was struck by one of the boys... even though both of them were exposed to ASL from an early age, one still constantly shows his preference to talk and he really talks very well... and he's profoundly deaf.
So, in the deaf education, bilingual could be the way to go, as long as the oracy part (Spoken English) is on equal footing with ASL, written English, etc. So far it is not and it's a challenge, with a desire to meet the needs of some deaf children who like talking. So far they continue being mainstreamed.
As I have said in the past, "Bi-Bi" DOES include three acies... literacy, signacy, AND ORACY.
facts:
ICED 1880 resulted in a banishment of Natural Sign Language in the wild fire called Pure Oralism - check Baynton's Forbidden Signs, Lane's When the Mind Hears, Lane's Mask of Benevolence, Branson and Miller's Damned for Their Difference and more.
AG Bell's update itself even acknowledges what ICED 1880 resolutions did.
Ignorance ain't always bliss folks.
re: what ICED 2010 New Era says:
rejected “all resolutions passed at the ICED Milan Congress in 1880 that denied the inclusion of sign languages in educational programs for Deaf students.”
The New Era agreement lists out what 1880 ICED Congressin Milan did - remove the use of sign language (SL) from educational programs
- contributed detrimentally to the lives of Deaf citizens...
- led to the exclusion of Deaf citizens...
-prevented Deaf citizens from participation...
- hindred the abilities of Deaf citizens ...
- prevented the opportunity for Deaf citizens
can u folks read? if not check out the International sign lang version of the New Era
Like JAR - i love ya all too
peace
patti
@ Patti, You stated: Can you folks read? Yah, you said it! Look above! Are you trying to insult the intelligence of the deaf community that you are trying represent? Have you accomplished any research on illiteracy? deaf community? hearing community?
When I asked "Did you read" (regarding the AB2072 bill), several deaf folks got upset, thinking that I was insinuating that I didn't think they could read. I never said, CAN you read, I said DID you read...big differences. Thank you Margarita for pointing that out! :)
Then again, one has to wonder....DID they read the original 1880 Milan resolution? (NO! not asking if they can read) because the resolution never said to ban signed language. Free will, people, free will.
The Milan congress simply declared the superiority of oral methods of instruction (speech) over sign language. Nothing about banning it. It was then after this declaration schools around the world began to favor oralism. However, it never caused the end of sign language. Instead it continue to grow since then. Instead of being so fixaxed on education and Milan only, Deaf people need to look beyond this period of history. A good book to read is The Deaf History Reader (2007) by Van Cleve starting from the 17th to early 20th century. The Deaf community never disappeared.
This whole Milan fixation is getting really, really old.
mcconnell
Post a Comment