1. The formation of an advisory committee would possibly be a duplicative work of other state programs.
2. The use of advisory committee would be quite biased.
3. And lastly use of an advisory committee would represent a significant workload which will require fiscal resources that the state is already short on.
In one paragraph near the end he stated that there are other resources and efforts being done by state agencies and departments that already try and get the information out to the parents with children identified with hearing loss. In fact, the CAA pointed this out in a letter to Tony Mendoza as seen in the first page, fifth paragraph:
Additionally, existing Health and Safety Code, Article 6.5 Section 124119.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106, related to newborn and infant hearing screening, already provides for the dissemination of this information to parents. The Federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing. These brochures can be provided to Californians at no cost. Further, there is really no reason, in our view, for such a broad expansion of this program in these difficult times.This letter is very similar to the governor's own responses for his reason on vetoing the bill. Despite that, with the state continuing budget cuts will likely affect state organizations that are funded and supported through state grants in order to continue with their operations. With the governor vetoing the AB2072 bill means that ASL will not be recognized as a language in the state of California. And because of that pro-ASL deaf organizations who rely on state grants to help work with children and parents with hearing loss may be at risk. Had a similar bill to that of AB2072 with the inclusion of ASL that gets signed by the governor would have undoubtedly raise in recognizing ASL as a language and thereby have a greater chance of surviving any fiscal cuts via through grants to those organizations in California. So, who really got hurt here?
53 comments:
My first time ever commenting here, so here goes...
I may be a bit biased as english was my first language and ASL is my primary language, but in my opinion the CI/AVT businesses are the ones get hurt because lots of money are involved. I understand that the raising awarenes of ASL may be affected but I think it is minimized. Safe to say that it will be very very tough to come up with an unbiased bill but it is not impossible.
Big Guy
That's right Mike. Who really got hurt here... the closed society. They inflicted the wounds upon themselves because they did not know a good thing when they had it. I know I said this before.
So you're saying that *because* of this the State of California will be able to ignore Linguistic research and NOT recognize ASL as a Language?
Or are you saying California recognizes all languages *except* for ASL?
It seems a bit odd that for a Language that isn't recognized one can get a Court appointed interpreter in the State Courts, isn't it?
No -- this "bill" was nothing but (yet another) attempt to eradicate Deaf Culture and as such it is a good thing that it has been vetoed.
The only real difference between this bill and the attempts in the past is that this one from the start was oriented at lining people's pockets with money -- after all, if one can benefit financially from the Cultural Genocide of a people then it can't be a bad thing, right?
-- tap
The problem is any advisory body would be a stacked deck, they have themselves to blame in most part. Access laws will PREVENT ASL access unless these 'advisers' can learnt to include and accept everyone themselves. BSL is not fully recognised here either despite the continuing hype it is, all the UK did was accept 'In principle' choices, as far as any sector telling the educational establishment what it wants, not on. That is because they don't want deaf groups dividing up education into decibel rated or cultural systems, that is communication apartheid. We really do have to stop the in-fighting to progress, we aren't gaining, Cultural deaf aren't either.
Funny enough, I actually agree with the governor on some of these points. I didn't think the California Department of Education (CDE) was the best resource for parents of newly identified deaf babies. The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is already doing that. I also agree that many other sources provide brochures and information on all the different modalities and options. Some are better (i.e., less biased, more factual) than others. I was not happy with the Oppose AB2072's insistence that anything put in the brochure be research based and validated. With the very small population of severe to profoundly deaf infants, children, and youth, for every study you find saying that ASL "works," there is another study that says Cued Speech, AVT, SEE, sim-com, etc., also "works." The point is that different approaches and combinations of approaches work for diverse deaf and hard of hearing children.
I wonder if the governor would have approved the earlier incarnations of AB2072, before the opposition meddled with it and made it unnecessarily complicated?
I thought the response you received from the CAA was wonderful. I felt reassured that they know their jobs and can use professional judgment about what to tell parents of children identified with hearing loss.
Anonymous 456
Governator made the smart move not to use the "double" funds for the panelists that represents their organizations. Since the communicatewithyourchild.org unveiled through the internet, parents will do their homework to get some information. That'll also save California's money.
California is facing the debt and find a way to save $$$. Good work, Governator.
California Association of Audiology (CAA) won the battle, not the CDNIA.
White Ghost
Exactly White Ghost.
So, who really got hurt here?
Barry, Russell, Candy, Richard, & Mike.
Anony 1:26 PM.
You need to get better at debating than to say that. Otherwise you're just spouting words that have no meaning. You need to explain the next time around but I'll save you some time. The vetoed bill doesn't affect us nor hurt us. We are not the beneficiary of that bill.
theHolism,
Could you do the vlog to explain why the AB 2072 got vetoed? I saw ASLElla's new vlog and she and her commentators apparently don't understand what the Governator explained in the letter? You know it'll be great help for the deaf in the DVTV to understand what the letter from Governator is all about? Many people would not understand the "sophisticated" language is. It'll be great help.
White Ghost
I do not plan to blog on this since I do not have the time to and Mike and Barry have and they provided accurate assessment/fact on this Veto.
Per my source from the Mendoza's camp, they are relieved that it did not pass., because of the too many demands that took away the original purpose of the bill - to ensure parents are not kept in the dark on all communication options. Also, the Governor did not listen to the opposeAB2072 people, rather the Governor listened to CAA. Remember, CAA supported the bill until it got ridiculous. In the end, the audiologist had and will have the last say in this matter....like it or not.
Keep it simple.
Opposition did not keep it simple.
They didn't understand the CA code sections and how it applies to each of their demands.
Right, Candy. In fact, the CAA sent a letter to the governor that was very similar to the letter sent to Tony Mendoza. This was confirmed earlier today in an email.
Opposition kept it simple: Kill Bill
Hi White Ghost.
There is already a unbiased vlog at DVTV on this subject under 49deafcancuk. I produced several comments there with hope it'll help DVTV viewers understand the ramifications of the veto and why the final draft did not fly.
Ella and her people did not understand the ramifications initially and still did not understand when the final draft was voted on. And they still did not understand what it meant when the veto was issued. I doubt they are going to understand the consequences, ike Mike pointed out, either.
I wonder if Ella and her people are seriously incapable of understanding of many things in English because they've confined themselves in this closed society for too long and became marinated in ASL. Call it saturated if you wish. Anything that is saturated is never good. It does not allow the object to absorb or expand their horizon.
Barry is happy. Ella is thrilled. Elisa is relieved. Candy finally doesn't want to blog about it any more.
The audiologists spent $32,000 to achieve this result, so they must be happiest of all.
All in time for today's ASL Celebration on the North side of the Capitol building with the folks who helped us.
See: http://cad1906.org/content/asl-celebration-2010
- Linda
To anonymous above,
You seem to have a really short memory here. Ella and her people whined about the bill because they felt that the deaf organizations like DCARA, GLAD, and NORCAL could not compete against AG Bell, financially. Ella and her people felt threatened by 'all communication options' and wanted to paint ASL in gold and the rest of the options in black. The legislators were very polite and tried to make everybody happy. End result? A biased bill was voted on and rejected by the Governor.
It sent California back to square one, without a written law that recognized ASL as a valid option. In essence you guys blew it. In essence you guys did not know a good thing when you had it.
Now kindly explain how it hurts Mike, Candy, Russell and myself? Speaking for myself... I didn't complain about the existing weak law in California. I was okay with it. And I appreciated the original ab 2072 draft for what it was and vlogged on the subject and said it was a great opportunity to promote ASL. I was content with the final draft. I'm happy with the veto because I did not appreciate how Ella and her people managed to complicate it.
I'm happy that California is back to square one. Read my blog.
To a different anonymous...
You raised an important question here.
Would the governor have approved the earlier incarnations of AB2072, before the opposition meddled with it and made it unnecessarily complicated?
The answer would be yes, in my opinion. The original bill was a really simple bill. A unbiased one and it would not cost the State of California a penny. That would have been signed by the Governor, yes.
The final draft would have cost the State between $100,000 to $150,000 in initial costs to cover expenses associated with advisory panels and publications. It would also have on-going expenses to publish pamphlets to make sure detailed information were provided. The detailed information generated by advisory groups were seen as 'biased' by the Governor. He could not be any more clearer than that.
> The final draft would have cost the State between $100,000 to $150,000 in initial costs
Hi Holism,
I am having trouble finding a source for your figures. Can you clarify just where you get "between $100,000 to $150,000 in initial costs," or is this just your own "horseback" estimate?
Since the bill's own language stated: "This bill would provide that no state funds shall be
used to implement these provisions" it's clear your figures come from some place else, so please share your source.
Thanks!
- Linda
Linda,
I do want to blog about it, I just don't have the time to.
And, Mike pretty much covered everything I would have said. But, never say never because oftentimes when I see someone like you spilling untruths, it does prompt me to blog to set the truth straight. ;)
I was told, Arnold owed someone a favor.
It's all politics, ya know, CAA does have clout and OpposeAB2072 don't. CAA made sense and OpposeAB2072 don't. It's quite that simple.
And, the dirty tricks put out by OpposeAB2072 is sure going to be on the minds of many of these stakeholders when this goes to the drawing board again.
Ella is happy now. Mendoza team on AB2072 is relieved! Gosh, yeah.
But, will Ella be happy the next time it comes up? I doubt it. We know what she wants and she ain't gonna get what she want. End of story.
theHolism...
Er....I failed to convince you for not doing the vlog. That's because you're popular in DVTV and will get lots of views, visits and comments. Makes me grrr.
When California goes back to the square one, Ella and her camp will be facing the very, very difficult obstacle. They will have no choice for them to accept the communication options in the new bill or AB 2072 without having the panelists from other organizations to be involved for the sake of California's budget. They will face some struggles for long time.
White Ghost
Linda,
Did you fall asleep during the AB 2072 panel hearing? They mentioned the figure and wanted to know how they were going to pay for it. Duh...
Oh I know. You are one forgetful individual. You do it on purpose.
White Ghost...
LOL... you didn't fail at anything. I'd have vlogged if Dan (49deafcancuk) created a biased vlog but he didn't so there was no need for me to do a new vlog. As for DeafRead I had no idea Mike was also doing a blog but if I had known he was doing it I would not do it. I found out about Mike's blog few minutes after I posted mine. Funny but I wanted to respond to John Egbert's cutie blog where he didn't want to disclose very much. Sneaky guy!
And yes, you got it right about California being back at square one. The next time around, if any, will prove to be more difficult if not impossible for Ella and their people. They are going to remind her of the reason for the veto today and say, sorry, can't do.
Candy says: "Mendoza team on AB2072 is relieved! Gosh, yeah."
Clock is ticking down to November 2nd, and Mendoza needs something to show for why he didn't get around to helping pass a budget.
ALL of Mendoza's AB 2072 work is for nothing to him politically now. Do you REALLY think he's going to be RELIEVED it got vetoed? Him OR his "camp" who put in even more wasted hours on this doomed-from-the-start Oral Option Schools bill?
As for Holism, nice try, but you still haven't sourced that "panel hearing". Date, which house was the hearing in, and just who said it, so we can all see that you aren't just playing fast and loose with the facts here, please.
Of course, you can't source something that never happened, so perhaps it is your OWN memory that is doing some creative misremembering of the specifics here? ;-)
- Linda
Everyone is happy. There.
It is a good thing he veto it because NOBODY wanted it after the change.
@ Linda, can you provide your source/documentation in your statement regarding "The audiologists spent $32,000 to achieve this result, so they must be happiest of all."
Linda,
How many senate panel hearing were there? Go figure.
Linda, I made my point right after the bill got passed in the Senate that from that point on, it does not matter what happens. The message was already clear and understood what the bill was intended to be, the Senate has experienced first hand what it was like to deal with ASL extremists.
Just relaying information that was shared with me. Yes, Mendoza's camp is relieved.
I have made it clear why I advocated for the bill and it's all over on my blog. A similar bill will be revisited again, when that happens, it will be very interesting to see how it all unfolds again. A word to the wise, don't make the same mistakes again. ;)
I have succeeded in making sure that the state of CA will never ever consider CA DNIA's statement in its entirety and that is the most important part. To ensure all parents are aware of ALL communication options. How do you communicate, Linda? In ASL, of course.
One million dollar question- Don't they care about deaf kids? I don't think so....
Russell
AB 2072 is still alive and will remain on an eternal life
The options and resource brochures offered on this page were inspired by AB 2072 http://eyefirevlogs.com/eyefire2/?p=9451 resources have been developed for 4 counties alreadyn and more counties brochures will be developed once time becomes available. Eventually all counties in california will have their specific brochures and weve been asked by people in Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey for development of these resources for their respective locations.
Over 8000 copies of the brochures have been downloaded as of today
See my post in youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRwy0Quflg
AB 2072 is not dead. It is alive and getting bigger.
Richard Roehm
Modern Deaf Communication
Richard Roehm -- "Eventually all counties in california will have their specific brochures and weve been asked by people in Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey for development of these resources for their respective locations."
Who are the people from New Jersey ? I am interested to find out.
Thank you.
John M.
Sure Richard Roehm. I'll bet the same however let's talk about what a signed law means versus a vetoed bill means. Enforceability. Big difference there.
Margarita asks:
"@ Linda, can you provide your source/documentation in your statement regarding 'The audiologists spent $32,000 to achieve this result, so they must be happiest of all.'"
GOOD QUESTION, and exactly the sort of question we're going to be asking to reduce the number of rumors people are trying to post as fact.
See:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1144913&session=2009&view=activity
...for where I got that number. It represents the CAA's lobbying budget for the 1st 2 quarters of this year, which, as you can see, was spent on AB 2072 and on AJR 34, the joint resolution asking the feds to completely fund IDEA (no actual action on the part of the state necessary for AJR 34).
- Linda
Holism asks: "How many senate panel hearing were there?"
Zero.
So that's why I'm trying to figure out what you mean. There was a Senate Health Committee hearing, a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, and several addenda to each of those over the following weeks.
As close as I can get is that you are citing the figures estimated for ENFORCEMENT on the part of Audiologists, but enforcement was dropped in Appropriations to get it out of suspense, so is not a part of the final bill. Was that what you were talking about?
- Linda
Candy says: "To ensure all parents are aware of ALL communication options."
I believe it is your own error that you think CDNIAS does not want parents to be fully informed.
Some folks in CDNIAS would like to see ASL from the start, but, unlike what you have proposed, do not expect to wait for fluency to begin English.
CIs are currently not done before 12 months of age, a time when hearing babies have already absorbed enough language to begin producing it themselves.
Clearly, a baby who will eventually get a CI at 1 year can already be getting language via visual mode if a REAL LANGUAGE is used...
That I do not entirely trust the stronger-than-big-pharma commercial bias of the device manufacturers aside, optimal use of residual hearing just isn't going to happen as fast as we can get language into the child via ASL from the start!
It seems to me that your fear is that hard-of-hearing kids might get ASL-only, and not have speech training, but I don't see that as what is being sought here.
Bilingualism is hard for adults, but easy for kids, given the proper environment. The cannard that anything other than spoken English necessarily confuses kids is, in my opinion, an untested extrapolation of monolingual adult thinking.
ASL from the start is showing improved language for HEARING kids. Why not measure what we're seeing here with baby sign and TEST the too-well-funded assumption that oral-only education produces the best language learning?
You see CDNIAS as advocating ASL-only. I see the existing system as STRONGLY financially biased to Oral-only. Biased to the point that the folks in power can't see the bias because they've come to expect it as what SHOULD happen.
The funding from the device manufacturers is deliberately withheld from those deaf kids who do not benefit from their wares. ASL cannot hope to command the prices medical "miracles" command, even though it is still necessary because the "miracles" are always going to be only for some and not for others.
The kids for whom the "miracles" don't work are no less deserving of language, but we don't start out knowing which kids these will be.
A parent's right to choose is necessarily limited by the child's right to language. This limitation does not COME from the Deaf Community; we're just the messengers here.
Hope this makes some sense, cuz Candy's view of what CDNIAS brings to the table in Sacramento seems to be pretty distorted.
Candy also asks and answers:
"How do you communicate, Linda? In ASL, of course."
Please elaborate, as I don't yet understand what you mean by pointing that out there...
Thanks!
- Linda
Everything you have said is subjective. We all can throw in what works and what doesn't. We're all not going to be on the same page. What works for one isn't going to work for another.
Parents are the ones that should be making informed decision after being informed of ALL communication options.
I apologize for answering the question, that was inappropriate for me to do so. Let's start again.
Linda, how do you communicate?
Also..
Linda, you said:
Candy's view of what CDNIAS brings to the table in Sacramento seems to be pretty distorted.
I know who was on the newborn hearing screening detection reform task force, aka CDNIA, and I also know what these people recommended.
These very same people, plus more are part of the OpposeAB2072.
Distorted? I think not.
Linda, I know I saw this figure some where and it had to do with the expenses associated with advisory panels and the upcoming work that would be required to implement the initial phase of the new law shall it be signed and executed by the Governor. I'll have to look for it and post it here.
The exact figure was not determined yet but they estimated it to be between $100K to $150K. That was the figure used in the chatter when I read about it.
I don't recall anything related to
budget for enforcement on part of audiologists.
Candy says:
"I know who was on the newborn hearing screening detection reform task force..."
Who do you know of?
Who do you know well?
Candy asks:
"How do you communicate? In ASL of course."
Sorry, I wasn't offended by you answering or anything. I genuinely didn't understand why you asked me how I communicated. That's all I meant. What's how I communicate got to do with parents getting full info?
Because I have both languages, you think I will think it is easier for parents to learn ASL than it likely will be given that they start out as adults?
Not trying to be snarky here. I really want to understand your original point is all.
- Linda
Just a thought. Clearly the opinions on what CDNIA is differs between Linda and Candy. This shows that based on similar presentations from CDNIA, two people are forming different opinions. (Perhaps there are more external sources, but is not too important for this point)
Now, it is possible parents (& politicians) have similarities in forming their opinions as Candy is. If CDNIA wishes to be better understood the way LInda explained, perhaps CDNIA needs to change their presentations.
(not saying who's wrong or right... just a thought)
i.identify.me
By the way Linda, if you read the Governor note to the State Assembly you will see the second reason for the veto. It says that BECAUSE OF advisory committee it would require signiificant workload that will require fiscal resources that cannot be spared.
Don't make me tell you what "fiscal" means.
And you thought it'd cost nothing? Sorry to disappoint you but the Governor disagrees.
Well, I'm not gonna play your games Linda. I think you're smart to see what I'm getting at.
Who was on the task force was shared with me, no need to name names here.
i.identify.me...
Let me clarify something here.
Prior to AB2072 being drafted, there was a task force to reform the newborn hearing screening code section within the health and safety code section.
That task force had drafted up a DNIA statement which has recommendations.
Then AB2072 was drafted.
That task force was upset because AB2072 was intended to change/modify/add (you'd have to understand the role each amendment had on that code section)the code section that they were working on for three years and one that they (cdnia) had planned to propose via Senator Steinberg (sp?).
So, clearly CDNIA was very upset as every had seen.
However, when CDNIA was "forced" into collaboration by Sen. Alquist, they tried to incorporate some of the recommendations from their own CDNIA statement (CDE oversight, among other things) into AB2072. They could not put in what they wanted: Mandate all babies to have language acquisition (ASL) first before adding in other options. You'd have to read the whole statement to understand their intend.
Again, clearly many did not read my post:
http://candysweetblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/what-it-is-all-about-the-truth-behind-opposing-ab2072/
My gawd...deafnewspaper.com made the huge wrong information on AB 2072! Embarrassing. theHolism is making a vlog right now. Should be in DVTV anytime.
Here is the link:
http://deafnewspaper.com/news.html
Geesh!
White Ghost
What an interesting debate. Let me start by being clear: I have no affiliation with any of the pro or anti support groups of AB2072...
It is interesting to me that nobody wishes to address the *original* intent of the bill and instead only look at what was finally vetoed. Basically splinter the Community so that the next time around the Community fails. Wow. So much for "United We Stand".
So it seems we have some saying that the "hard-core" ASL group wants ASL painted in gold, above all else. Umm -- why not?
Why do I say this, having no vested interest? Simple: Linguistics.
PSE, SEE, TC, Oralism, CI, ... THESE ARE TOOLS!! No? You don't agree? Then *please* will someone refer me to one academically accepted linguistic study that proves ANY of these things are LANGUAGES! Can anyone provide such proof?
Now, what if I were to ask about ASL linguistic studies? Surely nobody here is so ignorant as to not realize the linguistic basis of ASL (and the other natural signed languages of the world). (Google it if you're in doubt ...)
So YES -- if ASL is present on the same page as these other tools then it SHOULD be noted differently -- because it is not simply a TOOL -- IT IS A LANGUAGE!
If CI's (or some other technology) were 'implanted' "immediately after birth" AND they were guaranteed to work for everyone, AND they never had to be "adjusted", AND they could never fail to work at any time, AND ... umm basically they completely replaced the human hearing system, then I might be a proponent for that instead of ASL first (at the very least it would be more difficult to argue against them). Unfortunately, they don't work for everyone. And they won't work one hundred percent of the time. This means that this "tool" will NOT allow one hundred percent access to Language. Let's not even discuss the missed opportunity of Language acquisition between birth and when the CI's are finally operational ...
How can it possibly be wrong to allow and/or encourage early access to a Language? Once this process has been started one can always use other TOOLS to augment learning.
My question to those that "aren't in the hard-core ASL camp" is this: Why do you want to actively DENY children access to Language?
PLEASE -- Refocus. Forget the politics. Think of the Children. Do you, or do you NOT want them to have access to LANGUAGE at as early an age as possible? Language that can't malfunction at some point(s) in time, leaving them "in the dark"? Keep in mind that there is no "Critical Learning Period" for tool acquisition -- but there is for Language.
Are we refocused? I doubt it -- but I'll pretend we are -- good. Now remember historically many of the organizations that originally backed AB2072 have not had the best interest of the Deaf in mind. I assure you -- they'll be back, and you can count on them NOT having anyone or anything but their own interests in mind (probably at the expense of others). So is it best to stay splintered or to stand together?
In my opinion it should be a crime to deny children access to Language. Access to Language SHOULD be an inalienable right, hearing or Deaf. That's the type of Law we should be debating and passing.
-- tap
What an interesting debate. Let me start by being clear: I have no affiliation with any of the pro or anti support groups of AB2072...
It is interesting to me that nobody wishes to address the *original* intent of the bill and instead only look at what was finally vetoed. Basically splinter the Community so that the next time around the Community fails. Wow. So much for "United We Stand".
So it seems we have some saying that the "hard-core" ASL group wants ASL painted in gold, above all else. Umm -- why not?
Why do I say this, having no vested interest? Simple: Linguistics.
PSE, SEE, TC, Oralism, CI, ... THESE ARE TOOLS!! No? You don't agree? Then *please* will someone refer me to one academically accepted linguistic study that proves ANY of these things are LANGUAGES! Can anyone provide such proof?
Now, what if I were to ask about ASL linguistic studies? Surely nobody here is so ignorant as to not realize the linguistic basis of ASL (and the other natural signed languages of the world). (Google it if you're in doubt ...)
So YES -- if ASL is present on the same page as these other tools then it SHOULD be noted differently -- because it is not simply a TOOL -- IT IS A LANGUAGE!
If CI's (or some other technology) were 'implanted' "immediately after birth" AND they were guaranteed to work for everyone, AND they never had to be "adjusted", AND they could never fail to work at any time, AND ... umm basically they completely replaced the human hearing system, then I might be a proponent for that instead of ASL first (at the very least it would be more difficult to argue against them). Unfortunately, they don't work for everyone. And they won't work one hundred percent of the time. This means that this "tool" will NOT allow one hundred percent access to Language. Let's not even discuss the missed opportunity of Language acquisition between birth and when the CI's are finally operational ...
How can it possibly be wrong to allow and/or encourage early access to a Language? Once this process has been started one can always use other TOOLS to augment learning.
My question to those that "aren't in the hard-core ASL camp" is this: Why would you want to actively DENY children access to Language?
PLEASE -- Refocus. Forget the politics. Think of the Children. Do you, or do you NOT want them to have access to LANGUAGE at as early an age as possible? Language that can't malfunction at some point(s) in time, leaving them "in the dark"? Keep in mind that there is no "Critical Learning Period" for tool acquisition -- but there is for Language.
Are we refocused? I doubt it -- but I'll pretend we are -- good. Now remember historically many of the organizations that originally backed AB2072 have not had the best interest of the Deaf in mind. I assure you -- they'll be back, and you can count on them NOT having anyone or anything but their own interests in mind (probably at the expense of others). So is it best to stay splintered or to stand together?
In my opinion it should be a crime to deny children access to Language. Access to Language SHOULD be an inalienable right, hearing or Deaf. That's the type of Law we should be debating and passing.
-- tap
I keep getting denied to post -- I guess this is too long, so ...
Part1:
What an interesting debate. Let me start by being clear: I have no affiliation with any of the pro or anti support groups of AB2072...
It is interesting to me that nobody wishes to address the *original* intent of the bill and instead only look at what was finally vetoed. Basically splinter the Community so that the next time around the Community fails. Wow. So much for "United We Stand".
So it seems we have some saying that the "hard-core" ASL group wants ASL painted in gold, above all else. Umm -- why not?
Why do I say this, having no vested interest? Simple: Linguistics.
PSE, SEE, TC, Oralism, CI, ... THESE ARE TOOLS!! No? You don't agree? Then *please* will someone refer me to one academically accepted linguistic study that proves ANY of these things are LANGUAGES! Can anyone provide such proof?
Now, what if I were to ask about ASL linguistic studies? Surely nobody here is so ignorant as to not realize the linguistic basis of ASL (and the other natural signed languages of the world). (Google it if you're in doubt ...)
So YES -- if ASL is present on the same page as these other tools then it SHOULD be noted differently -- because it is not simply a TOOL -- IT IS A LANGUAGE!
If CI's (or some other technology) were 'implanted' "immediately after birth" AND they were guaranteed to work for everyone, AND they never had to be "adjusted", AND they could never fail to work at any time, AND ... umm basically they completely replaced the human hearing system, then I might be a proponent for that instead of ASL first (at the very least it would be more difficult to argue against them). Unfortunately, they don't work for everyone. And they won't work one hundred percent of the time. This means that this "tool" will NOT allow one hundred percent access to Language. Let's not even discuss the missed opportunity of Language acquisition between birth and when the CI's are finally operational ...
How can it possibly be wrong to allow and/or encourage early access to a Language? Once this process has been started one can always use other TOOLS to augment learning.
-- tap
(... continued...)
I keep getting denied to post -- I guess this is too long, so ...
Part1:
What an interesting debate. Let me start by being clear: I have no affiliation with any of the pro or anti support groups of AB2072...
It is interesting to me that nobody wishes to address the *original* intent of the bill and instead only look at what was finally vetoed. Basically splinter the Community so that the next time around the Community fails. Wow. So much for "United We Stand".
So it seems we have some saying that the "hard-core" ASL group wants ASL painted in gold, above all else. Umm -- why not?
Why do I say this, having no vested interest? Simple: Linguistics.
PSE, SEE, TC, Oralism, CI, ... THESE ARE TOOLS!! No? You don't agree? Then *please* will someone refer me to one academically accepted linguistic study that proves ANY of these things are LANGUAGES! Can anyone provide such proof?
Now, what if I were to ask about ASL linguistic studies? Surely nobody here is so ignorant as to not realize the linguistic basis of ASL (and the other natural signed languages of the world). (Google it if you're in doubt ...)
So YES -- if ASL is present on the same page as these other tools then it SHOULD be noted differently -- because it is not simply a TOOL -- IT IS A LANGUAGE!
-- tap
(... continued...)
Part2:
If CI's (or some other technology) were 'implanted' "immediately after birth" AND they were guaranteed to work for everyone, AND they never had to be "adjusted", AND they could never fail to work at any time, AND ... umm basically they completely replaced the human hearing system, then I might be a proponent for that instead of ASL first (at the very least it would be more difficult to argue against them). Unfortunately, they don't work for everyone. And they won't work one hundred percent of the time. This means that this "tool" will NOT allow one hundred percent access to Language. Let's not even discuss the missed opportunity of Language acquisition between birth and when the CI's are finally operational ...
How can it possibly be wrong to allow and/or encourage early access to a Language? Once this process has been started one can always use other TOOLS to augment learning.
My question to those that "aren't in the hard-core ASL camp" is this: Why would you want to actively DENY children access to Language?
-- tap
(... continued ...)
Part3:
PLEASE -- Refocus. Forget the politics. Think of the Children. Do you, or do you NOT want them to have access to LANGUAGE at as early an age as possible? Language that can't malfunction at some point(s) in time, leaving them "in the dark"? Keep in mind that there is no "Critical Learning Period" for tool acquisition -- but there is for Language.
Are we refocused? I doubt it -- but I'll pretend we are -- good. Now remember historically many of the organizations that originally backed AB2072 have not had the best interest of the Deaf in mind. I assure you -- they'll be back, and you can count on them NOT having anyone or anything but their own interests in mind (probably at the expense of others). So is it best to stay splintered or to stand together?
In my opinion it should be a crime to deny children access to Language. Access to Language SHOULD be an inalienable right, hearing or Deaf. That's the type of Law we should be debating and passing.
-- tap
Candy, again, and again, you state CDNIAs intentions or postions incorrectly. You've said alot of things which validate my concerns about what you were doing all along.
Sheri,
How so? Can you point out to what I said was inaccurate?
Am waiting for Sheri to specifically point out what I said was not accurate. Everything I said about CDNIA came from their website, including PDF on their statement as a result of THEIR three year task force to reform the newborn hearing screening program as it relates to that very code section that AB2072 covered.
maybe sheri can explain more about the video staged by the two california association of the deaf v.i.p. members when they tried to force an e.h.d.i. representative into agreeing with their demands. the video first appeared on facebook before being removed.
if the video contained no damning evidence of misconduct by california association of the deaf v.i.p. members, then why was the video removed from the internet?
Post a Comment