"A*dism makes me feel uncomfortable because it seems to suggest we only care about deaf/hh issues and how we are viewed by non-deaf."He's right, too. And he made a point about the use of "ableism" which he prefers to use because it is more inclusive of people with varying disabilities since many deaf and hard of hearing people do have a secondary disability. Using a*dism made him feel uncomfortable because it seems to suggest that culturally deaf peoople only care about deaf/hh issues only and how we are viewed by non-deaf people without disabilities, even by some hearing people with disabilities as well. Dr. Stern goes on to say that hearing people look at our issues through their lens as hearing people who do not have disabilities which can be problematic. The term "ableism" is more broad and includes all kinds of people with disabilities. The problem is about how people without disabilities who do not take our issues seriously enough. And how they look down on us.
At the 1:23:25 time stamp Dr. Stern commented that we must wake up and support the diversity of deaf people and that one size does not fit all.
I agree. Diversity is important whether a deaf or hard of hearing person signs or not, whether a person can speak and listen or not, or whether a person signs using ASL or SEE. This is exactly what ICED said when they issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people. This is a simple and straight-forward if not common sense announcement. Although there are no mentions of how its done or whether one method or approach would be satisfactory enough or the combining with other methods for a more rounder, comprehensive approach would be more suitable. No. Nothing like that. Just that people simply need to accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication when it comes to the education of deaf and hard of hearing people. Short, sweet and to the point. I'd rather embrace diversity than to be play a perennial victim.
In fact, Dr. Sterns' emphasis on recognizing and supporting diversity of deaf and hard of hearing people and that one size does not fit all are very similar to what Dr. Jane K. Fernandes have said in her presentation in 2011 at NTID (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) on the topic of inclusive Deaf Studies where she mentioned about ICED and pointing out how they recognized that the Milan resolution was in error and then she proceeded to discuss respecting all languages and forms of communication. The main thrust of her presentation was that the discipline of Deaf Studies ought to be broadened to include a variety of diverse deaf people outside of Deaf culture and ASL. In short, Deaf Studies should not just be about Deaf culture and ASL but to include people who use SEE, cued speech, oral/auditory approaches, use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, implantable hearing aid, use of technology for improved communication access and so on. That's recognizing diversity in a deaf and hard of hearing society.
At 1:23:42 Dr. Stern pointed out that "I love this quote" and said that he is nervous about his presentation and pointed out that " We have met the enemy and he is us." And used examples of pointing fingers at Oberkotter, Options school and says "be careful" because pointing a finger at them will have more fingers pointing back at you. It's better and easier to change from within than to try and get other organizations to change because that has not been successful. He made a point that "ableism" was a much better use of the word than "a*dism." His main point at the 1:24:39 time stamp was that "our goal and message must be clear" and not become our own worst enemy in helping create a negative perception of themselves when you have people on the outside looking in.
This is what I and others have been saying for years in blogs and vlogs especially when new Deaf grassroots organizations as an "organic society" get formed with an agenda in mind to attack deaf and hard of hearing support organizations do they become their own worst enemy. They focus on a closed society concept rather than an open society concept. In fact, Dr. Stern's presentation seems to point in the direction in favor of an open society concept which certainly raised my eyebrows.
At 1;35:00 Dr Stern pleaded, "Please, keep your eye on the prize. IDEA changes. State issue changes. We support, not against, diversity, one size does not fit all. If we support ASL-only, we'll lose. If we support deaf schools only, we'll lose. Support of deaf children is not about saving our deaf schools. It's about having different options. Diversity of deaf children must have options to choose from such as deaf schools, mainstream schools, even oral programs, doesn't matter. Whatever is the best and right match to place that deaf child. It's more than just about saving our deaf schools."
Exactly. One does not fit all. This ought to be the clearest message of them all recognizing each deaf and hard of hearing child functions and responds differently to stimulation and inputs when it comes to language and communication. Hearing loss range from mild to profound and the fact that hearing technology and other assistive technologies continue to play a huge role on helping find the best and right match to place that deaf or hard of hearing child. It may or may not require the use of hearing technologies but all options and approaches must be considered.
Dr. Ron Stern even said that "Child First is not against oral method at all" and clarified that those who advocate for Oral method only is a challenge. True. The same idea can be said for ASL only. Dr. Stern emphasized on getting the "I" back in IDEA which is an individualized plan based on a child first concept on providing access to language and communication. There were several principles Dr. Stern brought up (with thanks to Gina's input):
- Communication and language is a human and educational right.
- Any language deprivation is disabling where sign language or the spoken language does not matter since the brain does not discriminate and craves input.
- There is no such thing as a one size fit all for deaf and hard of hearing children.
- Make it an individualize approach.
- Provide the necessary access in order for interaction to happen.
- Make sure parents have complete information regarding their deaf/hh child to make an informed decision.
- There are multiple pathways to language learning through eyes and/or ears.
- Family involvement is critical.
As for NAD, I've always considered that organization as good on many levels but see them as horrendously skewed to the side of mostly if not exclusively only culturally deaf people. An organization that is run by culturally deaf people with deaf culture ideals while claiming they represent all deaf and hard of hearing people get a bit far fetched sometimes. Whenever I or others bring that up the usual defense I heard is to throw in the fact that NAD defends and support captioning which is great. But that does not dissuade from the fact that NAD organization does not represent a picture of diversity among all deaf and hard of hearing people on their board. Just a picture of mostly culturally deaf people only.
14 comments:
I don't know when you checked last, but NAD is hardly run by culturally deaf people. Howard Rosenblum mixes well with both hearing and deaf, and doesn't hesitate to use his very understandable speech with hearing people. Shane Feldman grew up using Cued Speech. Andrew -- I forget his last name -- their attorney who graduated from Harvard, signs, but very English, and speaks as well. If you look at the issues they're really involved with, they do encompass the broader spectrum of the deaf community. I suspect that's why the "grass roots" deaf feel that NAD has become "elitist." The people in charge are well educated, open-minded, and flexible. It's the dregs (and I hate using that word, but, well... it's the Ricky Taylors) who are unemployed, not well educated, and are afraid of a changing world who mistrust and complain about NAD.
If NAD has a flaw, it's not putting out the word on all the good they do with their tiny staff. Their PR is awful. When deaf people complain they won't join NAD because "what do they do for me?" it's because NAD hasn't made it clear how many things they've done that DO make life better for all deaf people.
SK3, I said mostly by culturally deaf people and that is an accurate description and I've said nothing about Deaf of Deaf. You look at the Board Committees' make-up in the link I provided and see the difference. Same for the Board of Directors if anybody want to look into it. NAD is a very culturally deaf - centric organization which is NOT representative with the rest of the 35.5 million people in the United States with hearing loss.
By the same token, we would have to point our fingers at HLAA, ALDA, AGBell, and so on for not fully representing the diversity of the deaf and hard of hearing population. Maybe it is just me, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. It is precisely because the population is so diverse that we have room for multiple organizations, each with their own focus and makeup.
I'm not sure if you are aware of just how much NAD has been working with the other organizations on issues of common interest - not only with deaf and hard of hearing groups, but also AFB and ACB, among others. In fact, the level of cooperation among the organizations at present is pretty much unprecedented - have you looked at what COAT has been doing and still does? Have you looked at the implementation of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act and just how much NAD has been in the thick of it?
Besides that, a lot of of the civil rights issues that NAD has been working on are of broad interest outside of the culturally deaf. It is not just captioning, but also advanced communication services, deaf people in the military, commercial drivers licenses, forcing banks to accept relay calls, emergency access, and so on. My group advises NAD on technical issues on an ongoing basis, and I have to tell you, I am in awe of how much they get done with very limited resources.
Kirschi,
I wouldn't lump AGBell since they never made the claim they represent all deaf and hard of hearing people. Their organization is more specific in what they do and they advertise that just as well.
HLAA is closer in their representation with the majority of people with hearing loss in the United States when you consider 35.5 million of those with hearing loss versus 600,000 culturally deaf people. Nearly a 60 to 1 ratio. HLAA do have an interest in all communication access including sign language/ASL and that there are board members who know and use sign language.
I am aware of how much NAD has done. I am speaking specifically on their own make-up in relation to the rest of the population of people with hearing loss and that they are more representative of the signing deaf culture community than with the 35.5 million people with hearing loss and their board members reflect that representation. There are overlaps on what they have done that benefit all people with hearing loss, and that's great! However, what the interests of 35.5 million people with hearing loss in the U.S. do necessarily have the same interests or concerns as NAD's.
You talked about who RUNS NAD. The Board members and the state reps are little more than tokens. The work gets done in the Silver Spring office. With the exception of worrying about residential schools and deaf babies using ASL, the interests of deaf and hard of hearing people have a huge overlap.
Sk3,
I talked about an organization that is mostly run by culturally deaf people. I am correct in that assessment. Look at the current and past president of NAD and the many people that work there, they are culturally deaf.
I wouldn't say a huge overlap but some overlap nonetheless that cover the interest of deaf and hard of hearing people but that isn't the issue here. You can see it in their history and especially their priorities - http://www.nad.org/about-us/priorities
Mike, one way to see it: the larger deaf/HH population has been well represented by the likes of AGB, SHH (sp?), and many other organizations. If the culturally deaf don't have NAD, what do they have? Can you name another nationwide organization that advocates for them? NAD's the only thing that culturally deaf grassroots folks have, hence their love/hate relationship (much like Americans with the government).
anony @4:23 AM,
SHHH is now HLAA.
I never said that there shouldn't be a NAD. Just pointed out the fact that it is "an organization that is run by culturally deaf people with deaf culture ideals while claiming they represent all deaf and hard of hearing people..."
I thought his presentation was well laid out and does have some merits about the Deaf/deaf and HOH education system. Sadly, the unification for the Deaf communities to work on educational issues will not occur because there are too many oppositions (different points of views) within each other. I wish the Deaf Communities the best of luck on this particular issue.
What worries me is everyone pays 'lip service' to equality and acceptance BUT the cultural deaf, despite what the movers and shakers opine, it is just not happening. There are faults on both 'sides' (And I DON'T mean mainstream/hearing), that prevents any advance making progress. If we cannot accept each other, what hope does Hearing have of making it happen ? Unless our house is in order, best we shut up about access and acceptances, because we have no moral or ethical high ground to move from.
"Whatever is the best and right match for that deaf child." Be that it is sign language with deaf school, or cued speech, LSL with mainstreamed school, or some combo.
That summarizes what I've been trying to say over the years I've commented or blogged online. To see this coming from someone who signs and is a deaf administrator of a deaf school is nothing short of amazing. I'm sure some culturally Deaf ppl are 'speechless' over the NAD presentation that Dr. Stern gave. It runs contrary to some of their cherished notions that sign language and deaf schools are the only good options for deaf children.
On a side note and forgive me if I stray from the subject of your article somewhat:
California's AB2072, for example, was proposed in 2010 to make sure that parents of deaf children were informed of ALL options for the child's language acquisition. At the time, presentation of info materials was haphazardly given. Some parents were not fully informed of all choices, some were informed about LSL but not ASL, some were informed about ASL but not LSL or other options. The presentation of materials was controlled by the social worker who had the parents' case in the Head Start program or by audiologists/ doctors.
The Deaf activists went into overdrive and killed AB2072, the opportunity to make sure that parents were fully informed about all options. My educated guess is that they didn't want the parents to learn about other options other than ASL only, the motivation perhaps coming from a time when oralism failed some deaf ppl. That was then, but now, hearing technology has improved greatly and many deaf children are actually benefiting from the technology and LSL methods that are different today. Some deaf children also benefit from a combination of options used separately in different environments.
The Deaf activists lost the opportunity to have their ASL option reviewed by every parent of a deaf child in California, whether at the deaf services agency, or with a Head Start social worker, or at the doctor's/ audiologist's office. All the options would have been required in the presentation by law, regardless of professional setting.
Unfortunately, in this state, the deaf child is given dead-last consideration.
Ann_C
Mike- gotcha. What do you propose NAD to be called then? Anyway, good write up. I see eye to eye with Dr. Stern too.
MM & Mike- sigh, yeah. Basically it's the same thing as racism in America. Things are getting better in this department but it will never be completely eradicated. We human beings are ethnocentric by nature. Birds of same feathers flock together, etc. etc.
Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on getting better. History shows that we can. However it's not the highest priority in the Deaf community right now because it has much bigger fishes to fry... fight for acceptance, equality, etc.
Also, as a member of the community, I know we very rarely run into oral deaf people outside Gallaudet. We're 100 times more likely to run into hearing people learning ASL. So it's hard for our community to see acceptance of linguistic diversity as a serious issue to be addressed.
It may seem hypocritical for the Deaf community to fight for acceptance of ASL while rejecting other linguistic approaches. First of all, many Deaf people do earnestly believe ASL is the most effective way for the deaf to communicate - they see SEE or oralism as awkward, cumbersome solutions forced on them by hearing people who don't understand their needs.
But more importantly, culturally deaf people experience something that oral/CI'd/SEE folks don't: constant attempts to eradicate their culture. You gotta live under a rock to think that doesn't happen. But my outlook differs from those paranoid bloggers/vloggers/activists in one way: I don't see them as acts of evil. I simply see it as human nature for hearing people to want to cure deafness or to see deaf people become like them.
Another thing I differ from them is that I'm fatalistic about the fate of Deaf culture and ASL - I see what those agitating activists do as fighting the inevitable. I'm basically resigned to fate and am simply focusing on making our lives as best as possible.
My point is that with what's happening, it's hard for Deaf people to take their eyes off the target and worry about accepting people who they rarely run into in their lives.
And let's face it, it isn't like they are economic powerhouses that deny the little-d jobs and education - whatever they do doesn't really negatively affect the latter in anyway.
I know it's a much more important issue at Gallaudet where there are all kinds of deaf people. I'm under the impression that the powers that be over there are trying to make things better, but can't say for sure as I graduated years ago. Blog article idea for you: check with Gally and see if it takes surveys from students from non-ASL backgrounds? It'd be cool to see if their responses change over the years.
Sorry for rambling and going on tangets. It's hotter than Hades outside and I have a bit too much free time. ;)
His presentation speech overall was excellent and I got the impression that he knew the demographic is shifting into halt in our future generations. Currently, annual profound deafness birthrate is 1000% less than it was in 1980. There is no way to preserve deaf schools in 14 years from now with under 2000 deaf high school freshmen. Half of profound received Cochlear Implant and enrolled mainstream schools so subtract the 2000 in the year 2026.
When a deaf parent having a deaf child and refuses to get Cochlear Implants likely will have an effect of social consequences with limited peers.
Great post!
When I watched his presentation live streamed, I truly liked what he had to say. I had kept tabs on his Child First project for several months prior to his presentation and just recently saw his latest video on Child First site which indicated change of strategy, but he didn't really go into it much other than hinting at realities after discovering IDEA wasn't going to be reauthorized. So, I was impressed with the strategy he is going with now. A smart move.
This should not be about what someone wants or what someone's hearts desires. Often times, many deaf who advocate for Bi Bi and/or ASL and English, it comes out of their strong belief and passion of what they think SHOULD BE the direction of deaf education/deaf children's mode of communication/language/what have you's.
In the hearing world, every child in any public school system or private schools all do not succeed on the same level, It's because they all are not alike, 'one size does not fit all' applies to every children whether they are deaf or not.
It would be such a shame if Stern's strategy isn't adopted. It won't be long before we find out what the consequences are. Not long at all.
Post a Comment