Strange bedfellows?

You have AGBell, NAD and other organizations who are part of the Hearing Alliance (DHHA) group, a Coalition of Consumer and Professional Organizations, who support the ratification of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which was made on July 17, 2012. Also, if you hadn't noticed when you clicked on that link it goes through the Listening and Spoken Language Knowledge Center website. That internet address will soon be AGBell's new website for the AG Bell Association. The old AGBell website address will soon redirect to the new Knowledge Center.

Anyways, AGBell explains in depth about the CRPD along with AGBell's position paper regarding the CRPD with some suggestions on changing/adding a few things to CRPD and compare that to
NAD's position paper which was updated in May of 2012.

Interesting to see the differences between the two organizations regarding their support for CRPD.

You can see the continuing CRPD changes on the amendments in the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations webpage.

The Extinction of Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language among Deaf Indians?

In 2007 I first published a blog questioning whether the "forced" use of ASL and the adoption of American deaf culture had some impact on deaf Indians their use of their own native Indian Sign Language (ISL) causing ISL to fall out to disuse like the Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL) and ultimately having them removed from their own Indian culture and customs once they were placed in deaf residential schools. 

Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL) is a means of communication developed and used among many of the residents of this one New Mexico pueblo. It is one of many North American Indian sign languages found in the United States, and one of two in Southwestern United States that have been studied and documented—the other being Navajo (Davis & Suppala, 1995). A literature review suggests that signed languages were also used among Apaches and Hopis (West, 1960). KPISL is believed to have developed on one pueblo by family members in order to communicate with their offspring, siblings, and relatives who were deaf (Kelley, 2001). It is not at all uncommon for deaf children and their family members to invent a home-based sign system for such a purpose. However, KPISL does not fit the framework for home-based sign systems set forth by researchers such as Frishberg (1987) who states that home signs do not have a consistent meaning-symbol relationship, do not pass on from generation to generation, are not shared by one large group, and are not considered the same over a community of signers. KPISL was passed on from one family’s eldest brothers and sisters to their hearing and deaf siblings, nephews, and nieces. KPISL is also used among non-family members living on the pueblo. It has been found to function in two significant ways: (a) as an alternative to spoken language for hearing tribal members and (b) as a primary or first language for deaf tribal members.

For the KPISL it was considered a first language for deaf Pueblo tribal members. But the sad irony as I have pointed out several times in my blogs concerning the topic of ISL is that the adoptive use of ASL and the adoption of an American deaf culture helped cause the disuse of the KPISL among deaf Indians. Not necessarily the primary cause but certainly bears some culpability. This is especially true with English and its American customs and culture helping along the demise of KPISL/ISL.  However, deaf schools of the past and recent past never made any attempt to help accommodate or preserve KPISL or ISL among deaf Indians attending deaf schools. Instead they were inducted and indoctrinated into the "Deaf World" and its American deaf customs using ASL. In the end after graduation they were forced to choose between ISL or ASL.

Both KPISL and PISL have become endangered languages. KPISL is not much used among the pueblo’s younger generation owing to their learning school English, ASL, or signs that follow the spoken English word order. Before the 1990s, American Indian Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing tribal members usually left home to attend a residential school for the deaf located far away (Baker, 1997; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996). At the school, there was usually no formal instruction of American Indian or American Indian culture and signs; only Deaf culture and ASL were taught, leading many American Indian students to join the “Deaf World.” After graduation, the students had to make difficult decisions about where and how to establish themselves: on the pueblos with hearing families and friends, in urban areas with other Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people, or in border towns with limited access to both groups.

The extinction of a language happens when they fall out of disuse because of a dominant language and culture:

If a language (spoken or otherwise) is not utilized or passed down from one generation to the next, then the devastating result would be language extinction. Accompanying the loss of a native language is the loss of the traditions, culture, and perhaps even a loss of life. Language extinction, also referred to as total language death, is defined as occurring, “when there are no speakers of a given language idiom remaining in a population where the idiom was previously used (i.e. when all native speakers die). Language death may affect any language idiom, including (so-called) dialects and languages.” 

The death(?) of KPISL and its culture is an example of how a language failed due to the lack of it being maintained and passed on down to the next generation of KPISL users.  Deaf Indians using KPISL went to deaf schools who were forced to adopt ASL and its American deaf culture which led to the lack of maintenance of their own ISL and culture that spanned generations in their own tribe.

During a study conducted in the Spring 2000 by the University of Texas at Austin, a previously undiscovered form of sign language was uncovered. Walter Kelley and Tony McGregor, two doctoral candidates from the University write, “The signs, Keresan Pueblo Indian Sign Language (KPISL), are used by some of the pueblo’s Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing individuals. This newly discovered language, an idiosyncratic home sign language, was developed perhaps by family members in order to communicate with their offspring, siblings and relatives who have a hearing loss. The signs appear to have evolved in the same way as spoken language, progressing gradually from the representational to the symbolic, from the picture to the symbol, but still remaining primarily representational or ideographic (Frishberg, 1987). Today, many individuals in the pueblo use it while communicating with others inside the small village” (Kelley,1998). However, the potential for collision with ASL lies in the fact that without regular usage or due to the integration of American ASL in schools, KPISL is now becoming a dying language. Kelley and McGregor go on to reveal, “Unfortunately, the signs are not used among the younger Pueblo Indian generation due to their learning in school American Sign Language (ASL) used by American Deaf individuals or Seeing Exact English 2 (SEE 2), a methodology of using signs following the spoken English word order. In addition, KPISL was used at a nearby pueblo but it is no longer seen” (Kelley, 1998).

So, in retrospect some of those deaf schools that use ASL were responsible in more ways than one for the inevitable language death of deaf Indians' ISL, in this case KPISL.

The purpose and use of KPISL were different than that of the PISL.

KPISL didn’t originate for the same purposes as the well known Plains Indian Sign Language (PISL), which was primarily developed to facilitate intertribal communication between the American Indian tribes that spoke different languages in the Plains region of the present United States and Canada—a region extending from what is now the state of Texas northward to Canada and, at its widest point, stretching from Arizona through Oklahoma (Taylor, 1978). Signs were used during hunting and trading among the different tribes and were also used for storytelling and a variety of ceremonies. Plains tribes known to use signed language included the Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa, and Sioux. Signed languages were also used as a means of communication by the Iroquois in the state of New York, the Cherokee in the Southeastern United States, the Eskimos in Alaska, and the Mayan in Mexico (Johnson, 1994; Scott, 1931; West, 1960).

The question now lies on how many deaf Indians with their own ISL who were indoctrinated into deaf schools forced to learn another language (ASL) and American deaf customs, culture and language (English) and forgo or diminish their own Indian Sign Language, custom and culture? Much the same way when thousands of hearing Lakota Indian children who were forced into American schools at boarding houses to learn and adopt American customs, language and culture.

They were not tall, muscular braves, armed with bows and tomahawks that emerged from this train. Instead, what greeted the crowd were frightened children wrapped in blankets. They were tired, cold, and frightened by the crowd of strange white people that stared at them. There were eighty two boys and girls that arrived at Carlisle that night.


These were the first of many Indian students that would learn how to be “civilized” at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. What these students didn’t know was that they were about to have a burden placed upon them. Aside from trying to learn a new language and culture, they would be tasked with bringing everything they learned back to their reservations and teaching their people the White Man's ways. In order to do this, the instructors at Carlisle used gender, in particular the females, to "civilize" the Indians. 

NAD (National Association of the Deaf) was established in 1880 in support of using ASL and had a huge role and influence to help incorporate ASL in deaf schools since its inception.  The irony is that during those years when deaf schools incorporated ASL, deaf Indians were indoctrinated into their deaf culture, ASL and American way of life (English language, customs and culture) at deaf residential schools at the expense of their own native sign language, customs and culture. Just like the deaf Keresan Pueblo Indians. This is the equivalent of hearing Indian children of the past being sent to American boarding schools to learn another language (English), American customs and culture at the expense of losing their own native language, customs and culture. But the scale and impact of this among deaf Indians going to deaf residential schools are unknown. Certainly not at the scale and breadth like the Carlisle Indian Industrial School for hearing Indian children who were forcibly placed into. And that it was the English language and western (American) culture that ultimately put their own native Indian language and culture at risk.

Many deaf Indian children were sent to deaf residential schools just as many hearing Indian children were sent to Indian residential schools.

Since the late 1800s, social, cultural and historical factors have caused the number of native users of traditional American Indian sign language to dramatically decrease along with the decline of native languages and cultures, came the loss of signed language that was once a widely used alternate to spoken language, and a traditional way of storytelling.  The role of a signed lingua franca has been replaced by English, which means that fewer hearing Indians are learning the traditional ways of signing. The decline of sign language among native groups also contributes to the marginalization and isolation of tribal members who are Deaf (see Goff-Paris & Wood 2002 and Miller 2004 to read more about the experiences of Native American Indians who are Deaf) (page 51).

.
.

 By the turn of the 20th century, however, a dramatic decline in sign language use among native groups was evident, largely due to its replacement by English as a lingua franca. The documentary evidence suggests that the use of a signed lingua franca continued well into the early 20th century. However, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States and Canada (mainly in Northwestern and Southwestern regions) residential Indian schools were established by state, provincial, and federal governments; and by religious organizations in some cases. It become common practice for Indian children and adolescents to be systematically removed from their families and placed in these residential educational institutions. The official educational policy during this period was "cultural and linguistic assimilation." This translated into loss of many native ways, including the loss of native language and culture for many Indian children. Indian children were taught English only and in most cases were forbidden to follow or practice their cultural traditions (page 60).

Similarities do exist between many deaf Indian children who had their culture and their own language (e.g KPISL/ISL) who were sent off to deaf residential schools to learn a new language (ASL and English) and culture (American culture) to that of hearing Indian children who already had their own culture and own Indian language who were forcibly sent off to Indian schools to learn another language (English) and adopt American culture and customs. Just like the before and after picture seen above of a hearing Indian boy.

All this brings me to a recent blog I did on why NAD and other deaf schools have not apologized for helping with some of the eradication of deaf Indians' own ISL when deaf Indian children were forced to choose their language and culture and with no effort to help them preserve and maintain their own ISL identity and culture. And most importantly I also already asked whether an apology is really necessary despite the fact that we will never know the full impact on the placement of deaf Indian children in deaf residential schools that use ASL have had on their ISL and culture. We may never know on how many similar tribes like the Keresan Pueblo who had their deaf Indians lose their native sign language and part of their culture to ASL and American culture and customs at deaf residential schools of time's past. For all intent and purposes the KPISL could be technically extinct at this time until further research can ascertain that KPISL is still alive and that deaf KP Indians are still using it. 

Accountability goes both ways, folks. 

The right not to be Deaf or not?

I visited Patti Durr's blog on one of her 6 part series "The Right to be...Deaf" and what I found interesting was the Part V discussion with Joseph Pietro Riolo and the 41 comments written there. Joseph Pietro Riolo's comments were insightful with his wickedly smart comments. I'm combining those recent discussions of Joseph's with that of Patti's recent June 2012 blog on preventing language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing children.  It is a recent proposal to NAD on the effort to get federal and state governments to intervene on Parental Rights to make informed decisions for their deaf/hh children seen in their proposed model (PDF file):

Proposal: The NAD shall set up a Headquarters Ad-Hoc Committee to look into developing model state and federal legislation to prevent language deprivation.

The Committee shall be comprised of individuals with expertise in various relevant areas including legal, educational and socio- and neuro-linguistic development to look into the possibility of making liable actions that causes harm to Deaf children as a result of the deprivation of American Sign Language and develop model state and federal legislation for such liability.
 
The committee should also look into developing model state and federal legislation that would require medical and audiology personnel to refer deaf infants/children and their families to American Sign Language instruction and education prior to undertaking any medical procedure that may presume to provide hearing.

The committee should also develop a strategy for the adoption of these legislation including identifying which states may be most favorable as early adopters of those legislation.
 
This is to be an ad-hoc Headquarter committee reporting to the CEO. A full report including the first draft of a model legislation must be completed by December 1, 2013.

What was interesting is that in the proposal it stated that:

"The NAD shall set up a Headquarters Ad-Hoc Committee to look into developing model state and federal legislation to prevent language deprivation." 

But looking further into the proposal it went from "prevent language deprivation" to the the more specific prevention on the deprivation of American Sign Language by requiring parents to be referred to ASL prior to any cochlear implantation or use of hearing aids.

 The committee should also look into developing model state and federal legislation that would require medical and audiology personnel to refer deaf infants/children and their families to American Sign Language instruction and education prior to undertaking any medical procedure that may presume to provide hearing.

Yet nothing about requiring parents to look into other types of visual language such as SEE or Total Communication which uses a visual language of the English language done in a signed format. No other points were made about other visual language or other supporting inputs such as SimCom, Cued Speech, Signed English and contact languages.

Now,  I'm against any language deprivation for children whether they are hearing, deaf, or hard of hearing. A child's brain crave communication and language inputs whether it's by spoken or visual language. Even Dr. Ron Stern commented in his presentation that any language deprivation is disabling whether it's sign language or the spoken language it does not matter since the brain does not discriminate and craves input. Which means children with hearing aids and cochlear implants can and do get their language inputs via the spoken language.  Just as well in the latest Italian study on 2 months old to 24 months old deaf children who got their cochlear implants showed that those under 6 months were able to develop excellent language and communication developments on par of their hearing peers. Early intervention works as long as parents are actively involved in the language and communication developments just like the parents have done for the little deaf girl Lotte of Norway who can speak 3 languages. 

As for Joseph Pietro Riolo (JPR) he made some very salient points and asked the important questions when it came to Parental Rights for their deaf or hard of hearing children as seen in Patti's blog Part V series . I'll use some of Joseph's points and comments in this blog by highlighting them. What really boils down to is that parents do have the right to decide on how to raise their deaf child in terms of mode and mean of communication and language acquisition. They just need help in the category of getting the right information in an unbiased manner in order to make an informed decision.

First, let's talk about the article “And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped: An Examination of the Cochlear Implant From a Jewish Bioethical Perspective” by Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh whose last paragraph makes a conceding point in support of  parents making a decision on cochlear implant.  Commenters tried to use Rabbi Leigh's same article to "prove" their case saying it is "a moral violation to do surgery on a healthy body" per the Jewish religion:

“A consolidation of these views leads only to the idea that from a Jewish perspective we ought not to impose opinions on the people who must make a decision vis a vis the cochlear implant, namely, the parents or legal guardian(s) of deaf children. The responsibility of Jews with respect to the cochlear implant is only to make sure that individuals considering this medical procedure have access to all of the relevant information from the medical community, the Deaf community, and from within Jewish tradition. Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.”

JPR makes a comment regarding the last paragraph and I agree with his assessment, too.

This paragraph actually supports the decision to put cochlear implant in a deaf child if his or her parents decide to do so. Also, it supports the decision not to put cochlear implant in a deaf child. In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child.

Certainly, nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child as long as parents are adequately informed. Parental rights are ensured here in allowing them to make the necessary and informed decision for their deaf children.

JPR used The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26(3) to point out that parents have a parental right to choose for their children:

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” 

And argued that it:

"strongly suggests that the parents of a deaf child can choose the pure oralism for the deaf child." 

So it goes that there is nothing in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights document that states that Parental Rights would be overridden by the right of a deaf child to be culturally deaf. In fact, there is no mechanism to enforce the right of a deaf child to be culturally deaf over Parental Rights, and there shouldn't be a mechanism to ensure that due to numerous inherent problems as JPR explained why.

How a person is supposed to do when he or she sees that the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf is violated? Is he or she supposed to report the violation to police? Is he supposed to report the violation to Child Protection Service (or similar agency)? Is she supposed to report the violation to National Association of the Deaf, Deaf Bilingual Coalition or similar organization that will send a legal team to defend the right of the deaf child? Is he supposed to report the violation to any organization that focuses on human rights? After the violation is reported, how is the right supposed to be enforced? Does this mean that the parents are to be ordered by court or governmental agency to respect, maintain and support the right of the deaf child to be culturally Deaf? What will happen if the parents still refuse to do that?

Indeed. Lots of problems once that Pandora Box is opened.

But let's look at the "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" again. In a proposal to NAD they stated their rationale on why state and federal governments should intervene on Parental Rights.

Rationale: Past attempts through the educational system to ensure that Deaf children are not isolated and linguistically deprived have experienced extremely limited success. Alternative approaches needs to be fully explored.

This motion is timely because the United Nations developed and adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”) to advance equality further throughout the world. The CRPD makes repeated specific references to the deaf community and sign language in its text.

However, in CRPD document it states that no obligation is required of the parents to use sign language with their deaf children. In other words if parents choose pure oralism without using a signed language approach for their deaf child, the parents do not violate anything in that document supported by the United Nation. Although in the document it does require governments to accept and recognize the use of sign languages as seen in Article 21(b) and (e):

(b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means,modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;

(e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages.

Also in Article 24(3)(c) it states:

“Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children,who are blind, deaf or deaf/blind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development."

Note the underlined bold in the above which could mean to include CART services, FM loop, sign language (ASL, PSE, SEE, what have you), speaking and listening, and so on. There are a variety of ways that can meet those assurances.

In Article 30(4) it points out for people with disabilities on the

“recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture”

As far as I can tell there is nothing in the document (Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) forbidding the parent’s right to choose pure oralism, ASL, SEE,PSE, SE, SimCom, contact language, manual alphabet, cued speech, Total Communication and such. Just as well there is nothing in the  document that showed any support of governments to actively suppress the use of sign language through laws, governmental actions and so forth, either.

In fact, JPR pointed out an all too apparent of an obligation and concluded that,

"a government has the obligation to deliver education in the modes and means that agree with pure oralism. What the governments cannot do is that they cannot suppress or exclude any modes, means or languages when the parents of children with disabilities want them or ask for them."

And that's the bottom line when it comes to governmental intervention, which is already limited for a reason, on language and mode of communication and that such a decision is still within the parents' rights.

Next in the proposal to NAD they made a claim about cochlear implant and deaf children.

Today, 80% of children born deaf in the developed world are implanted with cochlear devices that allow some of them access to sound in their early years, which helps them to develop speech.

That 80% statistics comes with no references although in Norway the implantation rate is much higher at 90% to 95%.

Every year approximately 40 deaf children are born in Norway. Approximately 90 to 95 % of deaf children in Norway are offered a cochlear implant (CI) in one or both ears. CI is an advanced hearing aid that helps children to perceive sound. Children with CI have special follow-up needs and their parents have to decide preferred communication mode for their child. In Norway, there are mainly three approaches: use of both spoken language and sign language (bilingual communication), spoken language with sign support or spoken language alone (oral communication).

Yet I believe that in the United States we are no where near that rate, not even at 80%. Some developed countries are more active in getting deaf children implanted such as Norway. As for the United States according to the FDA via the NIH webpage:

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as of December 2010, approximately 219,000 people worldwide have received implants. In the United States, roughly 42,600 adults and 28,400 children have received them.

And that's to date since 1990 when first introduced to children. About 1 in 1000 babies born is profoundly deaf each year in the United States. Over 4 million babies are born each year which leaves about ~4,000 babies born profoundly deaf each year where perhaps 88,000 profoundly deaf babies have been born since 1990.  About 1/4 of them or about 25% have gotten their cochlear implant so far. As for European countries the implantation rate comes in around at 70%. In Canada it is estimated that approximately 174 deaf children receive cochlear implants each year though no estimates on the number of profoundly deaf babies that are born each year yet Canada's population is roughly 1/10th of the United States so it perhaps reasonable they have the same cochlear implantation rate as the United States.

Ok. Onward to "genocide." Ghastly, ghastly term!

Patti essentially stated that by denying ASL to deaf children it would  be considered as an "act of genocide" per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." But according to the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" it says nothing of the sort.  JPR elaborated: 

Again, if the parents of a deaf child decide to exercise their right to put cochlear implant in the child and to use the pure oralism when raising the child, they do not violate anything in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The only thing in the document that seems to be related to the topic on hand is the term “mental harm” as in “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;” (Article II(b)). Although the enumeration of groups does not include linguistic groups (“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, …” (Article II)), I will assume that the enumeration is broad enough to include the linguistic groups that include Deaf culture.

It may be possible that some people will attempt to argue that depriving a deaf child of ASL is equivalent to “mental harm” on the child. However, the child is usually not a member of Deaf culture if the parents are hearing or are of the Hearing culture. Just because a child is deaf does not mean that he or she is automatically a member of the Deaf culture. In this interpretation, the parents do not violate anything in the convention if they decide to raise their deaf child in a Hearing culture without using sign language.

Two points here as seen in the above underlined bold words. First, there is no intent, systematic or otherwise, to rid or destroy the use of ASL or sign language. Utterly a fantastical if not an unnecessary paranoid belief.  Second point is that a deaf child born into hearing parents is not automatically a member of the deaf culture. So no use in trying to call deaf babies as "Deaf babies" since the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

Some organizations even attempted to change that very definition by inserting "Deaf" into their own bylaws without giving any real definition to it and could easily be construed to mean only culturally deaf people. Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made it a point that they "own" that word and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a group that uses ASL and have a culture.  And that brings up an important consideration about raising a deaf child in a hearing culture without using sign language because doing so does not necessarily violate any of the articles or documents I provided in this blog thus far. 

Below JPR explains and clarifies his position which mirrors much like mine in a lot of ways.

1) It is always my personal position that any deaf child – actually, any child – should have the freedom to sign (not just ASL or any natural signed languages but also SimCom, Cued Speech, Signed English and contact languages). But, I would never want to impose my position on any parents. I would write a true story about a deaf child being punished for signing at home; I would write an opinion article criticizing some parents who do not allow their children to sign; I would make a film that tells about a deaf child who run away from draconian parents who do not let him or her to sign; I would search for grants to research on deaf children who are not allowed by their parents to sign; if I were a professional, I would confront the parents and inform them that they are going too far in not allowing their deaf children to sign; and so on.

But, I would never want to create a new right for a deaf child to be culturally Deaf. When we create a new right for a deaf child, we are eroding the parental right. This will give a precedent for the majority (read: Hearing culture) to create another new right for a deaf child to have the access to spoken language through cochlear implant and doing so erodes parental right further more. If the parents of a deaf child refuses to put cochlear implant in the child, the majority will say, “See, any deaf child has the right of access to spoken language and therefore, your child must have cochlear implant. Never mind your parental right to decide how to raise your deaf child. After all, you want bilingualism. Giving cochlear implant to your deaf child will help bilingualism. Your child will have both ASL and the spoken English language. More power to bilingualism!” The deaf child is taken away from their parents for surgery at an undisclosed hospital.

I may go too far in describing the above scenario but it can happen. It is not hard to predict that cochlear implant technology is getting better and better and the success rate is increasing steadily. Before, the success rate was around 1/3 (33%). Now, it is around 1/2 (50%). Maybe, by the year of 2015, the rate may go up to 2/3 (66%). Maybe, by the year of 2020, the rate may go up to 3/4 (75%). It is very tempting for the majority to override the parental right and go directly to the deaf children and have them receive cochlear implant in spite of the objections from their parents.

Creating a new right for deaf child may be cool now but it could give a new precedent for the majority later on.

In other words, be careful on what you ask for on trying to get the governments to override Parental Rights because it just may backfire.

In my own clarification, I'd be wary of allowing the idea that government be given the consideration to force parents with deaf/hh children on issues regarding sign language, cochlear implant, oral/aural routes and educational upbringing.  Removing Parental Rights is not the answer. Parents have the right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf/hh child when it comes to mode of communication, the means, language development, and educational upbringing. All we can do is provide all the necessary information for parents and provide them them the necessary resources and support so they can make an informed decision. Just as Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh said previously on parents making an informed decision:

Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

And so there you have it.

Reported rapes at Gallaudet University continue to rise

Shocking to see the latest 2010 statistics on the number of incidents of forcible sex offenses or rape reported at Gallaudet University has more than doubled than what was reported for the 2008 year.   The 2010 year was a record high since 1999 based on continuous record keeping (minus 2005 due to lack of data). The statistics on reported criminal offenses can be found here using the U.S. Department of Education's "The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool" by typing in the name of the institution to get the reported figures.

The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis does not provide information on prosecutions for rape charges.

Last year in 2011 I investigated rape statistics at Gallaudet University up to year 2009 by crunching some numbers and included data as far back during the 1991 and 1992 school year as reported in my 2006 blog piece "Deaf Residential Schools and Other Dirty Little Secrets - Part II of III." Last year I found out what the true ranking of Gallaudet University on the number of reported rape for 2007, 2008 and 2009 in comparison to 291 other colleges and universities of similar student population size that have campus dorms and are 4 year institutions showed that the university was in the top 5 on number of rape reported. The 2011 data are not available at this time but will report it once it becomes available.

2010 - 9
2009 - 6
2008 - 4
2007 - 6
2006 - 5
2005 - n/a
2004 - 2
2003 - 7
2002 - 3
2001 - 5
2000 - 3
1999 - 2
1991/1992 - 1

As you can see with the inclusion of the latest 2010 reported statistics on the number of forcible sex or rape on the campus of Gallaudet University has gone up. The 2010 reported number is the highest since the 1991/1992 school year according to publicly available information. Why has the number of reported forcible sex or rape continue to go up? Why more rape victims? Could it be that more are recognizing the importance of stepping forward to report a crime rather than to keep silent because of stigma and fear according to Donna Ryan?

According to Donna Ryan, a history professor at Gallaudet, the insularity of the deaf culture has made it hard for Gallaudet women in particular to come forward to tell their stories. "Part of the difficulty for deaf women in dealing with women's issues like rape involves a fear of trashing the deaf community," she says. In many cases, the women are afraid of being put down by their fellow students for bringing shame upon the university. "The deaf community is small and close-knit," says Denise Snyder, executive director of D.C. Rape Crisis Center. "If you make a fuss at Gallaudet, you've closed a big door."(Silent Screams: a People Weekly report on sexual assault at the nation’s only university for deaf students. People Weekly, June 20, 1994, v41 n23 p36(6)).

That stigma need to be done away with so students would not have to fear reporting rape incidents. Gallaudet University needs to be more open and transparent on this campus rape issue while at the same time get aggressive in tackling this serious problem. This sort of thing should not be kept hidden away from the public eye.

Here's sobering historical look of how many students did report their rapes back in the early 1990s. Click on this link and read what victims at Gallaudet University back in 1994 had to say. Is it still true today, almost 20 years later, that a hidden number of students raped still go unreported?  Has the problem actually gotten worst now at Gallaudet University with 2010 being the worst since 1991? Or is this a sign that more students are finally stepping forward to report their rapes and is a product of better information given to students at Gallaudet University about rape and what to do about rape? Regardless, let's see a better, much improved campus environment and security, and that students and parents are better informed about rape statistics on campus. Students should not be afraid to report these incidents. And should not fear going to Gallaudet University. Each student on campus need to be approached and be duly informed on a regular basis about rape on campus and what they can do about it. No one should suffer and be a victim of rape. One rape is one rape too many. Get the word out.


===============================================

I reserve the right to caution readers that not all data are completely or necessarily 100% accurate. This is the best available public  information that I've come across with the info given by the U.S Department of Education.

And a final caveat on reported offenses as seen in The Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis page where I have gotten my numbers:

The crime statistics found on this website represent alleged criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities and/or local law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the data collected do not necessarily reflect prosecutions or convictions for crimes. Because some statistics are provided by non-police authorities, the data are not directly comparable to data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting System which only collects statistics from police authorities.

Dr. Ron Stern's Presentation at NAD

Dr. Ron Stern made some remarkable comments that raised my eyebrows during his presentation at the recent 2012 Biennial NAD Conference that I and other bloggers/vloggers have been saying for years (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here for examples of mine) that in order to for any unity or understanding to happen people must respect all forms of communication and educational options for deaf and hard of hearing children rather than point fingers and assign blame. Dr. Ron Stern said that such actions focusing on blame will surely be a failed cause. And we have seen those results time and time again, too. The culturally deaf population is quite small when compared to the larger population seeing that there are some ~600,000 culturally deaf people vs 36 million people (my figures) with hearing loss in the U.S. (see Stern's comment at the 30:50 mark in video below on how small the culturally deaf community is). With the small community Dr. Stern said that it makes "our fight harder."  There is an unnecessary need to use "a*dism" as way to attack people and Dr. Stern re-iterated his doubt and uncomfortableness on using that term which took me by surprise. Taken from  a live captioning quote of Dr. Stern whose presentation can be seen in a non-captioned taped YouTube video at the 57:58:00 time stamp:

 "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.

I HATE HEARING PEOPLE!!!

When deaf people say that they "hate hearing people" there are reasons why they say that. It could be because of their childhood history or a certain event in their life as a teen or adult that triggered it. But if you work in a business operated by deaf people that offer products or services to deaf and hearing people and you carry that attitude in your line of work on how you don't like hearing people and make efforts to avoid them as much as possible you won't get very far in your job or career. Believe me, you won't.  You have a choice of either to effectively engage with hearing customers or potential clients in your line of work just as you would with deaf people. If you don't do that then you will suffer the consequences because the business you work in depends on selling those very products or services that keep your company alive and running, not to mention affecting every employee who could be impacted by your selfishness on not to deal with certain customers or clients more directly.  By engaging I mean using every variety of communication options there are that you can use instead of sticking to one communication option only.  Because if you don't love your customers (both deaf and hearing, and everything else in between) you ain't going anywhere and succeed in life.  Such an attitude in a closed society can only go so far and that success will only be limited if any at all.

A customer is not always right

There's an old adage "A customer is always right" believing that what a customer says about a product or service of a business is always true and absolute. Anybody who actually believe that a "customer is always right" is simply naive in the way the world works. Customers are still human beings. They are still capable of lying and deceiving in order to get what they want. It's true that businesses should listen to what customers have to say and be understanding of their comments or opinions but that does not mean a company should bend over backward at every whims from every customer.  Many businesses do listen out of concern to ensure that they offer the best services or products possible. It's about having the courtesy to listen to their customers first. 

"I don't think that the customer is always right any more than I think that the employees are always right or that a shareholder is always right," conceded Reichheld. "You do owe it to your business to understand the root cause of the feedback and what implications it has on your decision making, prioritization and your actions. But, there are criminals out there that are your customers. You want to keep those customers away. Not just from your cash registers but from your employees too, because they are abusive and they make life hell for everyone in your business. The Net Promoter Score is based on the golden rule that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated in their shoes, but it takes a lot of deep thinking to do this right. It's not superficial. Think about what actions a business takes when it gets a zero or a one score? The business should dig in to figure out what's wrong, try to fix it and understand how it feels to be in the customer's shoes, but it doesn't always mean that they are the right customers for your business."

Let's take the ZVRS post-NAD vote latest brouhaha concerning the whole "deaf militants" snafu by which Julian Moiwai have already issued a public apology on Twitter for his "militant" remark.  For a person who works for ZVRS to make a public comment in such a manner breaks the typical cardinal rule of any businesses and that is to stay "neutral" in the areas of politics. That's typically the golden rule and not that a customer is always right. In this case, deaf politics is the area of politics that ZVRS tried to avoid in the first place (but spectacularly failed in this instance) when most of their customers are the signing deaf and hard of hearing customers.

You might be aware of the NAD Presidential elections. Chris Wagner – our Senior Vice President of Business Operations and Marketing – has been selected to serve as the NAD’s next president. Regardless of your support prior to and after the elections, I would like to ask you to do us a favor.

ZVRS is currently being bombarded on social media by Sheri supporters or so-called “Deaf militiants.” Please do not participate in any means of communication by putting gas into this flame.

If you come across something that appears offensive or defamatory toward ZVRS, please send a direct link to my attention, and it will be followed through.

Julian Moiwai unwittingly was the one who put "gas into this flame."  But he stepped up and apologized to Sheri Farinha (one of two candidates for the NAD presidency) in public on Twitter (although never contacted her personally first (email or video phone) which was another business rule of thumb that ZVRS broke where she found out about the apology from other sources).

The old adage "customers are always right" is false. Some customers are right. Sometimes they are wrong. And others simply aren't being truthful. It is the duty of businesses to listen to all of their customers.

Congratulations to Chris Wagner as the next NAD president for 2012 - 2014 term. He had the graciousness to thank Sheri after the vote seen at the 4 minute mark.

How come NAD never publicly apologized to Deaf Native American Indians?

How come NAD has never publicly apologized to the Indian tribes in America when their mostly-white dominated Deaf culture at the time unwittingly helped with eradication process of some of the tribes' Native American Indian Sign Language by forcing them to choose between ASL and ISL?

Both KPISL and PISL have become endangered languages. KPISL is not much used among the pueblo’s younger generation owing to their learning school English, ASL, or signs that follow the spoken English word order. Before the 1990s, American Indian Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing tribal members usually left home to attend a residential school for the deaf located far away (Baker, 1997; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996). 

At the school, there was usually no formal instruction of American Indian or American Indian culture and signs; only Deaf culture and ASL were taught, leading many American Indian students to join the “Deaf World.” After graduation, the students had to make difficult decisions about where and how to establish themselves: on the pueblos with hearing families and friends, in urban areas with other Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people, or in border towns with limited access to both groups.

How come there were no efforts by Deaf educators at the time to help deaf Indians in deaf schools on helping preserve their Indian Sign Language heritage in the process and encourage them to maintain that contact and relationship with their Indian elders on ISL? How come no public apologies by those schools? No apologies from NAD on behalf of the schools across the United States, including Gallaudet University? Maybe it's time that NAD and other deaf institutions make the effort to apologize for helping with some of the eradication of deaf Indians' own ISL when they were forced to choose and with no effort to help them preserve and maintain their own ISL identity? Perhaps NAD does not need to apologize? Should any apology be needed at all? After all, there are some culpability involved here and not exclusively just the "government" of which I agree played an almost exclusive role in helping ISL and its signing heritage disappear.  Regardless, should an apology be in order from NAD on behalf of deaf schools who may have played a part of the role? 

Combat with Grizzly Bear

A statue of two Indians fighting a mother grizzly bear in her effort to protect her two cubs was created by Douglas Tilden, a world renowned deaf sculpture, stands at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California.  The sculpture is called "The Bear Hunt."  It is also known as "Combat with Grizzly Bear" as explained by Jack Gannon.

Born May 1, 1860 Douglas Tilden lost his hearing at the age of 4 due to Scarlet Fever. Two years later his parents enrolled Douglas at the California School for the Deaf at UC Berkeley. He became an honor student and graduated from the school in 1879 at the age of 19. He soon accepted a teaching position CSD where he stayed there for eight years. It was during the summer vacations his artistic talents began to flourish.

Summer vacations were spent studying drawing and painting. In the summer of 1883, he discovered the joys of sculpture. He returned to teaching in the fall but continued making models in his leisure time. He dreamed of studying in Paris, then the mecca of most would-be sculptors. His clay model Tired Wrestler, a young, athletic, male nude figure, impressed the Board of Trustees of the California School for the Deaf enough that they gave him a loan of five hundred dollars for study in New York. In 1887, he resigned his teaching post and left California. 

Thanks to a grant of $600 per year from the Durham Fund, administered by the California School for the Deaf, Douglas embarked for Paris in May 1888. After visiting the Salon des Artistes Français on the Champs-Elysees, he went to work on the Baseball Player. With his unorthodox, purely American motifs, Tilden was the first California-born sculptor to win recognition outside of the U.S. by being accepted in the Paris Salon in 1889, then again in 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1894.

 And thus Douglas began his career as an internationally known sculptor.

But another battle is brewing at CSD and that is the effort to get rid of "The Bear Hunt" sculpture on the CSD campus grounds stating that the statue is racist in nature "racist imagery" according to the latest online petition that began on June 28, 2012 calling for the removal of Tilden's statue:

We feel that while Tilden is indeed a respected Deaf artist in our community, he remains a white male from the 19th century and the sculpture still represents generations of dehumanizing violence towards Native American communities. Such depictions have no place at a school, particularly if a school aims to uphold principles of racial and ethnic justice.

Though “The Bear Hunt” has stood at the front of campus for years, this “branding” situation served as an opportunity for us activists to challenge our social consciousness in how we have perceived and now perceive this statue. How long has the statue stood in front of campus without being challenged? How long have some individuals’ misgivings about the statue were ignored? We are working on collaborating with Native American Deaf and Deaf People of Color organizations on this issue in order to mobilize community dialogue regarding the statue.

The petition failed to explain exactly how or why the statue is racist other than explaining that the sculptor is a white male who sculpted a statue depicting an ultimate battle and will to live between two Indians and a mother grizzly bear while trying to protect her two cubs .  Exactly how does the statue dehumanizes violence towards Native American communities? It doesn't. It's about survival.  Douglas Tilden explains about his "The Bear Hunt" statue:

In 1892, Tilden finished a huge monument, the Bear Hunt. He wrote, “My Indian and bear present a full front, both in so full a vigor that who wins must forever be a question in the spectator’s mind.” The Bear Hunt arrived at the California School for the Deaf in Berkeley in 1895 after being exhibited for several months at the Art Institute in Chicago. Both the school and the Bear Hunt are now located in Fremont.

In other words, while looking at the statue of a battle between beast and man makes you wonder, who will win the battle?  The Indians or the mother grizzly bear? What is the story behind the fight for survival? Did the Indians accidentally come across the mother Grizzly bear? Or got too close in the bear hunt? However, there is nothing racist about the "The Bear Hunt" sculpture showing two Indians battling to survive a mother grizzly attack while trying to protect her two young cubs. Hunting for bears was common. Indians hunted grizzly bears for food and other materials but at the same time they were revered and respected their fearsome strength, independence and power to the status of being a "spiritual god."

Many Indians feared the grizzly bear but still they hunted the large bears for food, clothing, and even jewelry. Claws were made into necklaces and often worn hanging from their waistband.  Because of the Indians' beliefs that the bear had some spiritual power, wearing a bear claw necklace would mean protection and good health to the Indian wearing it.

Today Indians still wear necklaces of grizzly bear claws but only a few are preserved from the 1800s in museums. One famous bear claw necklace can be viewed at the Peabody Museum at Harvard. Since bear claws were objects that Indians treasured, very few were obtained outside of the Indian tribes.

Shortly after the petition to have the statue removed (only 53 signatures so far) another petition came up to counter the petition for removal in the effort to keep the statue on the campus grounds of CSD.

CAD Bay Area Chapter president, David Prince, speaking... I disagree with DYUSA Bay Area Chapter to remove the Bear Hunt Statue (BHS) off the campus of the California School for the Deaf. The Bear Hunt statue is not a racist; it illustrates us to understand the visual history how the Indians fought against the nature. It demonstrates the visual education to everyone how it looks like in their time of struggle. It was like a battle in nature, Human versus Bear.

So far there are 357 signatures to keep the statue vs 53 signatures to get rid of it. A strong sign that common sense is prevailing.  I see no "racist imagery" in that statue other than a battle of survival between man and nature.  Violence is part of the game of survival in nature. This is all about using emotional gimmickry to play the Deaf political correctness game based on some vague and obscure reasonings. 

What is palpably ironic, at least to me, is that Douglas Tilden's own statue work is facing the possibility of being rejected by the students of CSD and perhaps the school itself. The irony comes from the fact that  he worked at the CSD for several years as a deaf teacher and later on in his life tried to go back to CSD to work as a teacher again but only to be rejected because at the time CSD  stopped hiring and employing deaf teachers.  Douglas Tilden is turning over in his grave seeing that his own work is once again facing rejection.  This Deaf political correctness has simply run amok with no clear thinking whatsoever using false emotional appeal.