Remember AB2072...?

Remember AB2072?  That was three years ago when the brouhaha started.

Remember the veto of that bill and the reason why?  Refresh your memory here.  And how that bill could have created a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid option for language and communication access?

Remember how happy those culturally deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed by the governor of California?

Do you also remember in the AB2072 bill it referred to California's Department of Education as one of the multi-agency that support the Early Start Program?  And how they would provide a packet of information on "Communicating with Your Child" with information about local, state and national resources and how the Dept. Health Care Services web site provides links to local, state, and national resources regarding deaf and hard of hearing children as stated in the bill ?

Remember in 2010 the year when AB2072 came out in California the Department of California did not have a position statement on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing? Do you realize that the CDE has now posted their position statement on their website two days ago?

Do you realize in their position statement what the Department supports in terms of language and communication access?

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the language(s) they will use in raising their children.

and

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the communication tool(s) they will use in raising their children.

and more importantly on the choices,

Believes that parents should not be compelled to choose between spoken and signed language. They may choose to use both.

Remember those who were against the AB2072 bill stated their reason why?

The opposition argues that the focus of this bill about "communication options" is misleading and picking one option over another would only rob the child of the ability and opportunity for full language acquisition.

Do you want to read California Department of Education's position statement on language access again on the parents' right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf or hard of hearing child on language choice and communication access?

Remember how happy those deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed the one opportunity on creating a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid language option as a beginning foundation? How does that reconcile with the fact today that CDE now supports the right of deaf and hard of hearing children to have early access to a complete language, visual OR spoken, from birth? This mean CDE would support a deaf child with a cochlear implant or a hard of hearing child with a hearing aid to have early access to the spoken language only. Or that a child can visually sign in SEE. Even CUED speech would be a valid option. CDE position statement does not say they support early access to a complete visual language (i.e. ASL) which is what NorCal wanted in the first place.  Instead, CDE supports early language access either visual OR spoken, OR both.

Here's the funny thing if not ironic by now was that in the beginning the Deaf Newborn Identification and Advocacy (DNIA) strongly recommended changing the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening program by putting the Early Start under the California Department of Education.

Early Start should be under the state entity that is best fitted to provide oversight and coordinate early intervention services: The California Department of Education (CDE). The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) should not be involved at all, unless a child in a particular case is developmentally disabled.

And

The CDE should be the entity responsible for designing an appropriate resource guide-handbook...

The DNIA states that ASL should only be the first option from the start along with reading and writing English with an emphasis on shifting away from the ear and the spoken language (i.e. aurally and orally) and that they are to be secondary in a deaf or hard of hearing child's life. But the CDE,

Emphasizes that the purpose of Early Start for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing is to ensure that these children acquire age appropriate language skills to enable them to do well in school and career.

Nothing is said that ASL should be the language of choice for deaf or hard of hearing children but rather that the language could either be spoken OR visual, OR both as determined by their parents when they make their informed decision.

How does it feel to have a hole in your foot now that California Department of Education has solidified their position on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, and Early Start?  Sounds like both CDE and DDS are very much in the same camp regarding their positions and philosophies for deaf and hard of hearing children.

Ain't that wonderful?

When hearing people complain of their communication rights

You think only deaf people do this? Here's a case of hearing people complain about not having communication access with deaf people. In this particular case you had a deaf federal employee who preferred only an interpreter but the interpreter was only available once a week for one hour leaving the rest of the 39 hours without an interpreter during the work week.  This deaf employee has access to a typing communication device that would allow him/her to communicate to a hearing person face to face but refused to use it. Hearing federal employees were all too willing to use the typing device to communicate fully with their deaf employee. The refusal by this deaf employee to use the easy to use face to face communication device puts the work of everyone else in the office on hold for 39 hours. By doing that, the deaf employee also takes away the hearing employees’rights to communicate, ironically so. So, who is hurting who here? A case of a selfish deaf employee?

Global Microbrand

There is a new concept in the business world called "global microbrand" that was coined several years back. For those not familiar with the phrase it basically means in a niche market you have a brand that sells all over the world but not yet at the tipping point on being able to produce in massive quantity the product being sold. There are some deaf-owned businesses that does this on their own designing, making and selling their own technology products. sComm is one of those very few businesses that does that. And by saying "very few" it's a true statement around here. sComm has a global microbrand called the "UbiDuo" which has been sold worldwide and it continues to grow. No matter how small or big this niche market is as long as there is big enough interest in a product there's money to be made and profited. In this case the UbiDuo has been proven to be a money maker ever since the first year it debuted.

sComm began as a company in 2002 and debut the UbiDuo communication device on April 22, 2006 at DeafNation. Jason Curry, who is deaf and the CEO of sComm, never looked back once his product took off that year and saw sales rise each year. It has been 5 years since the opening day when the UbiDuo was made available to the public. Most new businesses do not survive past 5 years and go out of business. But sComm is nothing but normal as a business in an economy that has been suffering for the last few years. In fact, in a depressed economy sComm is actually thriving because people are quickly finding out the value of 100% accessible communication of the English language. 

Looking back 5 years ago the year when UbiDuo first exploded into the conscious minds of many deaf people you had your naysayers and detractors on this new technology, a soon to be global microbrand. You had your deaf techno geeks and so called "experts" who derided and made fun of the Ubiduo and the CEO of sComm for making that communication device seeing it as "worthless" and not "doable."  This was a product I recognized several years back seeing it as potentially a valuable communication device for deaf people. A niche market I knew that Jason Curry, the CEO, could easily help fill not just in the United States but worldwide for deaf users who know English. And that's a lot of people my friends. Not really so "niche-y" if you think about it.

I first heard about the upcoming communication device back in 2004 from Jason Curry, CEO of sComm. Even the people at NIH was impressed with Jason's vision that his company was awarded a $1.3 million dollar grant in February of 2005 to help fund the Phase II of sComm's product that would enable face-to-face communication betweeen deaf and hearing people, and between people in other communication-challenged situations.

Again, you had those deaf self-appointed techno-geeks and so called "experts" on technology and communication laugh at Jason's vision and product only to be proven wrong year after year after year.  Jason easily made fools of those so called "experts" in the world of micro branding. The superb quality that goes behind every Ubiduo stands on its own. I've seen it with my own eyes which validated my strong belief that Jason's vision was right on the mark that this communication device can help deaf people communicate effortlessly with hearing people. And that alone could potentially help a deaf person's own career as well with the ability to effortlessly interact with hearing people.

But in a world of deaf people who rely on sign language to communicate where some have been resistant and one-minded that they must have interpreters  24/7 available to them in order to communicate with their hearing peers, friends, co-workers, supervisors or bosses, that idea simply will not work in all cases. Not everybody can have the luxury on having a personal interpreter shadow you all day long like Marlee Matlin's own personal interpreter.  Don't get me wrong, having an interpreter is quite important in many cases but having or demanding an interpreter in nearly every single situation doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the world of business where English is king. Most of your co-workers, supervisors, clients and customers are hearing people who use English to communicate on a daily basis whether on paper or by voice. It makes good business sense to interact with hearing people using English on a daily basis.

Let me ask you this question.

What would you say about a deaf worker who worked as a greeter at Sam's Club for 12 years without having any other responsibilities or promotion? What would you say upon learning about a deaf worker who obtained a piece of communication technology called the "UbiDuo" that allowed him access to hearing customers and because of that technology he was promoted three times and now supervises 20 hearing people in a space of a few years? How much would you pay for that piece of technology that would allow you to interact and communicate with hearing people where signing isn't involved nor required?

Before you answer that there's a sobering reality what many culturally deaf people do not realize in the world of business.  In the United States in one federal agency with 37 deaf employees it had to spend $2.7 million dollars a year on interpreting fees alone.  On average that turns out to be $73,000 per year for each deaf person. In a time of budget cuts, downsizing and rising unemployment rates the bottom line has become quite apparent for all federal agencies, state government agencies and companies in lean times all over the world, and not just in the United States. There are efforts underway by companies and such to find ways to help control their cost , especially among those who are not so "English-impaired" and can communicate using English instead of acting like helpless people who don't know a lick of English and demand sign language interpreters in every possible or impossible scenarios.

Deaf people have a choice. Either they take the reign and show what they're capable of by showing their independence on their capability to interact with hearing people. Or become overly dependent on interpreters when their English is sufficient to communicate in the first place in face to face scenarios. If you can chat online, use the email, use the TTY, go on discussion forums over the internet and type everything in English, then certainly you have the capability to use the UbiDuo instead of using interpreters as a crutch.  Either you can stand up and speak for yourself in your own words or have a third person do the speaking for you all the time. The choice is really yours to make.

My first language? English. Thank God!

My thots for the day.

In response to a question in a popular deaf/hh forum a question was asked what was your first language. I chimed in and said, "English, thank god!" And it's true with my background and upbringing I am quite thankful of the fact that my first language is the English language. Yet, a few forum members had a beef with my comment and proceeded to attack me for making a such benign comment. A sure sign of insecurity on their part. Suppose it would've been better for them to see me say instead, "English, omg, I wish it was never my first language!! I'm cursed!"

Look folks, if you're confident and happy with your language as your first language growing up then that's fine. I am truly thankful and grateful that my first language growing up has been the English language in the spoken, listening and written formats. I guess it is just a fact that some people are a wee tad bit too sensitive over my comment thanking the fact that my first language was (and still is) the English language in a deaf/hh forum.

Hypocrisy? Double Standards? You be the judge.

The one common language that all Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people in the United States have immediate access to on the internet is the printed English language.

Now, tell me. I'm utterly befuddled with this glaringly and obvious conundrum by those screaming about Deaf Village's #5 requirement (submitted video entries require a texted version). Why hasn't there been a collective hue and cry over Deaf bloggers for not including ASL video versions of their blog entries? Deaf bloggers have been doing this for years. Ridor is a good example who have purposely ignored those who want/require/need an ASL video version of the written texted entries. He is, after all, a well known and favored Deaf blogger. No? What about DeafRead? They failed to provide an ASL video version in their guidelines and elsewhere! Boy, talk about not having "mutual respect." And yet no one is screaming bloody murder over that one? What about Gallaudet University's website for not including ASL video versions with all of their texted versions? And NTID? Or other Deaf websites? Why not the outrage over these bloggers and websites? It's because everybody knows that English is the one common language that is immediately accessible to the largest group of people, including Deaf. So by eliminating the texted version requirement would not fit the philosophy of Deaf Village on providing the most common form communication access. The printed English language is that common ground we all have.

Now, until people start addressing the issue of "non-compliance" committed by Deaf bloggers, Deaf websites, Gallaudet University's websites, NTID, DeafRead, etc, for not including ASL video versions of their texted entries then those people "might" have a leg to stand on with their complaints. Otherwise trying to spin it in the direction of Deaf Village on not having that "mutual respect" would be nothing but a hypocrite response. I'd say that'd be a heck of an Achilles Heel right there by those making that complaint. I'm sorry to say this but people need to look into their own Deaf mirrors before making those charges of double standards. Go after the Deaf bloggers first for a change because these bloggers ought to know better to include ASL video versions of their texted entries. Right?

Ok. I'm being quite facetious and sarcastic, obviously so, but I'm trying to make a point here, and I apologize to those who may feel offended by my comments here. But if people are going to make charges of "double standards" then please apply those same charges to the many Deaf bloggers and Deaf websites for not including an ASL video version of their texted entries. Else you end up looking like a hypocrite.

Deaf Village's target audience isn't only just Deaf people but people with heairng loss from all stripes and those who want to learn more about deafness and read about deaf/hh people experiences. But the bottom line in all this is that the one common language shared by all is the English language.

UPDATE I (a response):

Tony wrote:

Secondly, Ridor’s blog is a personal site, which is different to deaf village which is an
“aggregator”. Once again, the terms for access are different.

Um, Tony. That kind of reasoning doesn't fly which you infer that an aggregator site has an obligation to help ensure access. Not in the case of any aggregator business. People are saying that DV should somehow be obligated to provide a captioning or transcripting service for Deaf vloggers which are also personal blog sites in the form of videos. If an argument is going to be used in the attempt to somehow exempt Deaf bloggers or Deaf websites from their responsibilities on providing text versions of their ASL video blogs then it won't work if they scream in the same breath that they are entitled to these captioning demands simply flies in the face of incredulity. Else they'd be walking hypocrites. It's also called a "non sequitur" with that kind of reasoning.

So, for the case of Deaf Village you are saying, Tony, in fact, that Deaf Village should somehow provide a text version of vloggers' ASL video blogs so that they can be submitted properly? If so, then certainly DeafRead should also provide subtitles or transcripts for videos by those who speak and want to share his/her opinions to the Deaf masses on deafness issues supposing the person doesn't know how to type or don't know how to do subtitling. Ok. A far-fetched scenario but still equally applicable on the DeafRead side. The resources are simply not there to address these concerns. So, the onus or responsibility still falls on the person making the video to ensure access in the form of a text version. The responsibility does not fall on the content aggregator site when it comes to providing captions/subtitles or transcripts. It's the individuals. That's already clear.

Secondly, everybody knows that English is the one common language that is immediately accessible to the largest group of people, including Deaf. So by eliminating the text version requirement it would not fit the philosophy of DV on helping provide the most common form communication access. And that would be the printed English language which is that common ground we all share.

Now, if Deaf Village (or even DeafRead) or a future aggregator site had the resources, the time, the people and the money I'm sure they would be all too happy to provide a service to help include captions/subtitles or transcript for vloggers' ASL video blogs in order to stay compliant with DV's philosophy on equal communication access. The English language in the printed format is, again, the most common form of communication access that is accessible to the majority of people out there, including Deaf. Guideline #5 is there for a reason, to ensure that readers who do come to DV's content aggregator site will be ensured that whatever mode of communication used in blogs and vlogs will be seen in English.

Now, supposing a service is available for free, will Deaf vloggers take up this service and ensure that their ASL video blogs be captioned in English so that the larger audience can access their video blogs? Or will they take the "purity" route like Tayler did and forego any captioning because it "ruins" or "distract" those who watch ASL vlogs keeping to the mantra of ASL-only videos? Remember, these availble resources do take time, money and people power to make it work.