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?
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.
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.
Yes, discrimination (and even oppression! keep reading) occurs everywhere, even at Gallaudet University by some of their own deaf and hard of hearing people whether coming from students, faculty or the staff. Discrimination is probably more pronounced against hard of hearing students than not for reasons that will be made clear below. Discrimination can happen consciously or subconsciously as in the recent McCaskill case but for an entirely different reason.
What brought me to this discrimination problem was an old Buff and Blue article "This is Gallaudet" electronically printed two and half years ago. I noticed a comment left by a parent of a hard of hearing son that made me think.
My son is a HOH rural- always mainstreamed-student. No ASL ever offered. The last thing he needs is another place he won’t be accepted without “conditions”.
At least he knows what he is up against at a “hearing school”. Was so hopeful that this college could be a welcome break from discrimination for being who he is. I am so disappointed that “adults” act in this manner- especially ones who have been horribly discriminated against as he has been. He has worked so incredibly hard- zero possibility of being torn apart in DC.
What prompted this response was due in part of the article's coverage on "Deaf Zone" or "Deaf Space" which are essentially designated signing only zones on campus, no voice allowed. A clear act of discrimination good intention aside.
Let's step back a moment here.
One reason why I attended Gallaudet University (1988 - 1991) was to learn sign language and be around deaf/hh students who are like myself, a hard of hearing person whose identity is through speaking and listening while growing up and continuing through adulthood. I met my goal and made many friends who are hoh just like me. Just as well, I made friends who are culturally deaf who grew up with a deaf family or grew up signing. I was not about to lose my identity as a hard of hearing person who grew up loving to listen and speak once I stepped inside the "golden gates" of Gallaudet University. No. My goal was to learn about Gallaudet University, the students and faculty there, the signing environment, the deaf culture, improve my signing and to finish my degree as quickly as possible which I did in 3 years time. I gained a language and a new perspective but that doesn't mean I had to change my own identity that I've always been comfortable with. My preferred mode of communication is and will always be speaking and listening in my own native English language with the help of my hearing aid. If I'm around deaf people who know sign language, I'll sign. Not a problem. If I want to do a presentation and there are interpreters and/or real time captioners available, I'll use my voice to do the presentation. Not a problem since the message wouldn't be lost on the deaf, hard of hearing and hearing audience whose own mode of communication preferences and comfort zones vary from one person to another. They can either listen to my presentation and get supplementary help with the live captioning at the same time. Or combine those with the interpreter signing. Or rely on just the captioning part alone for those who are weak with sign language and cannot hear/understand well the spoken words. Or preferably rely on the interpreter as their preferred communication access. Everybody gets accommodated. Everybody wins!
This "Deaf Space" concept might sound great at the surface but poking deeper into it presents potentially deeper problems depending on who you ask.
(Chris) Heuer stated that “there is one specific attitude that needs to change. If a non-signer is willing to learn sign, hands off! Let them learn in freedom. Help them. Include them. Make them a part of the community pride. If we exclude them, where else will they learn sign? How can we expect them to sign if we never interact with them?”
“ASL is an official language like English, and it cannot be mastered overnight. We can’t force everyone to sign outside of the academic buildings and in private, like the dorms and the cafeterias. Imagine telling deaf people at a hearing school (or even oral schools back in the days) that they could not use their native language, sign language, to communicate. Would they like that? No. Now imagine telling hearing people not to talk — which is their native mode of communication — outside of the classroom,” said a hard-of-hearing student who chose to stay anonymous.
Exactly, which is why trying to enforce these "Deaf Zones" would be fruitless and even counter-productive depending on where these zones would be and who they are targeted for. In the same article Amanda Koski, a hearing student at Gallaudet University, commented:
Amanda Koski on said:
I agree with Sara 100%! Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle. The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful! To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now?
Here is the thing.
Native language through talking/listening isn't just for hearing people only but for hard of hearing people who grew up with English as their native language and are comfortable with it. That's key. They must be comfortable with it. There are hard of hearing students who are comfortable talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students, faculty or even staff or even among other hard of hearing people who can or prefer to speak and listen. It is a part of their identity, too. It doesn't do anybody any good to try and suppress or constrain their identities.
While as a student at Gallaudet University I've even requested several times, in their own private offices and elsewhere, for a hearing instructor or a staff member to not sign but simply speak which made conversations so much easier and faster. I have that right to request that kind of accommodation if I feel that signing simply "gets in the way." All hard of hearing students want are better accommodations to go with their education at Gallaudet University like access to CART, note-takers, voice-interpreters, and so on like they would expect the same kind of accommodations at any other universities. This is so students won't be constrained completely in ASL only with no other accommodations to help fill the missing communication gap for those new or struggling with sign language. Eventually they will catch up. They like to be able to understand, get the full communication access, and participate just like everybody else. Understanding only a third or half of what was signed doesn't help anybody's education.
Next is Jonathan Beattyon, a hard of hearing student, who expressed himself well about the problems hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University facing prejudice and discrimination against them.
Jonathan Beattyon November 29, 2010 at 3:12 PM said:
Terrific. Some of the points here are points I make on a daily basis; specifically, the point about the new students not being told about the so-called darker side of Deaf culture. I have found the culture here to be somewhat exclusionary at times.
I’ll explain myself: I’m hard-of-hearing and have been since birth. However, I “fit in” in the hearing world well. Face-to-face communication is easy enough for me (even though using the phone is painfully difficult with some voices) that I did not *have* to come to Gallaudet. However, I’ve had good experiences with the Academic Bowl, having come to Nationals three times. I was always met with respect and patience, even though during the competition I used a voice interpreter. I came to Gallaudet as a new signer (in the summer program as well) expecting similar treatment.
Ha! I was wrong.
In only the third day of the New Signers’ Program, my table at lunch was approached by a proud Deaf girl who proceeded to tell us (with a good friend of mine translating for my benefit, of course) that Gallaudet was a Deaf university and that we should only sign while on campus. Those competent in ASL at the table were sim-comming, but two of us were just speaking. At that point, I knew letters, numbers, and days of the week, along with a smattereing of other useful signs (“right”, “wrong”, “day”, “morning”, etc) so I was not pleased at being told that my language skills were not good enough to be allowed to express myself.
I am also offended that it’s somehow right for people to criticize my signing skills just because they are Deaf. It’s well-accepted on campus and seen as being just a sign of “Deaf bluntness”. I’m sick of it; I do make an effort to improve my signing skills, but what if I were to laugh at a Deaf person trying to order food at McDonald’s: “Your speaking is awful. You should practice more.” That would be completely unacceptable.
The argument from tradition is a very, very poor one. Something is not good just because that’s how it’s traditionally been done. Some examples of “cultural traditions” here that I have come to abhor:
1. The cultural policy on phones. I personally do not have voice on my phone (when I use the phone, I prefer to do so on Skype with my amplified headphones and equalizer). That being said, if someone wants to use the phone, let them. Is it right to sit at the table with Deaf people and speak on the phone? No, and for the same reason that it would be inappropriate for me to greet a phone call from my friend Hans with “Tag, Hans! Wie geht’s?” and proceed to rattle off in German while surrounded by English-speaking hearing people.
2. The repression of simultaneous communication. Yes, I said it. The point is communication; when you get stuck in the game of being prideful in something just because it’s part of *your* culture, you’re playing the same stupid games oppressive people have always played. I’d like to be able to understand lectures and be able to participate. For the same reasons that Deaf students in mainstream schools do not typically participate in classes (linguistic processing is slow with or without the interpreter) I find it difficult to participate in a class when, by the time I understand what was signed, the conversation has already moved on. I do not think deaf people should be encouraged to sim-com if they’re not comfortable with it, not at all. However, I must say that I’m always appreciative when someone notices my poor signing skills and sim-coms for my benefit.
3. The oppression of signs with “No, that’s English”; a lot of people on campus sign with an English structure anyway. That’s what happens in bilingual environments. It is very rare to see two languages side-by-side without “contamination”; Deaf English typically is missing things like articles, plurals, etc while Hearing ASL can contain signs which are, strictly speaking, completely unnecessary in a sign language. This occurs even when the people in question are fluent in both languages. There is a line between comfortable language and formal language; “Pidgin Signed English” is that line for a *lot* of students of all backgrounds.
And with all due respect to President Hurwitz, I must say I disagree strongly with this comment:
“And no, this is not about stifling speech or marginalizing those whose signing skills are undeveloped. Rather, it’s about respect, courtesy, tradition and harmony.”
I don’t care what it’s about. I am more concerned with what it DOES. These policies DO stifle speech and they DO marginalize those whose signing skills are underdeveloped. Your intentions are irrelevant.
Their intentions are indeed irrelevant (i.e. the making of "Deaf Space") when you still have those kinds of problems discrimination against hard of hearing (and hearing) students whose identities are quite diametrically different than those who grew up signing in a deaf family. Discrimination is alive and well on campus of Gallaudet University. It's certainly not harmony in the making if new hard of hearing students come on campus, new to signing or have rudimentary signing skills become shocked at the pervasiveness of how some deaf people treat them according to their speaking/listening and/or signing abilities.
“We all know and accept that Gallaudet is a bilingual university. Communication here happens through American Sign Language (ASL) and English. While the expectation that everyone on campus becomes fluent in both languages within a reasonable amount of time, the reality is that some people, however diligent, take longer to master one or the other language.”
And if you don't like the idea of people using SimCom then consider former interim president Robert Davila who used his voice and signed at the same time for those who were never aware of it. You can see (and hear) in the video below at time stamp from 1:15 to 2:01 with president Davila using his voice while signing in sign supported English. Also note in the video deaf/hh people signing and mouthing the words at the same time, oftentimes in English order. Pure ASL? Not really. Signed English, sign-supported English or PSE? Sure. Question: How does president Hurwitz sign?
From the NTID page "Raising and Educating a Deaf Child" Mark Marschark of NTID (author of Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students) responded to a question "Can you tell me what the story is on sign-supported English?" (note the highlighted yellow bold words below) which I think is something that seriously need to be discussed, explored, researched and studied more:
I know, I know, everyone says that sign-supported English (SSE) and simultaneous communication (SimCom) – both involving speech and sign at the same time – are bad. On the theoretical/political side, people point out that neither is truly a language unto itself, and argue that they therefore are “inappropriate.” Empirically, people point to two studies, both done over 20 years ago, which found that several teachers and parents of young deaf children said more than appeared on their hands (by anywhere from 20 to 50%). The sign abilities of those parents and teachers were never examined, however, and some people are extremely good at SSE (or whatever language) and SimCom. Research over the past 30 years has shown that when teachers are highly skilled at SSE or SimCom, students learn just as much or more than with ASL from a teacher, interpreting, or spoken language alone. In our own work, we’ve recently have found the same thing, as deaf college students learned exactly the same amount when they had teachers using SimCom, voice-off ASL, or utilizing interpreters.Importantly, these were skilled teachers of the deaf, who had been using SimCom for many years with classes that included oral students, ASL students, and everything in between. Although it frequently is not discussed (at least in public) many deaf students request teachers to use SimCom and ask interpreters to include “English on the lips.” It seems likely that SimCom would be particularly beneficial for children with cochlear implants, who generally do not receive auditory input as clear as that received by hearing children.
Unfortunately, the unearned stigma associated with SSE/SimCom seems to have prevented anyone from doing the appropriate study. Meanwhile, both are used effectively in many classrooms, even if students use a natural sign language or spoken language in other settings. What is essential is that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have early access to fluent language. That usually is difficult with spoken language alone and most parents are not fluent in sign. So, SimCom/SSE might be helpful in ensuring communication for new-signing parents, but this DOES NOT mean that SimCOM/SSE can replace full access to a natural language (actually, there isn’t research one way or another). The issue clearly is more complex than we can deal with here.
I thank the math and physics professors and other professors I had while a student at Gallaudet University for speaking and signing at the same time, it'd made my early years at Gallaudet University easier to transition and be able to participate better.
Hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University who feel that they are being discriminated or even oppressed because of their native language (spoken English) as their primary or preferred mode of communication need to stand up against these internal prejudices and discrimination on campus by voicing their concerns. By doing so helps raise greater awareness of the problems that still persist on the campus of Gallaudet University. They just want to be accommodated like everybody else and be able to participate while in the process of learning and using sign language.
Here's a video of a song that is signed using the ASL version versus the SEE/English (signed English word order) version. The music is "Do I" by Luke Bryan signed by Allyballybabe. Here is what she has to say between the two signed versions.
I wanted to show the differences between ASL and SEE/English. There is a HUGEEEE difference, and hopefully this helps to see that. SEE and English SL are NOT languages. ASL, however, IS a language! Enjoy!
When searching for YouTube vids, be sure to take notice of if it is REALLY ASL, or if it's SEE/English that is mislabeled.. There are LOTS of SEE/English YouTubers out there. If you're wanting TRUE ASL, take caution..
Click on YouTube to get to her site containing the lyrics in English and in ASL gloss.
I agree. There is a stark difference. Just like that female astronaut who signed in PSE/SE/SEE (i.e. English word order) and certainly not in ASL. And thus no one can claim that first ASL was signed in outer space. Nearly 75% of those who answered my poll agreed that the female astronaut signed in an English word order format whether it's PSE, SEE, or SE. The point is that the majority saw the astronaut signed in English, not ASL which has a markedly different grammar and syntax than English. So, it's the signed English word order (whether it's PSE, SE, or SEE) that made into outer space. American Sign Language (ASL) never made it into outerspace but sign language did. So, don't call it ASL but sign language. It may be awhile til a true ASL signing astronaut will be seen from outer space. Meanwhile, let's celebrate the fact that sign language made its first debut in outer space in 2010!
Calling PSE or English order signing as ASL where Patti said that "ASL has even made it into outerspace" by a female astronaut signing inside a space ship to mother Earth?
But the astronaut is signing in Signed English (SE) but not in ASL according to Dianrez and Boutcher.
Yet SE, according to, um, experts say it's not a language, so it cannot be ASL though it falls under the same category as PSE and SEE as signing in English word order.
Right now it seems to me that most signers regularly use English word order in their signing as part of their visual language of communication rather than strictly in ASL. Perhaps those who took the survey poll might be confused as thinking their signing is in ASL but in reality uses more English word order (e.g. PSE, SE, SEE) than they care to admit and perhaps their signing actually fall under the category as either SE, SEE or even PSE? Perhaps like David or Don, for example?
People seriously need to make up their minds instead of making things up along the way in the effort to tout ASL as the all encompassing signing umbrella by those who sign in SE, PSE or even SEE just so they can put a few more notches on their ASL bedpost and call those signing as "ASL." All of sudden it appears we're seeing these incestuous relationships happening among many culturally deaf people in their exhaustive efforts to label just about any signing, part and parcel, as "ASL."
Here's a clue.
Just don't call any English word order signing as "ASL" if you're adamant of calling them as "not a language." Just call it sign language instead. Now, when you sign ask yourself, "Am I really signing strictly in ASL or am I just fooling myself here calling it as ASL?"
Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle.
The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful!
To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now?