Proof when voice is more effective than signing....

Or is it?

Well, one person was the Chapter president (Sacramento) of California Association of the Deaf, an organization who pride themselves their strong heritage on using ASL, used his voice instead at a California Senate Health Hearing discussing the AB2072 bill in a roomful of culturally deaf people which would make Alexander G. Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, John Tracy Clinic, Oberkotter Foundation and all of the oral/aural schools around the United States quite proud.




Sign language interpreters were at the hearing to help interpret both voice and sign language.  Yet it's perfectly alright to use your voice, even at Gallaudet University, CSUN, or elsewhere as long as there are interpreters and/or CART services available so that everyone, deaf, hard of hearing and/or hearing can understand what's being said. Tim Riker, former chapter president of CAD, made it perfectly clear on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing that using his voice was wholly acceptable finding it preferable and more effective than signing.  Although one cannot avoid noticing the total irony coming from a chapter president of an organization that exclusively use sign language.

It was perfectly clear that using my voice at Gallaudet University's blog/vlog conference with interpreters and real time captioners available for the audience and for those watching over the internet (it was a live taping) was more effective for me than signing. It was simply due to my preference and communication ease. I discussed one of the topic surrounding the use of technology on whether ASL is in danger of disappearing.




It was perfectly clear when a Gallaudet University Board of Trustee member, Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, used her voice at a Gallaudet University graduation commencement speech was an effective use of her communication preference to the graduating class of 2006  with an inspirational speech but you need to know the true story of why she had to use her voice before you get angry first.

It was perfectly clear that John Fortius, an oral person who does not know sign language, who used his voice at the California Senate Health Hearing was an effective and efficient way of communicating to the assembly members.  Even though, ironically enough, the former chapter president of CAD criticized John (it appears he was talking about John) for having "unintelligible" speech.  Even though there is a complete transcript of John Fortias' speech and that sign language interpreters were clearly interpreting in ASL what John said for the deaf audience in attendance at the Senate Health Hearing.





Thank you, Tim Riker, former California chapter president of Sacramento CAD. Thank you, John Fortias. Thank you Dr. Brenda Brueggemann.

Whatever mode of communication you find most effective and efficient is what really counts.

Malignment Attitudes within the Deaf Community

After all these years reading other people's blogs and watching their vlogs some of their incompetence were realized early on up to the present in terms of their attitudes of malignment. In short, using the internet as way to spread gossip, hate and revilement against certain individuals on a regular basis.  It's one thing to argue respectfully and make a point of contention without getting emotionally involved but another to specifically target individuals as their personal punching bag using ad hominem and continuing with their online bullying ways. I'm sorry. I don't respect people doing that in the latter. The rule of thumb is that once people use ad hominem they have lost their argument.

Genie Gertz - new Dean of Gallaudet University College of Arts and Sciences

Congrats to Dr. Genie Gertz on becoming Gallaudet University's next Dean of Gallaudet University College of Arts and Sciences. And I'm sure it's a step closer to her ultimate goal.

Gallaudet University's announcement on the news of hiring Dr. Genie Gertz with all the wonderful plaudits and coverage of her background experience when she was the Dean of the Deaf Studies Division at Ohlone College in Fremont, California. But there's an interesting omission in that announcement. It didn't say the one thing that Dr. Genie Gertz is well known which is her push for "Deafhood." And her strong ties with Ella Mae Lentz and the Deafhood Foundation, a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization (tax identification number is 26-2603125). And in turn Deafhood Foundation's strong ties with DBC and AFA who are basically their "shock troops" in terms of their activism or militancy (i.e. protest) against cochlear implant companies, AG Bell, John Tracy Clinic, Oberkotter Foundation, Hands and Voices, and so on. 

Their background and association:

Lentz and Genie Gertz, dean of the Deaf Studies Division and Special Studies at Ohlone College in Fremont, Calif., have led workshops for deaf adults around the country since 2005. Deafhood Youth Northwest on Tuesday at Mount Tahoma was their first presentation tailored to teenagers.

Tailored only to culturally deaf teenagers is what they meant.

These presentations, workshops or conferences (free or fee) were the "ASL-only" or "Deaf people only" types which meant no voice interpreters or sign language interpreters or any other accommodations provided such as CART. An overt display of practicing segregation, communication discrimination and even indoctrination in some cases. Never taking into account of people new to signing who may have difficulty in understanding in an ASL-only environment, those who may have language processing issues with sign language, or those who are deaf but do not know sign language and want to know more about their presentation but cannot due to communication discrimination. Or even for parents of deaf/hh children who want to understand better so they can make an informed decision regarding their child's education, language development and communication option. What is remarkable is to see how these workshops have practiced segregation and discrimination as you can see with these announcements below.

The flyer (click on pictures below to expand):

More presentation :

More pushing of Paddy Ladd's book and presentation:

More association with Deafhood Foundation.

More announcements:

Most recent flyer this year:

And other spinoffs:

Compare those announcements to that of the HLAA (Hearing Loss Association of America) announcement in the area of communication accommodation.

There are four things here to think about.

1) Indoctrination.
2) Communication discrimination - against those who may have limited sign language skills or have other communication preferences.
3) Segregation.
4) Exclusionary practices.

Dr. Genie Hertz is now working for Gallaudet University but here is a stark reminder for her.

According to Section 504,  Gallaudet University has an obligation to ensure accessibility to students with disabilities, including those with hearing loss and the need for communication accessibility because Gallaudet University is a recipient of Federal financial assistance as a post secondary institution.

An important responsibility of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability against students with disabilities. OCR receives numerous complaints and inquiries in the area of elementary and secondary education involving Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504). Most of these concern identification of students who are protected by Section 504 and the means to obtain an appropriate education for such students.

Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Section 504 provides: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . ."

OCR enforces Section 504 in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from ED. Recipients of this Federal financial assistance include public school districts, institutions of higher education, and other state and local education agencies. The regulations implementing Section 504 in the context of educational institutions appear at 34 C.F.R. Part 104.

Services students and staff should be able to request at Gallaudet University:

* American Sign Language Interpreter
* Signed English Interpreter (SEE-Signing Exact English or PSE-Pidgin Sign English)
* FM Systems and Conference Microphones
* Voice interpreter
* CART
* Remote Captioning
* Cued Speech Transiliterator
* I-Communicator
* Typewell/C-Print
* Professional or Volunteer Notetakers
* Tactile communication

Even though Gallaudet University obviously supports ASL many are calling for the exclusive use of ASL for all or ASL at all times. That'd be fine if the educational institution in question became a private educational institution receiving no federal funding then it wouldn't fall under the rules of Section 504.  But since Gallaudet University does receive annual Federal funding for as long as it has been opened it must abide by Section 504 laws.  Section 504 gives the power over to students who may request communication accessibility that fit their communication needs other than just ASL.

That's a stark but humbling reality there.

Since president Hurwitz of Gallaudet University supports the new ICED resolution which does call for pluralism and to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication," and that Gallaudet University must follow the laws under Section 504. The question today is will indoctrination continue at Gallaudet University?

When extremism goes after their own sign language interpreters

AFA and others have been demonizing interpreters hired by A.G. Bell while others have produced names and pictures of them. Never mind that Professional Interpreters are bound by a code of professional conduct to provide equal access, remain neutral, and keep confidential, no matter who the clients are. But for any sign language interpreters to show up at the July 18 - 20, 2013 A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium in Los Angeles was met, ironically, with outrage by extremist adherents. Damned if you do produce an interpreter, damned if you don't and not provide that all important communication access.  Interpreters who were hired at the A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium get called as "traitors" and other name bashing. Rick P. and few others on the Facebook discussion were the only few sane, common sense people on board contributing to the discussion.

Folks, as a CODA, a husband of a Deaf woman, an interpreter and a colleague of Mr. LoParo, I can tell you Bob is neither a traitor nor a supporter of AGB. He was there to provide communication access - period. Think about it. If he wasn't there, how would you know what they were really saying? If you depended on his work to know what was being said, then you know he wasn't the message, he was only the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. Many of us interpret in situations we don't really like. Just because an interpreter takes a job it doesn't mean we support any particular side. In fact, if we did, we shouldn't take the job. I'm sure Bob knew that taking the job would be difficult. I'm also sure he felt that the Deaf people who were there to protest had a right to know what was being said and that's probably why he took the job.

Jen P. interjects:

I am stunned by this witch hunt. I hope you all realize what you are saying when you say you expect interpreters to serve only those with whom they agree. Be very careful what you wish for. We live and act in a political world. We interpret in a neutral one.

Rick P. continues on his with his explanation shedding a bit more light on the misplaced mock outrage.

The reality in this situation is that Mr. LoParo was not paid directly by AGBell. He worked for an interpreting agency that was providing interpreters at the request of the conference. It seems like interpreters are in a no-win situation with this. We see what has happened with Mr. LoParo in this posting. I'm curious what would have happened if no interpreters accepted the job. Would we then be accused of being audist and on AGBell's "side" because there was a lack of communication access? Would we then be accused of intentionally keeping the Deaf community "in the dark"? Personally, I encourage our communities to have a discussion about the situation. I would also warn that some people on this thread are getting close to the legal definition of slander. I would also warn that we are "dividing and conquering" ourselves which plays right into the hands of the oppressor.

And that has been the biggest problem among culturally deaf rabid adherents when it comes to their own "dividing and conquering" within their own culturally deaf community.

Deborah M. makes a salient point on communication access and knowing what's going on at the convention.

I'm just saying that there could be situations where having an interpreter there at AGBell could be good for the Deaf community.

Rather than to attack interpreters for accepting an interpreting job at AG Bell, use them for the benefit of learning and meeting people in the effort to learn from each other the people at the symposium. Rick Pope made an observation about the AFA who was there.

Reading Ms. Jordan's account of the situation at the Omni hotel, it becomes clear that the AFA leader herself was using an interpreter for communication access that ensured her First Amendment rights. She clearly redirected people who were inappropriately trying to interpret.

"Ruthie made it clear that there were ASL certified and qualified interpreters at the rally and at no point should the security or police utilize AG Bell staff members as interpreters."

So, I have to wonder why an interpreter is catching hell from AFA supporters when the interpreter was requested by the AFA leadership. As for the comments about Mr. LoParo's "stone face", he was interpreting in a situation that could have or did involve law enforcement. If Mr. LoParo had greeted people with hugs and other behaviors that are common in the Deaf world, it could have given the impression that he was not impartial. This could have given the AGBers reason to remove him from the situation (I've seen it happen) thus negatively affecting communication access for the ASL-using protestors. Even by the AFA accounts on the website, Mr. LoParo behaved professionally and ensured the AFA leadership had meaningful access to their Constitutional rights. Why, then, is he being excoriated without any comment from the very consumers of his services?

Jen P. offered her perspective as an interpreter who attended a previous AG Bell conference.

I worked at the AGB Conference in Milwaukee in 2008, as an ASL interpreter and as an oral interpreter. I shall not discuss assignment specifics due to confidentiality. I am, however, compelled to say that AG Bell conferences are gathering places for a diverse assemblage of people, many of whom are deaf and, through no fault of their own, grew up deprived of access to a natural, visual language. Every last one of these individuals has the right to attend this or any other event, the right to discuss educational, social, linguistic and medical concerns with others who also face the same issues. They have the right to access language and information and the right to the interpreting or captioning services of their choosing. All of the attendees had an opportunity during the conference to either use or to see ASL interpreters at work. I am proud of the service I provided for these deaf individuals. I did not make the decision to work at this conference lightly or easily or without a lot of reflective and deliberate thought. Nobody has the right or authority to tell me which deaf people are (or ARE NOT) worthy of interpreting services, or in which contexts they may be served. The interpreters at these conferences are not conspirators with the enemy. They are not oralists or audists. They are performing the same professional, confidential and impartial services they provide to anyone else in the deaf/Deaf communities. You want to find out what happens if interpreters stop interpreting AG Bell conferences? It’s an interesting thought-experiment, but why stop there? Should VRS interpreters disconnect a call every time someone makes a comment in a phone conversation that is oppressive, hateful, rude, illegal, or distasteful? Do deaf people not have the human right to make their own mistakes, to deceive and be deceived, to have views that lie outside the mainstream? Should hearing interpreters decide who has the right to services based on a person’s religion, race, sexual orientation, political views, affiliations and memberships? Be careful of what you wish for. And please cease and desist with this intolerable and defamatory witch hunt. All of your energies are much better spent against your enemies than against your allies.

She further re-iterates the danger of blacklisting and choosing for the interpreters based on an ideological condition.

Patti, if one truly believes that the conference attendees have the right to equal access, it follows (for me) that as a professional, if I am qualified for the work and able to execute my duties with impartiality, then I need not recuse myself. I am not supporting an organization or an "ism". I am serving people. Actual people, not abstract stereotypes or cultural villains. The thinking on this thread has been very black and white. This setting is approved for interpreters, this setting is bad. This interpreter is good. This one is blacklisted. It is this kind of black and white thinking that rules the AG Bell roost. Signing is bad and talking is good. Activism can be polluted by extremism. I am not an AG Bell supporter. I support open communication between deaf and hearing people. I will not be intimidated by extremist thinking into believing that somebody else should do the work that I believe should be done and done well. It's not a great analogy, but some lawyers defend criminals because they believe in citizens rights to a fair defense. I believe in communication access. My conscience is clear.

The latest FB discussion is an interesting read on how extremism can get out of control. It's also an example of a slippery slope in action in the attempt to try and control interpreters on who they should or should not interpret for purely on ideological and selfish motives. And at the same time fall prey to their own paranoia. A move that would guarantee shooting oneself in the foot each and every time.

Karl White speaks

Karl White who is the Professor of Psychology at Utah State University and the founding Director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) discussed recently with an ASL interpreter in the YouTube comment section of his TEDx video (currently over 10,000 views) regarding parental informed decision, deaf children, ASL, and cochlear implant:


KW: As noted in my TED talk, when CI users remove the CI, they are still deaf. I agree that sign language can be a useful "back-up" language in such situations and I agree that children need access to as much language as possible. It is very important though that parents be able to choose how they want to communicate with their child. The job of professionals is to fairly & completely inform and then support parents in their choice. We should never impose our beliefs on parents.

For newly identified deaf babies, well-informed parent choice is the primary goal. Parents should be educated about all options and then be given excellent programs no matter what they choose. It is not appropriate to say all deaf children should learn ASL any more that it is appropriate to say all deaf children should have cochlear implants — those decisions should be made by the parents after they have been fairly and completely informed about options, pros/cons, risks/benefits, etc.

ASL Terp: Hi! I agree we should not impose our beliefs. There needs to be a balanced, full disclosure approach that shows research on the bell-curve? of CI users. Some do not benefit, some remove over time, some do benefit and some thrive. In addition there needs to be a positive encouragement by professionals for consistent visual language access which is not detrimental to development...and is actually beneficial for bi-lingual, bi-cultural personhood of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing/DeafBlind individual.

How about this...include in your talk an interview with a family who did approach with sign language from onset of deafness/hearing loss, who did implant, the implant was not successful (for whatever reason) and the family expresses gratitude for having fully met their child's needs by providing consistent access to language both auditory and visual. This would demonstrate the value of always have an underlying visual language accessible regardless of the success or lack of success of the CI.

I bring this up because I've seen families who do not do any signing with their kids...get the CI...spend several years trying to educate (up to age 6-7?) the CI is not successful, language is not developing and the parents express shock, grief and guilt that their child has such a delay that was in a sense imposed. Why have families go through that?  I think professionals have a responsibility to ensure all kids are successful to the extent possible with fully disclosed current information.

KW: I agree completely that professionals have a responsibility to fully and fairly inform parents and to work to help children achieve their full potential. There are certainly cases where hearing technology is not successful, just as there are cases where ASL is not successfully used by the family. We need to continue to improve the way we inform and support families as they decide how they want to raise their children.

ASL Terp: I think this is the crux of the controversy around your presentation. What is the basis for saying it is not appropriate for all deaf children to learn ASL? It is readily available to learn, does not harm the child, provides access to visual language, supports interactions with other human beings, provides increased intellectual stimulation. Learning ASL is a win-win. Win for child: 24/7 full access to communication. Win for intellectual and educational bilingualism + CI option.

KW: Sorry, I didn't phrase that well. I don't have a problem with any deaf child learning ASL - IF that is what the parents of that child choose. The key is informed parent choice. Some parents do not choose ASL and they shouldn't be forced to have the child learn ASL. Just like parents who don't want their child to wear a hearing aid or a cochlear implant should not be forced to have their child wear one. Any deaf child whose parents want him/her to learn ASL should be given support to learn ASL.

"F*ck you, Deaf community!": Part II

Sometimes people who think they are doing the right thing actually end up hurting their cause and image when it comes to certain deafness related issues and concerns. I blogged this before a few years back and I think this warrant another blog piece in light of Daniel Winship's Facebook piece that generated lots of negative and positive reactions as a reminder that spewing hate and vindictiveness could simply backfire where targeted parents wrongly accused get the full wrath of the Deaf community's ire. Sometimes quite skewed in their outlook while other times sobering. The thread I'm about to link provide an insight look into the views and perspectives of mostly hearing people on the discussion of cochlear implant. It's a sobering read and seeing how many of them experienced the wrath from certain inner circles of the culturally deaf community their ire and hate. The author of the thread, Fuck you, Deaf "Community"   , is a hearing parent who exemplifies the very example of how the venting of the culturally deaf community can backfire in getting the very parents their support on the cochlear implant issue.

---

1. My 4-year-old daughter is deaf. She is not "Deaf" with a capitol D. She simply has no hair cells in her cochlea, she has no functioning inner ear. Even though she is deaf, she is not automatically part of your little world of shame and exclusion, and her native language is not ASL. It is not child abuse if we decide to raise her in a household that speaks English. So: fuck you for claiming her as your own, without a second thought to the wishes of her parents.

2. We gave our daughter cochlear implants when she was an infant. We made this long and difficult decision based on the research that was available to us, based on the educational resources available in our area, based on the nature of her deafness, and, yes, based on our own biases and desires. She had her surgeries before she was old enough to make the choice for herself, because to wait so long means to give her hearing long after her developing brain can make the best use of it. It is a well-known and long-researched phenomenon that pre-lingual implantation leads to vastly improved speech and hearing skills. But you call it child abuse. You call it cosmetic surgery on an infant, and more than once you called me a monster for it. It is not child abuse, to make complicated decisions about your kids without their input - it's called parenting. Nor is it cosmetic to give my kid a developmental boost. So: fuck you for heaping accusations of pre-lingual cosmetic surgery child abuse on me.

3. Our family is learning ASL, and have been since we learned our daughter was profoundly deaf. We will use sign as a second language, indefinitely. My wife is in school to become an interpreter. Nor do we believe in a purely oralist tradition; we acknowledge the importance of communication between deaf people without assistance. We get it, ok? We're committed. But because we gave our daughter cochlear implants, you automatically believe that we're out to destroy ASL, to destroy Deaf culture. You never listen to our reasoning, because what do we know? We're motivated by a desire to mingle in both worlds, and yet we're constantly scoffed at by the Deafies on principle. So: fuck you for your pernicious false dichotomies.

4. Speaking of false dichotomies: what the hell do you mean by the "Hearing Community"? You mean the 99% of the world...with functional ears? They form a single community separate from your own? Because obviously it's the Deaf Community vs. the world. Yeah, fuck you and your false dichotomies, again.

5. It's funny how your handicap isn't a handicap. You aren't missing a major sensory organ, it's simply that you have chosen a primary language which is signed rather than spoken. You embrace and welcome the nature of your language and your community, and you are, you say, just as capable as any hearing person. I get it - it's not a handicap. It's not a disability. You feel that there's nothing wrong with your bodies. You aren't broken machines in need of repair. You're not incomplete people deserving of pity. You're a close-knit community because, I gather, there's a conspiracy of doctors and audiologists and educators and academics and hearing-aid industry types, who are, to a person, out to suck your wallets dry then utterly crush and humiliate you, simply because...they hate your lifestyle choice. But you look past all that. You're complete and beautiful human beings and you're happy with the way God created you. There's nothing wrong with being deaf. Deafness is beautiful! So fuck you for demanding - and happily accepting - constant special accommodation for your alleged non-handicap. (And fuck you for demanding respect and understanding from my family, without giving us any in return.)

6. Your precious ASL doesn't have a sweet simplicity; it's just as capricious and arbitrary and fucked-up as any other language. I mean, come on! In our current class, we're learning three - THREE - different signs for the word "car". Which you don't apparently use interchangeably. What the hell? It kind of messes up your principle of "conceptual accuracy". Especially considering that there are many signs for most common words. A lot of the difference is regional, but a lot is just "we do it this way, they do it that way". ASL is, simply, fragmented. English, at least, has standardized on "wh" question words: "who", "why", etc. But English, even in signed form, is "too ugly" for you. Fuck you and your "beautiful language" high horse.

7. ASL purists, who want to distance ASL from English as much as possible, who advocate removing as much fingerspelling from the language as possible, who want to remove as many initial letters ("T" for toilet, "B" for box, etc.) as possible... yeah, I see you fingerspelling common words, I see you happily using intial letters. Fuck you for...well, for being uppity elitists. Go drive a Hummer while you're at it.

8. ASL has no written form. It must use another language - the hated and maligned English - for written communication. Therefore, it's nigh-impossible to look up a new word by its sign. Therefore, memorization plays a much larger role in ASL than in most languages. Therefore, more effort goes into learning how to sign, when other kids are learning how to read and write. Guess what kind of impact that has on illiteracy rates? And...you seem to prefer it that way? Before I met y'all I thought the illiteracy was the result of educational and developmental difficulties. But the more Deaf people I meet, the more I find that you don't much care about reading and writing proper English. ASL and TV is all you need. So...yeah. Fuck you for that, too. By the way, my deaf daughter is learning how to read, you dipshits.

9. While I'm at it, Alexander Graham Bell has been dead for 86 fucking years. When he was alive, he didn't gas any Deaf babies, he didn't sterilize anyone. If you honestly believe that he wanted to prevent deaf people from reproducing, even when his mother and wife were deaf, then I honestly believe you're pretty damn stupid. At any rate, it's a vastly different world today than it was back then. Believe you me, there are plenty of other villains to worry about today. Fuck you for not getting over A.G. Bell already.

10. Again with the calling me an audist in denial of your beautiful heritage. Which is funny, because from my perspective, you're being "deafists" in denial of your own handicaps. But you don't see me calling you out on it several times a week. Fuck you and your utter lack of tact.

But mostly, fuck you for putting a claim on my kid. I've been at this for more than four years, and you're just getting more hostile at us hearing-family-with-deaf-child-who-has-cochlear-implants. Our world, the world of the hearing, the world we're raising our girl in, the world you loathe so much -- our world is fucked up, sure, but it's roses and cotton candy and day-long free pony rides compared to yours.

CAD and the AB 455 California Bill

The AB 455 bill is looking more like a bill that needs to be thrown out because it lacks an official definition for the term "Deaf" seen here in the bill. Unless the bill can provide an official definition to the term "Deaf" then perhaps the bill can be saved rather than scrapped.

But there's a problem.

The confusion could be blamed on zealots who wanted to change the definition of the word "Deaf" with the capitalized "D" to mean all inclusive of those with a hearing loss from mild to profound, whether they know sign language or not.  In fact, you have people like Dr. Genie Gertz, Ella Mae Lentz, and  others who are in the same boat and would even agree with what Dr. Grushkin said,

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

And compare that to the official definition of "Deaf" according to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) who invented the capitalized, big D, word 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.

In short, the term "Deaf" has always been defined as people who are culturally deaf and signs in ASL. That already defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. But people have a nasty habitat on putting the term "Deaf" into a bill or a bylaw without providing an official definition as a clarification.

California Association of the Deaf bylaws is another good example who used the term "Deaf" peppered throughout but no definition explaining the meaning "Deaf." Yet also, their bylaws make no reference to the term "hard of hearing," either. They didn't write down "Deaf and hard of hearing" in their bylaws like the AB 455 bill did but used only the  "Deaf" term instead. In other words they made the term "Deaf" to mean all inclusive those with a hearing loss from mild to profound rather than to mean only for culturally deaf people.

 At the very bottom of the bylaws CAD has a definition of the term "Deaf":

"Deaf is a term that includes all the individuals: born deaf, deafened in early, sometimes late childhood, for whom American Sign Language and Deaf community/culture collectively represent their primary experience and existence regardless of hearing disability they have.”

Was that an official definition of "Deaf" from CAD? Curiously so in their most recently updated bylaws as of August of 2011 they presented no definition for the term "Deaf" in various forms such as "Deaf community," "Deaf individuals," and the single term "Deaf."

Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made a point that they "own" the word "Deaf" and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a deaf culture group that uses ASL. They have always agreed with Padden and Humphries' definition of that term.

Deaf with a capital D is a cultural term, rather than an audiological one. As defined by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988), Deaf refers ‘to a particular group of deaf people who share a language—American Sign Language (ASL)—and a culture.”

Hence, it's understandable seeing the confusion of the bill's language writing in "Deaf and hard of hearing" into the bill when earlier it was written as "deaf and hard of hearing."  Exactly what is the official definition of the term "Deaf" seen in the AB 455 bill?

Well? What is it?

I'm waiting.

UPDATE: Of course, this is something that Tara Congdon failed to realize in her "investigative" reporting on CNN that the bill lacked any definition for the term "Deaf" which might become the unexpected monkey wrench. We'll wait and see, and get a more definitive report elsewhere whether the bill might present a problem or not.

California Dept of Education Position Statement on Language Access

California Department of Education has recently posted on May 3rd (final paper on March 4) a position statement on language access of deaf and hard of hearing children in California.

In support of California EC 56000.5, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, this document provides clarification for the CDEs position supporting the right of children to have access to a complete language, visual or spoken, as appropriate, from birth.

Note the "or" in "visual or spoken" which means that deaf children has the right to have access to spoken language, visual language, or both rather than just on visual language alone.  It's interesting that they didn't say sign language but visual language instead (see the yellow highlight below).

There's more.

Believes that children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing have the right to receive appropriate services that will provide them with exposure to fully accessible natural languages – American Sign Language (ASL), and spoken English (or other spoken language).

Accepts and respects all languages.

Accepts and respects all communication tools (i.e., Cued Speech, Signing Exact English, Conceptually Accurate Signed English, Sign Supported Speech, Simultaneous Communication).

Accepts and respects all educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children (i.e., ASL/English Bilingual, Listening and Spoken Language, and Total Communication).

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the language opportunities available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the communication tools available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are born Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children.

Recognize the "accepts and respects all languages" and the communication tools?

Remember when president Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point on what ICED 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.

Remember AB2072?

Yeah.

Can you spot the video difference?

Can you spot the differences between these three videos? Maybe the irony? Before you complain, think first. Keep it clean...and nice. That's my only request.





The last video talks about this guy in a screenshot which can be found here.

Enjoy.

Deaf Schools similar to Hogwarts?

I saw Amy Cohen's link to a video in Facebook of Michael Stultz, an ASL teacher, who did a video explaining to his hearing students on what deaf schools are like. In a moment of inspiration he used the Hogwarts school that Harry Potter and his friends, and their enemies, attended as having that similarity. Mr. Stultz explained that Hogwarts and deaf schools have similarities such a having a cafeteria where students would come together and meet and eat, dormitories, classroom settings, and even sports or contests settings, and a place where self-identity would be realized. Although I'm wondering if deaf schools would include Gallaudet University as the final place for  "advanced wizardry students" to attend and graduate?

Seeing the video title I wondered who Lord Voldemort would be while I watched the video. Of course, I wasn't surprised when Mr. Stultz targeted AGBell and other oral schools as being the "Lord Voldemort" equivalent although never mind the fact that Lord Voldemort is a character and not an institution in the Harry Potter books/movies. Does teaching ASL includes teaching students on what to think about AGBell and other oral schools?

Just wondering.

Mr. Stultz gave an example of how "Voldemort's" goal would be to eradicate the Muggle born (not born into pure blood of wizard parents) and their kind of wizardry (which happens to be the good kind and used for good and not fall prey to the dark magic like Voldemort did - aka Tom Riddle). In other words, Mr. Stultz made the claim that the ultimate goal of AGBell and other oral schools (so called "Voldemort") would be to deliberately eradicate the culturally deaf community (so called "Muggles").

Desperate are we?

Problem number one. Lord Voldemort is Muggle born, too, but believe in blood-purity even though he became the most powerful and feared half-blood Dark Wizard. Dumbledore explains the blood-purity complex and problem that Lord Voldemort and other arch enemies of the dark magic believe in.

Dumbledore asserts that the much-vaunted blood purity does not exist, and is only a fiction maintained by the deceptions of supremacist wizards.

At Hogwarts they have their pure-bloods, too, like Draco Malfoy and others in the House of Slytherin. So, that's problem number two.

The pure-bloods are those born to wizard parents with many of them believing on mixing only with their kinds (e.g. nth generation family of pure blood, no miscegenation ). Examples of pure-bloods and what they do in order to maintain their "blood purity" lineage would be the Blacks, the Lestranges, the Crouches, the Fudges, the Gaunts, the Longbottoms, the Malfoys, the Potters and the Weasleys but not all of them believe in mixing only with their kinds like what the Malfoys believe (pay attention to the underlined bold below).

To maintain their blood purity, supremacist families have been known to inbreed into their own families by marrying their cousins, resulting in mental instability and violent natures. The Gaunts displayed both tendencies by the time of the sixth book with the exception of Merope, the last female member of the line.  

Pure-blood supremacists believe blood purity is a measure of a wizard's magical ability – notwithstanding examples of highly skilled Muggle-born witches like Hermione Granger and Lily Evans, and less skilled pure-bloods such as Neville Longbottom – and Muggles to be low-life, having no magic in them. Supremacists apply the term "blood traitor" to pure-bloods who harbor no prejudice against non-pure-bloods (enjoying their presence and relations with them).  

The antagonistic wizards in the Harry Potter books are almost all supremacists, while Harry and his friends disagree with this ideology. Rowling draws several parallels between the pure-blood supremacists and Nazi ideology in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the belief that pure-blood wizards have the right to subjugate the Muggle world and view themselves as a "master race", laws requiring Muggle-borns to register with the Ministry of Magic, rounding up Undesirables, etc.).

Sounds familiar? Traitors of "pure-blood" in the deaf sense would be culturally deaf people who enjoy intermingling with deaf/hh people of AGBell and those who are products of oral or even mainstreamed schools.

Who would the "pure-bloods" be if Michael Stultz is determined to use Voldemort and Hogwarts as examples?  Since "pure-bloods" are those wizards born to wizard parents sound very much like culturally deaf people born to culturally deaf parents and are a part of the "nth Deaf Generation." Those "pure-bloods" sometime advocates "Deaf purity" in all aspect of their Deaf life such as no hearing aids or cochlear implants coinciding with their own elitism of having been born, if they are lucky, as the nth culturally deaf generation who associate mostly with "their kinds" like other culturally deaf friends and families.

Deafhood anyone?

You see the problem now? The "pure-blood" at deaf schools would be the "nth born culturally deaf" students who do not wear or believe in hearing aids or cochlear implants, does not talk or do the "yowling" and use ASL only as their primary mode of communication. The "pure-bloods" at Hogwarts believe that Mugglehould not be taught magic and wizarding skills who limit their interaction with them by marginalizing them in many aspects of their lives.

Does that not sound familiar already? Do you see where I'm getting at?

Does the pure-blood Malfoys sound familiar, too?

Who would the "Deaf Malfoys" be at Gallaudet University and other (signing) deaf schools if you *really* want to go that far, Mr. Stultz?  Who would be the "Deaf Potters" be at Galluadet University and other deaf schools? What about the Longbottoms and the Weasleys who do not believe in the blood-purity requirement?

This gets worse (or better depending on your view).

Michael Stultz's attempted to compare (signing) deaf schools to that of Hogwarts using Lord Voldemort (aka Tom Riddle who is the ultimate character villain of Harry Potter) to represent AGBell and oral schools presents a number of problems as you can probably already see it by now.

Not everybody who attended Hogwarts were Muggle borns. You had the Malfoys, remember? The same pure-blood Draco Malfoy who sneered at Muggle borns at Hogwarts by calling them derisively and derogatorily as "Mudbloods."

Harry first encounters Draco's snobbish bigotry after their initial encounter at Madam Malkin's.[2] Rowling uses the Malfoys to introduce themes of intolerance and bigotry into a setting where people are often judged solely by their blood lineage rather than their good character or accomplishments. Draco, adhering to his family's beliefs, thinks that Muggle-born witches and wizards, which he and other characters derogatorily describe by the epithet Mudbloods, should be denied a magical education. Harry's first impression that the Wizarding community is a "magical wonderland" is instantly shattered. Says Rowling, "[Harry] found out that many people in power in the wizarding world are just as corrupt and nasty as they are in our world." Malfoy was originally named "Draco Spungen" in the earliest drafts of Philosopher's Stone. "Spungen" also appeared on her pre-canon class list, but it was crossed out and replaced with the surname "Spinks", while "Malfoy" was later added after the completion of the list. Philip Nel believes that Malfoy is derived from the French phrase mal foi, meaning "bad faith."In an article published in 2002, Nilsen and Nilsen argue that "Draco" has connotations with draconian, and that his name starts with "mal", a French prefix for "bad" or "evil". Many of Draco's relatives on his mother's side of the family (the Blacks) are named for stars or constellations (e.g., Sirius Black, Regulus Black, Andromeda Black Tonks, Bellatrix Black Lestrange, Cygnus Black, Orion Black). Another constellation is Draco (the Dragon). Draco Malfoy eventually named his son for yet another constellation, Scorpius.

Again, sound familiar?

In Hogwarts there are four Houses in the school of witchcraft and wizardry: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin. Prior to starting school the Sorting Hat identifies each new Hogwarts student by wearing the hat. The Sorting Hat would either identify the new student belonging either to  Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, or Slytherin House,

The Sorting Hat claims that blood purity, is a factor in selecting Slytherins. This suggests that it bases its decisions more upon the views of its members than on any accurate test of a student's lineage. Muggle-born Slytherins exist, but are very rare, as noted insultingly by Scabior the Snatcher.[9] There have also been definite examples of half-bloods sorted into the house, including Tom Marvolo Riddle (Lord Voldemort) and Severus Snape. Harry Potter was nearly sorted into Slytherin, but ended up in Gryffindor instead.

So, what is the House of Slytherin?

Slytherin is one of the four Houses at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and is traditionally home to students who exhibit such traits as cunning, resourcefulness, and ambition. Its emblematic animal is the snake and its colours are green and silver. The house ghost is the Bloody Baron. Founded by Salazar Slytherin, the house is composed mostly of pure-blood students, due to its founder's mistrust of Muggle-born witches and wizards. Slytherin house has a negative reputation, with many claiming that it is the source of most Dark Wizards in Britain, notably Tom Marvolo Riddle, a.k.a. Lord Voldemort, as well as many of his Death Eaters (followers). It has a traditional rivalry with Gryffindor.

The Sorting Hat selected Gryffindor House for Harry Potter who noted for his good character and strength rather than for his blood purity. The Sorting Hat almost put Harry Potter into the House of Slytherin. And if you remember the movie Harry Potter was praying/hoping that he wouldn't want to be put into the House of Slytherin. The Sorting Hat explains what a Slytherin would do :

Or perhaps in Slytherin,
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means,
To achieve their ends."

- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" by J.K. Rowling        

The Slytherins will use any means to achieve their ends and that means cheating, killing, lying, providing misinformation, backstabing, defamation, and so on. Just making a point here and not making this a literal comparison so calm down by now.

But the House of Gryffindor emphasizes a completely different set of philosophy and belief:

The Gryffindor house emphasises the traits of courage as well as "daring, nerve, and chivalry," and thus its members are generally regarded as brave, though sometimes to the point of recklessness. They can also be short-tempered. Notably, Gryffindor house contributed many members to Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix.

Ah, remember Dumbledore's Army during the Battle at Hogwarts?

The Slytherin students left while many students from the other three houses remained behind to fight against Lord Voldemort.      

"Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement. The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves." —before the Battle of Hogwarts.

If you want comparison, Mr. Stulz. I'm that "Muggle born" the "half-blood" deaf/hh guy. I'm that person in the "House of Gryffindor." Heck, I could be that "Harry Potter" who unwittingly became the leader in the fight against the Slytherins, the Malfoys, the Voldemorts and their evil "pure-bloods." I join with the other two Houses, the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws in the fight against the Slytherins and the "Voldemorts."

Nah. But I'm making a point here.

If you really want to get down to brass tacks then the "Muggle borns" at deaf schools (or even at Gallaudet University) would be deaf/hh students who are mostly born to hearing parents with most of them wearing hearing aids and cochlear implants who know how to talk and even listen, along with other communication tools such as CUED speech. The "pure-blood" would be those who are born to culturally deaf parents who advocate strongly ASL (as opposed to be open to PSE, SEE, Cued Speed, aural/oral methods), does not usually talk and usually do not wear hearing aids or cochlear implants. Their status as "pure Deaf" are coveted and used as an elitist badge of theirs.  I can play this game, too. Just humor me hear, folks. The "pure blood" would be the "nth generation Deaf family" students at a (signing) deaf school and Gallaudet University.

Mr. Stultz and others, do you really want to compare Hogwarts to that of deaf schools/Gallaudet University and "Lord Voldemort" to that of AGBell and oral schools supposedly bent on destroying Hogwarts and Muggle borns?  If I were you, I'd avoid the whole comparison game else you'd end up with the whole pure-blood contradiction and conundrum backfiring on you.

The continuing attacking, smearing, misinformation and disinformation campaigns against AGBell and other oral/aural schools are mostly done by those in the culturally deaf community and not the other way around. Look who really are doing the attacking. Look at those who are proud of their "pure-blood" as the "nth Deaf generation family member" (I have no beef about that one).

Look at the "Muggle borns" at deaf schools, Gallaudet University, NTID, and even CSUN who are made up of all walks of life those born deaf or late deafened. Those who grew up deaf, hard of hearing, or Deaf. Those who are CUED speech users, SEE users, PSE users, and ASL users. Those who prefer to talk and listen over signing. Those who are born to deaf parents, born to Deaf parents, or born to hearing parents. "Muggle borns" are the kind of people who simply accept others people with hearing loss for who they are. They do not care for the measure of "blood purity" (e.g. nth generation Deaf family, ASL only, etc) but rather look to the depth of a person's character born out of goodness and strength.


ADDENDUM:  See "Part II" of this blog piece.

Round Peg in a Square Hole - Open and Closed

Deaf-Blind Fiasco at Gallaudet University

I'm calling this a fiasco because the DB students have had to put up with Gallaudet University's shortcomings (and some of the deaf people in the Deaf community) on not helping them succeed and graduate in the subject they want to major in, and be a part of the dynamic campus community, inside and out. The DB at Gallaudet University have always been at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to services on addressing their needs on the same equitable level as their sighted counterparts.  The deaf community in general, especially at Gallaudet University, failed in their Community Accountability toward the DB community. Ryan Odland (see below) explains why.

Ryan Odland brought up the issue of how Gallaudet isn't helping the Deafblind to the MSCHE board a few days ago. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education [MSCHE] is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and improvement through accreditation via peer evaluation. Middle States accreditation instills public confidence in institutional mission, goals, performance, and resources through its rigorous accreditation standards and their enforcement. That is their mission statement.

Below is a video of Ryan Odland addressing the problem the DB face everyday at Gallaudet University. Included is a transcript of Ryan addressing to the MSCHE board





Transcript:

Many students feel frustrated and will withdraw from Gallaudet. From my personal experience having been a Graduate student for five years, I can really understand based upon their approach to students with disabilities. We have a disability service here which is understaffed and unable to catch up with today's technology. Students have varying needs not only here but in the United States of America as well as on a global scale. They all have been frustrated with inappropriate accommodations such as transportation for internships when the student is Deafblind and unable to drive. Another example is students who have ADHD and do not have success reading without accommodations. It's been frustrating, stressful, and procreates the climate for a student to drop out. The inaccessibility also has an impact on the Deafblind student's major and are oftentimes told to change their majors. I don't mean to give Gallaudet a bad time or be looked down at, but I do want to recognize Gallaudet's potential within its disability services. The DB and other students with special needs who do not have the proper accessibility via services, it stifles our growth rate. I am also an adjunct professor who has seen this from a first hand experience with my students. I often times find myself having to directly accommodate the students because I know OSWD lacks the ability to do so. The direct accommodations are provided because I want to see a success rate in my classroom. Why is it my responsibility to provide as such when OSWD should be doing this instead? Gallaudet needs to be providing the support, not the professors. I think it is a big issue on campus. I have a paper file with the past two years where I have been presenting on how the Gallaudet Mission and Vision statement has failed the Deafblind and students with special needs. The lecture is how we can increase the retention rate and self esteem of the students. This is not achievable when OSWD is understaffed and it causes a problem for the students who need the accommodations and accessibility. Thank you.

Another failure on Community Accountability front by capable culturally deaf people with strong English skills and signing ability are those who refuse to include transcripts or subtitles to their own signing vlogs leaving much of the DB out.  One DB said it best on the failure of the sighted culturally deaf community on making them feel they're a part of the deaf community:

I think it’s time that the Deaf community learned about accountability – towards its very members – grassroots, women, men, the educated, around the world, the blind, the DeafPlus, et cetera – and truly learned how to INTEGRATE that into their livelihoods.

Because you might as well get used to me butting into your lives with my lovely hands tactiling yours in FORM OF COMMUNICATION using the very COMMON method: SIGN LANGUAGE. Any sign language around thw world. That can be said for others, however, this opinion article is based on my experiences and views being an international lecturer meeting hundreds if not thousands of Deafblind people around the world who say that they grew up Deaf, but now that they’re Deafblind, they don’t feel part of the Deaf community anymore.

My answer to that?

It takes two sides to come HALF WAY to communicate. The Deafblind people have to come halfway and educate the others how to communicate with them; The Deaf people have to come halfway to learn how to support them, how to integrate them within the Deaf community, to ensure that rejection is not a verb in anyone’s language.

Gallaudet University and the some of the people in the culturally deaf community, please get your act together and support the D-B community's needs. Stop with the lame excuses and move forward. Walk the walk for once.


Hat Tip - Candy.

Obnoxiousness rears its ugliness

Not only that but you have utter and total ignorance when you have a hearing person complain about deaf people who sign and the interpreters they use.

Whats with these cocky a** sign language people these days? It started with Mayor Bloomberg’s Sign Langauge [sic] Sensation Lydia Callis. Then we had that bro who looked like Don Flamenco signing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl. And then just last night Feitelberg blogged that chick who looked like Morty Seinfeld signing at Menino’s blizzard press conference. All these f****** think they’re the belle of the ball! The star of the show! Well guess what you deaf a*******, it ain’t all about you! F*** you and the deaf horses you rode in on. Some people are trying to listen to Bloomberg to find out pertinent information after our city was decimated and nobody can take their eyes off the a****** who’s putting on a puppet show with her hands. I’m trying to time the National Anthem for the over/under and I’m losing count because this guy is doing his little deaf people dance the whole time. Does anybody in the city of Boston have any information on the impending blizzard of doom? Probably not because all they could focus on was the old broad up there signing like shes was a rockstar at some big old deaf concert.

Any emergency announcement on TV can be heard and not miss a thing regardless if there's an interpreter signing. An interpreter will not somehow magically block the spoken word for hearing people.

I have a message for the complainer since his/her world is crumbling because of some interpreter signing at an emergency announcement with a Mayor or whomever into a context that a hearing person would understand:





For those who missed John Maucere (the "Don Flamenco" guy) signing the National Anthem, here it is again.  Enjoy.

Empowerment and Perception

Empowerment.

It's a word that means differently to different people but universally it means enabling themselves the power of choice on their ability to gain their freedom, acquire knowledge, acquire wealth, and even build self esteem and confidence. There are many sides to every perspective on who is taking advantage of who when it comes to obtaining empowerment or losing it. What I have to say here may make some people feel uncomfortable but it is my kind of truth I'd like to speak about though it's not to be construed as an absolute truth but a general truth. Offering a different perspective is good. There is no monopoly here on "empowerment" or truth but just my version.

Let's look at Trudy Suggs' presentation on "Deaf Disempowerment."

Before going further I recognize the fact that there are horrible interpreters, interpreters who are a god-send and those who fall in between depending on the circumstances.  The hope is to have the very best and highly professional interpreters but that is not always the case, sadly, but the United States is experiencing a national shortage on interpreters.  Here I'm offering a bit of constructive opinion regarding Trudy Suggs' "Deaf Disempowerment." Namely it's about true independence versus quasi-independence when it comes to communication choices and how some people deal with them. Sometimes the answer to a difficult or problematic solution can be easily solved. Other times it requires serious intervention and awareness building.

In Trudy Suggs' piece she discussed two kinds of disempowerment: situational disempowerment and economic disempowerment. What I'm about to explain in my blog will show you a simple way to reverse a certain disempowerment scenario into your advantage. You can still have control over certain things in life and not feel helpless in the communication department. Empowerment means you've come to realized certain things about a situation and advantageously learned to move forward independently benefiting yourself as a result. Suggs suggested that people do take advantage of deaf people, and that's true in many instances as in the case of interpreters taking advantage of deaf people by making money off of them. She provided a few examples of that in her piece. But in order to be honest people need to realize that deaf people do take advantage of hearing people. In this case taking advantage of sign language interpreters for their own gain whether it's social, financial, medical or what have you at no cost to deaf people in most cases.

Trudy Suggs explained that she live in a town of 23,000 people with 250 to 300 deaf people (I am assuming they are all culturally deaf people) which represents about 1.3% of the town's population.  A town that is 7 times more populated than the "national average" on the ratio of culturally deaf people to hearing people which is estimated to be about 0.2%of the U.S. population. In Rochester, New York, for example, it has a much higher density of deaf and hard of hearing people. The number of deaf and hard of hearing people make up 3.7 percent (about 40,000) of the Rochester area's 1.1 million people (more here on deaf/hh population). Although no exact figures on the number of culturally deaf people who rely exclusively on sign language to communicate as their preferred mode of communication.  In Suggs' town with 7 times more culturally deaf people one would certainly expect better interpreters.  Interpreters who should be readily available at a moments notice, 24/7. Interpreters who are expected to hold a higher standard of professionalism in a town that have a lot of deaf people. Interpreters' reputations are at stake. If an interpeter fumbles then word gets around within the tightly knit deaf community like a bad gossip.

Let's consider for a moment the fact that there are more deaf and hard of hearing people in the United States that do not sign or know sign language than there are those who do sign (about 50 to 1 ratio or 30 million deaf/hh to 600,000 culturally deaf people). Or for those with more severe hearing loss you have people with severe to profound hearing loss numbering probably about 3 million or so. That would leave you with 1 out every 5 deaf people who know and use sign language.

Trudy Suggs described a story between about herself, her interpreter and a receptionist while waiting in a lobby for her orthopedic doctor for her son's check-up:

After about 45 minutes of waiting in the lobby—very unusual for a town of this size—I asked the receptionist about the severe delay. The receptionist never once looked up from her computer, saying that the doctor was backed up. I asked if we could see the doctor since my children were restless, hungry and my son, in a body cast from chest to toe, needed his medicine—which was at home. She said no. I said, “Could you please speak to the doctor or nurse?” She replied, “Oh, no, I can’t do that,” and I repeated my request. She adamantly refused. 

I finally said, “Could you please look at me?” She looked at the interpreter, and I said, “No, at me.” Once she did, I asked, “Could you please offer a resolution? We’ve been here an hour.” At that very moment, my baby began crying, and the receptionist finally realized the extent of my situation. A nurse came out who was far more courteous and apologetic. After we talked about the delay, I asked how I could make a complaint about the receptionist. 

A few thoughts come to mind.

You have a receptionist who is not familiar with deaf culture etiquette such as looking directly at the deaf person and not the interpreter. Most hearing people are simply not familiar on how to deal with a deaf person with their interpeter in tow. And then you have a situation where a deaf person is either seen as the "third person" or the interpreter as the third person. It becomes a perception issue not mention a certain amount of ignorance and unfamiliarity at play here,too.

Trudy then go on a spiel about "disempowerment" because she wasn't treated adequately by her interpreter and was seen as a "third person" by the receptionist and was not given the opportunity to be seen as an equal.

Let's change the picture here. Like the one below here.

Suppose at the receptionist desk sits a face to face communication device unit called the UbiDuo ready to be used by any deaf person who can use it to converse in real time with the receptionist. The unit is already assembled and ready to go by simply turning it on No third person is involved. Eye contact is easily done because the conversation is now between two individuals, a hearing person and a deaf person. The UbiDuo is a wireless communication technology that allow real time typed conversations between two people facing each other. Just like having two people talking or signing to each other face to face, uninterrupted with more meaningful eye contact, and done directly without feeling like a third person. No worry about having an interpreter carry YOUR conversations for you.

That's true empowerment.

Having the ability to carry a conversation with a hearing person using the UbiDuo, for example, where conversations can be done privately and directly is an example of empowerment. The chance for misunderstanding decreases because words are typed word for word with the UbiDuo. Conversations done in real time seeing what the other person is typing while responding at same time. Just like talking to each other. Just like signing to each other. No worry about the "lack of signing fluency" from interpreters. Face to face conversations take place fluidly.

A deaf person can have a choice between using an interpreter or a face to face communication device such as the UbiDuo. It is there for the taking. You have that choice. That's true empowerment.

Push for Deaf-centric Values Hurting Diversity?

What Dr. Angela McCaskill said to the press last week on Tuesday about the 2006 protest was an eye opener.  What she said made me remember what Bridgetta Bourne-Firl (one of the four leaders in DPN1 protest in 1988) said back in 2006 about the DPN2 (Deaf President Now 2) protest. The 2006 protest began on May 1, 2006 the day when Celia May Baldwin, the chairperson of Board of Trustees, announced the 9th president of Gallaudet University to be Dr. Jane Fernandes. One day earlier Alison Aubrecht and Julie Bourne wrote an article piece posted on April 30, 2006 in the Chronicles of Deaf Higher Education: Search for the Next Gallaudet President on "Deaf-centric" values and what Bridgetta Bourne-Firl said about having a "Deaf-centric president" at Gallaudet University, a departure from having a deaf president:

Sufficiently Deaf-Centric?

Discussions broke out in the hallways of the university, on the community forums, and through e-mail distribution lists about how and whether a person with varying level of deaf-centric views should immediately translate into the "qualified person" to lead Gallaudet University.  Some blog comments conveyed the belief that the person with cochlear implants and the ability to speak would do a better job of lobbying at Capitol Hill.  Others disagreed, stating that a culturally Deaf person would be the only possible qualified leader of the Deaf Nation worldwide.

Bridgetta Bourne-Firl, one of four Deaf President Now student leaders and the outreach director at California School of the Deaf at Fremont, eloquently signed in Joey Baer's ASL blog her account of a valuable lesson that she learned from one black university's president about how a gradual transition must occur in order to gain widespread acceptance.

Bourne-Firl explained, "the university president was very dark skinned and very proud of his role in the society as a Black man.  This president said that at first, these universities would only hire the light-skinned presidents, because the general white population was able to somewhat identify with the new presidents.  These light-skinned presidents basically paved the road for presidents that are more closely aligned with their student bodies, and that man was a result of that process." 

Bourne-Firl described how when she presented at different locations, many people asked her why the selection of a late-deafened deaf adult was made instead of a culturally deaf person, and she used this story as an analogy.  She concluded, 

"Now is the time for Gallaudet to select someone with a strong deaf center."

There's more to it than meets the eye. People may not realize about why DPN2 really took place. Even to this day I still believe that to a large degree the Deaf President Now Protest 2 which began on May 1, 2006  for the ouster of Jane K. Fernandes was all about her not being that "culturally deaf enough" or not "Deaf-centric" enough. Bridgetta Bourne-Firl made that clear in 2006 before the protest began.  Protesters and leaders on the push to get Jane K. Fernandes out from becoming the first deaf woman president of Gallaudet University claimed that the protest was really all about JKF's bad administrative records as Provost of Gallaudet University. Other excuses to not have her because she wasn't "social enough" with students and staff which is saying she's not "Deaf-centric" enough because sociability among culturally deaf students is considered a cultural norm and an expectation.

"She does not have a relationship with the (Gallaudet) community in general. She keeps herself hidden." - Ryan Commerson (Video Time stamp @1:09..with a delayed caption)

Other unpopular "incidents" like J.K. Fernandes punishment of students who tore down a football goal post or the pulling of alarms in celebration in a hotel at Gallaudet University were the "reason" to not like J.K Fernandes.

SHAPIRO: I think that's right. Some of it, by the way, goes back to Gallaudet's winning football season this year. Gallaudet's played football since 1883. Some historians of football give them credit for developing the football huddle. That was a way to prevent people from stealing their signs. And they've had a lousy football team, I should say, for a long time, but they got a new football coach this year and they went nine and oh. And they celebrated after the last game they tore down the goal post.

Some students also were celebrating at a hotel nearby, and they set off fire alarms. Jane Fernandes was the provost of the school. She had been provost for six years. She disciplined those students, and a lot of students felt she was acting like she thought she was their mother. It was her job as provost to discipline them. But some people felt that she'd been too strict.

Frankly, anybody pulling fire alarms for fun deserve to be punished. There's an inherent safety concern there. You simply do not pull fire alarms unless there is a true emergency to do so.

Other excuses was that the Board of Trustees did a "rush job" for "hurrying" to select JKF as president when in fact there was never a "rush job" to begin with. Or because of the fact that JKF has a hearing husband as a disqualifying reason to not pick her as president of Gallaudet University.

The difference between the two protests in 1988 and 2006 is really quite simple.

The first one was all about getting any deaf president into Gallaudet University as in (d)eaf President Now (dPN1) versus 2006 which was all about getting a Deaf-centric president into Gallaudet University as in (D)eaf President Now (DPN2). Not to mention that 2006 protest with the amount of bullying and threats were quite apparent. Even so far for a deaf/hh person to phone in to the DPS at Gallaudet University a bomb threat.  None of these events, even the assaulting of Dr. I. King Jordan with fluids and a plastic bottle that struck him in the head, were ever spoken up by any the 2006 protest leaders among the faculty members condemning those kinds of actions. Being silent about all this spoke volumes.

I. King Jordan became the first deaf president in 1988 after a successful push to replace Zinser who was voted by a mostly hearing Board of Trustees to become the first hearing woman president at Gallaudet University.  However, it was better than nothing since I.King Jordan was never born deaf. Never grew up in a deaf family. He lost his hearing in a motorcycle accident at age 21.  A late deafened person who learned sign language as an adult and was forced into the world of silence. While as president of Gallaudet University (and even before then while as part of the Gallaudet University community) his method of communication was strongly oral along with signing or SimCom. Although he's been president for 19 years he announced his resignation which surprised and sadden many people. But it also woke up the monster inside of Gallaudet University as an opportunity to finally get a "Deaf-centric" president for the first time in Gallaudet University's history.

In 2006 the selection for president of Gallaudet University were down to three finalists of the presidential search process. Dr. Weiner, Ron Stearn and Dr. J.K. Fernandes. Both Dr. Weiner and Ron Stern grew up in a Deaf-centric family. Both of their parents were Deaf parents. Both knew ASL from the beginning of their life.

This 2006 protest has never really been about "diversity" but about ensuring "Deaf-centrism" be the ideological goal surpassing all other concerns one at a time. J.K. Fernandes saw what Gallaudet University is supposed to be, a campus that show true diversity which is opposite of what the goal of "Deaf-centricism" is about.

One person from Dana Point, California had this to say in a live chat with Dr. Jane K Fernandes with the Washington Post hosting it:

Dana Point, Calif.: Is it your intention to make Gallaudet University accessible to all modes of education for the deaf (i.e., ASL, SEE, Cued, Oralism, Rochester, Pidgin, etc.)? Lately, it has become ASL-only and I fear this may turn off some prospective students as CSUN and RIT have reported increased enrollment as a result.

Jane K. Fernandes: At Gallaudet, we plan to welcome all kinds of deaf students to campus. We will continue to uphold our bilingual ASL-English philosophy. In the future, as there will be many ways to be deaf, we will strengthen programs designed to teach Sign Language to deaf or hard of hearing students who don't know it and increase the level of support we provide to them.

Before I go further the definition of "deaf centricism" is certainly different from "deaf centric" from two different "ASL experts" who are culturally deaf.

Deaf centricism  is defined as "feeling proud as a deaf individual and become a capable citizen in a hearing society" according to Sandra Ammons, a noted ASL and Deaf Studies scholar. Versus the definition of "Deaf centric" by Ella Mae Lentz founder of Deafhood Foundation which is to mean anything from a pro-Deaf/ASL view:

There is also another term that's the same and that is "Deaf center."

Bridgetta Bourne-Firl advocated for a "Deaf centric" president in 2006. Clearly a show for others to realize that Jane K. Fernandes was never considered as a person who is "Deaf centric" is double-speak for "not culturally deaf enough."  Fernandes was born deaf to parents with a deaf mother and hearing father. Didn't learn sign language until the age of 23. Has a hearing husband. A very "oral person" when it comes to speaking much the same way I.King Jordan communicates signing and speaking at the same time. He was born hearing but lost it after a motorcycle accident at the age of 21.

President Hurwitz of Gallaudet University is considered a "Deaf-centric" person since he was born profoundly deaf and was born to deaf parents. He described himself in his Candidacy Presentation letter to Gallaudet University  emphasizing profoundly deaf where both of his parents were deaf.

WHO AM I?
I was born profoundly deaf. Both of my parents were deaf. That’s who I am. You all know what that means.

Yes. You know what that means. That means he's "Deaf-centric." He made clear that he socialized mostly with his deaf parents and their deaf friends while growing up at his home in Sioux City. There was a Deaf club that Hurwitz and everyone attended together nearly every week. A stark difference from I.K. Jordan and J.K. Fernandes' own upbringing not born to deaf parents or used ASL to communicate while growing up. Clearly there was a preference in the beginning that took shape on May 1, 2006 at the start of the DPN2 protest. Even during the very early stage of the protest Joey Baer even mocked at IKJ's SimCom signing in his own video that was quickly taken off of the internet which gave me a huge insight in the beginning on what this whole DPN2 protest was really about. Even Elisa Aubrecht made a comment about recognizing ASL and not SimCom.

ElisaWrites
POV: Entrenched with the protesters in their "tent-city" at the school's front gate, '06 grad Elisa Abuchuchan blogs about events as they happen. She says, "I personally support the protest but I try to present more factual information rather than my opinions."

FYI: Abuchuchan, a '06 graduate, has been blogging since the protests began on May 1. On some days, she posts 10 updates or more.

Sample post: "David Simmons and Christine Roschaert [on a hunger strike] talked to the crowd. They explained that they were starving for real, quality education. They are starving for linguistic equality, the university needs to recognize ASL as an official language, not sim-com. English classes and foreign language classes are required, but no ASL classes are required. They are starving for social justice. They are starving for a real president. Jordan and Fernandes’s goal is to divide and conquer, twisting things to the media. They are starving for the presidential search process to be reopened. They want a transparent process that includes the faculty, the staff, students, and alumni."

Now, what's interesting is that we have Dr. Angela McCaskill who signs in a fashion just like SimCom. Just as well, Dr. Angela McCaskill's own upbringing was also not of born to a culturally deaf family despite her two other sisters who are deaf as well along with two hearing brothers. Her signing clearly shows that much like I.K. Jordan and J.K. Fernandes when they all learned sign language as an adult.

I grew up in Mobile, Alabama. My parents were Willie McPherson (deceased) and Janie McCaskill, currently living in Mobile—both hearing. They never married; basically, I grew up in a single-parent household. I have three sisters and one brother. The first three are deaf and the last two are hearing. My oldest sister, Carolyn, is deaf and was the first Black Deaf Miss Gallaudet in 1976. She is a professor in the Department of ASL & Deaf Studies at Gallaudet and resides in Largo, Maryland. Jacqueline, who is also deaf, graduated from Gallaudet in 1978 and currently lives in Mobile. I am the third sibling and I am hard-of-hearing. My youngest sister, Sharrell, is hearing and currently works as the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Officer at Gallaudet. My brother is the last sibling, also hearing, and currently resides in Mobile.

I initially attended segregated public schools in Mobile during the 1960s and ’70s. My first experience with integration occurred in middle school where I attended Azalea Middle School and W.P. Davidson High School, both predominately white schools. I was very active and ran track. Even though I have always had a passion for cheerleading, I was not allowed to try out for the cheerleading team due to household chores after school (cleaning, cooking, babysitting, etc.)

I graduated from Davidson High in May 1976 and immediately enrolled at Alabama State University during the summer. In May 1980, I received my Bachelor of Science Degree [in Social Work]. I was very active at ASU. I ran track, played on the softball team, and was a cheerleader. My experience at ASU was the best days of my life. I moved to Washington, D.C. in 1980, immediately after graduating from ASU, and moved in with Carolyn. This was the beginning of a new era for me. I grew as a person when I became immersed in Deaf culture and the Deaf world. It has been my life since. I love it! Even though I have two Deaf sisters, I didn’t know American Sign Language growing up. I was fluent with the manual alphabet. I begin to learn ASL and made many new deaf friends. Ruth Reed and Pamela Baldwin were the two deaf friends that I met upon arrival in Washington. They took me under their wings and taught me ASL. I am forever grateful for their friendship and support, and we remain friends to this day, 31 years later!

One of her sister had a working relationship with J.K. Fernandes. On January 20, 2006 a memo written to I.King Jordan about a plan "Towards an Inclusive Deaf University: Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes for All Students" where Gallaudet’s future would rests on its ability to build an inclusive deaf university. Those who helped write the plan are:

Jane K. Fernandes, Judy Berglund, MJ Bienvenu, Jeffrey Hardison, Frances E. Kendall, Carolyn McCaskill, Jane Norman, and Leslie Page.

The link to the paper is located under a subfile called "faux-inclusion" on a website called Gally Protest.org. I suppose Gally Protest.org thinks the paper is no good which is funny since it advocates diversity and inclusiveness with better educational outcomes while still recognizing ASL and English. What are the odds that people will actually say that the paper is "flawed" or "no good"?

The three McCaskill sisters at Gallaudet University in high positions who are well respected in the Gallaudet community. And it's no wonder that president Hurwitz has backpedaled from the possibility of firing Dr. Angela McCaskill in the latest sinkhole phenomenon that threaten to swallow Gallaudet University. He'd be dealing with three McCaskills and not just one. Along with a very public and national backlash. Bad mojo.

It's interesting how these people with very similar backgrounds were targeted by supposedly the "true Deaf-centric" people for a variety of reasons.  All of these actions appear to be more likely targeted, perhaps subconsciously or consciously because for not being "Deaf-centric" enough. One has to wonder why some faculty members in very high positions took the time and effort to find Angela McCaskill's name in a petition she signed.  There's an agenda afoot and it's not quite abundantly clear but we can probably take a wild stab at it. Perhaps will know with better details in the future exactly the kind of relationships among these faculty members.

But, is this what you called "Shared Governance" at Gallaudet University? Punish them first and ask questions later? Whatever it is, it's a big mess in what seems to be a slog of an effect to push "Deaf-centric" values to the forefront at the expense of minimizing true diversity and potentially hurting Gallaudent University's own survival. The culturally deaf community is certainly at a cross road. What will people think, dear and hearing?

Addendum:

This is what Jane K. Fernandes said in 2008 in the UNC Asheville magazine who interviewed her after she became Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

“Protesters wanted to see a president with different characteristics than I had. Basically, I was not ‘deaf enough’ because I am able to move pretty easily between the deaf and hearing world. I speak English. I sign ASL. They really wanted someone who was more totally a member of deaf culture to represent them,” 

Indeed. Some people would agree.