Discrimination against hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University

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 November 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM 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.

President Hurwitz was correct when he noted the variety of signing skills among students at Gallaudet University:

 “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.”

President Hurwitz of Gallaudet University also re-iterated on Sept 7, 2010 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.

You see that? "All forms of communication."

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.  

For full discussion of what we know and what we don’t know, see Spencer, P.E. & Marschark, M. (in press). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York: Oxford University Press.

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.

What Dr. Paddy Ladd said versus Dr. Gallaudet on 1880 Milan Congress

With thanks to Candy who provided some crucial quotes of Dr. Paddy Ladd in the first chapter of his book.

Paddy Ladd:

What could a Deaf person, a Deaf community become?

What could we have been had not sign language and Deaf teachers been removed from Deaf education after the Milan ‘Congress’ of 1880?

What could we have been had we not been forced to endure more than a century of English illiteracy, self-shame and stigma?

Who and what were we in the centuries before such prohibitions descended, when Deaf Professionals and Deaf pride was reputedly much stronger?

And, what can we bring forward from those times which might inform the fledging steps we must take in this 21st century?

Dr. Paddy Ladd is a British bloke who wrote a thesis from the point of view as a British person relevant to his experience in his country versus an American person in his/her own country. But let's look at what Dr. EM Gallaudet said in 1886 to Lord Egerton during a question and answer session with Dr. Gallaudet.

The most damning quote by Dr. Gallaudet to Lord Egerton in 1886? (6 years later after the Milan Convention of 1880)

"I am not aware that the opinion or the practice of any teacher in America, or of any school in America, has been changed by this action of the Milan Convention."

That is in direct opposition to claims today that deaf people (i.e. signers) were harmed by the Milan Convention decision in the United States.  Gallaudet and many others at the time rejected such a recommendation by the Milan Convention on oral method only route.

But here's an interesting twist, Dr. Gallaudet advocated for the use of the oral method in America as well. It was to be included with all other teaching and communication methods at the time.


32 Abingdon Street, Westminster.
Wednesday, 10th November, 1886.
Present: The Eight Hon. The LORD EGERTON OF TATTON In The Chair.


Source.

You have Lord Egerton asking questions to Dr. EM Gallaudet in 1886. This was done 6 years after the Milan Convention of 1880.  Note the bold sections. The red color ones are the more interesting quotes.

13.306. Lord Egerton: I see that a number of resolutions were arrived at by that Congress, and I think the Commission would be very glad to know if you could give us some idea of the opinion of those in America best calculated to express an opinion upon the results arrived at at that Congress?

Gallaudet: The feeling in America was that the resolutions adopted by that Convention, giving a formal approval to the pure oral method, were not entitled to very great weight. The Convention was far from being a representative body. I mean to say that there was no basis of representation, so that a particular institution or a particular country should be considered as being represented by a certain number of delegates. My own opinion at the time was, and nothing has since occurred to change it, that the decision of the Convention at Milan as regards the pure oral system, as expressed in these resolutions, was not to be taken as of very great weight in determining questions of method, and that opinion was entertained by a very large majority of the teachers of the deaf in America, including many who taught then and teach now on the oral method. In justice to the few who hold to a different opinion I should say there were some teachers in America who accepted the decision of the Milan Convention as expressing their views. I am not aware that the opinion or the practice of any teacher in America, or of any school in America, has been changed by this action of the Milan Convention.

13.307. Lord Egerton: May I take it that from your own experience the combined system, with as much vocalization as can be added, is the method that you would recommend !

Dr. Gallaudet: I should say oral teaching should be included.

13.308. Lord Egerton: Is that the method which is recommended in America today?

Dr. Gallaudet: That is the method which is recommended by the resolutions which I had the honor to read to the Commission yesterday, as coming from the largest Convention that has ever been held in America, and at which all methods were represented. My views are in accordance with the recommendations in those- resolutions, and I have held those views during now a period of 19 years. I may say frankly, that my experience prior to that time was such as to lead me to depreciate and undervalue the oral teaching of the deaf, and I wrote and spoke and worked as a manual teacher purely up to 1867 ; but when I then visited Europe and examined the oral schools, especially in Germany, I became satisfied that I had failed to grasp the situation theretofore, and I accepted at once the addition of the oral method as a necessity in any system that aimed to reach the highest good of the deaf.

So, the acceptance of the oral method today shouldn't be a problem. but the today's approach, understanding, and advance in technology are light years away from that of in 1886. Yet the signing is still recommended to be included. No harm in that but I must re-iterate that an informed decision is still up to the parents. Parents still hold the trump cards. All we can hope is at parents are adequately informed to make an important but informed decision.

Using the Milan Convention of 1880 as a scape-goat in order to blame the so called harm to the signing community does not hold that much weight. Competiting ideas on educational and communication approaches were a continual and dynamic process over the last 130 years since the Milan Convention of 1880. In each respective ideological practices it has become more refined along with increased knowledge and confidence in their area of expertise on AVT, SEE, ASL, MANUAL, CUED SPEECH, AUDITORY or ORAL approaches today combined with the use of hearing aids or cochlear implants that helps improve the acquisition of the spoken and auditory language.  What we now know today along with the advances in hearing technology cannot be compared to the thinking of the 1880s and rudimentary approaches with limited knowledge on educational practices and approaches. There is simply no comparison to be made in terms of equivalency here between two very different eras.

None.

The old adage that's true today is that there is no one shoe size that fits all for people with hearing loss from mild to profound hearing loss.  That philosophical approach is adequate today but not in 1886. Yet sign language is still a very important communication approach (even language) for people with hearing loss and those who don't have hearing loss.

The problem today is that some Deaf people are simply addicted with this whole scapegoating efforts doing the constant blame game in the name of Deaf politics rather than simply focus on positive examples and let that shine through. Which is why today I continue to say, "Deafhood? No thanks." You need to understand from my point of view as to why I say that. It's simple. It's these stupid Deaf politics that get in the way of. Sort of like refusing to agree to disagree but instead prefer to throw a temper tantrum on the floor for the world to see.

I don't judge people on their preference to use or not use their voice. Same goes for signing preferences. And the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants. Nor do I go behind closed doors and do all these Salem witch trials to determine (i.e. the extreme audacity) whether if this or that person is "Deaf-centric" enough in the name of "deafhood." When that happens you KNOW those people are brainwashed and fervently ideological who do not realize the consequences of making those kinds of inquiries can have. That's one of the reason why segregation and discrimination are happening behind closed doors.  And that "deafhood" has become about politics and ideology and nothing about acceptance for what they are instead focus on "who" they are. This is true for CAD (California Association of the Deaf) when they proposed to use the "deafhood" requirement in order to be a member (see video below).

Can we say "segregation" now? Can we say "discrimination" now? Can we say that those people simply do not accept people with hearing loss by focusing on what they are?

This "deafhood" ideology is now becoming the new "McArthyism." It's no longer a philosophical concept but it has now become a required practice.




Basic summary of that video.

*CAD requires members to be a part of "deafhood."

*Must take workshops in order to qualify as officers of CAD.

*Says it is discrimination if one says "no thanks to deafhood" and cannot run for officer of CAD.

*Medical view of "deafhood" - everything is always about improving our lives, who are they to tell us what shouldn't be or should be.


I'll include more summary briefs for those who don't know sign language later on.

A video on mainstreamed kids

The story of seven mainstreamed deaf/hh kids with their hearing aids and cochlear implants. Oral and aural education enables children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to listen and talk with success and confidence. Technology plays a huge role while parents play an equally but perhaps larger role on helping ensure this success and confidence.

Terminological Inexactitude

I love this phrase, "terminological inexactitude." It doesn't quite roll off of your tongue but it's not really a tongue twister, either. It's a phrase coined by a genius Winston Churchill which is basically about a play on words in the effort to imply certain things. A tactical misrepresentation done on purpose. In short, making an outright lie, sort of, when you know it isn't true. It's making a charge but purposely being fuzzy about it but an appeal to emotion instead. Kind of like when a deaf person calls another deaf person using the popular a-wordism over and over but not use any specific names. Even words like "deficit thinkers," too. Or "colonialized." Just gets nutty when that happens. An example of a terminological inexactitude of a Deaf person against Deaf/deaf/hh people is to say that certain "hearing impaired misguided colonialized bloggers to mislead the public that my ambition should be suppressed."

Repeat, rinse often, and hope that people will actually believe what you say.

It's the overuse of certain words in the effort to create an emotional appeal. Here's one non-deaf example:

'The [Israeli]deputy defence minister said the stepped-up rocket fire would trigger what he called a "bigger holocaust" in the Hamas-controlled coastal strip.'

If you don't recognize it it's the overuse and intentional misapplication of the word "holocaust."  An appeal to emotion through the misapplication of a word and to make it appear bigger than it really not. Kind of like using Godwin's law. The author makes a good point here further into his blog.

Terminological inexactitude is bad for all of us. It helps to persuade stupid people of wrong things, often intentionally.

Ambition is one thing but to constantly use terminological inexactitude on anything that moves in order to achieve a certain amount of persuasion over Deaf/deaf/hh people isn't the answer.  There is no misleading the public if the answer is to provide parents all of the necessary information about their child with a hearing loss (which could be in one or both ears) regarding communication, language, and educational options.  Yet, the bottom line is that no one community, including the Deaf community, owns babies with hearing loss. The deaf or hard of hearing child belongs ONLY to the parents and it is they who make the final, and hopefully, informed decision on what to do next. They hold the trump card. Not you. Not me. Not them. But the parents.

Get used to that concept. This is the 2010's and beyond, not the 1950's.

Deafhood - religion like?

Recently over the last few days based on comments I received in my blogs I had the realization about how some people follow "deafhood" to such an extreme. How extreme? That depends. One commenter named "Kim" had this to say about "Deaf culture" in one of my most recent blog where she discussed "deafhood" and religion:

Language and religion are definitely huge. While we can't say that Deaf people have their own separate religion, their fervent belief in the Deafhood experience almost seems like a religion sometimes.

There it is. Religion and "deafhood" in the same sentence. So that got me thinking.

Kim soon clarified the next day on what she meant by what she said earlier.

Judging by v/blog posts (and comments) it seems like there's this strong fanatical, almost religious-like movement of Paddy Ladd worshippers who spout passages from his book like it's the Holy Bible of Deaf existence. So when people like Mike here ask questions, such as "is there a Deaf culture," there is a tendency among those "few" to over react, and sometimes they accuse him (and others) of not being Deaf since he doesn't seem to believe the right thing.

Candy also followed up about the whole oralism thing segueing into "deafhood" in that same blog.

This one need to be documented and published in the deaf blog as part of deaf history of deafhood and how they really are taking Paddy Ladd's colonialism too far. I suggest you all view Ella's comment number 41 in ASLrocks. It is a must viewing to see how delusional this deafhood thinking is. There is this evidence right there that indicates that dh is all about going after this oralism system rather than a personal journey to find one's deaf center.

Is there a conflict of interest here regarding certain "deafhood leaders"?

Let's look behind Curtain #1 about the Deafhood Foundation and you'll find a familiar name as who those board members are, and quickly you'll get to the "Vision" part where it says:

The Deafhood Foundation will provide financial, educational and social opportunities to end the economic exploitation of Deaf people. The Foundation aims to free the world from a*dism and recreate a society where everyone experiences full humanity and celebrates Sign Language.

So, this "deafhood" isn't about celebrating individual's own identity and personal journey wherever it goes even if it means identifying and embracing oralism and excluding ASL but about the attempt to wipe out oralism, avdism and have sign language to take its place instead according to one "deafhood leader"? Even though oralism has shown to be beneficial in many cases (even I have benefitted tremendously from it, too):

Deaf individuals who use Oralism have "proficiency with spoken language and . . . have an average reading ability . . . of thirteen to fourteen-year-old levels, which is approximately double the national average for all children who are deaf" (Stone 2). Furthermore, programs using Oralism generally have strong academic curricula resulting in high achievement levels and more students who go on to complete secondary or higher education programs (Schwartz 167-168). This also results in "more social, educational, and work opportunities . . . [and] to a more fulfilling and independent adult lifestyle" (168). With such results, it can be understood why those who value education truly approve of Oralism. These benefits of Oralism allow deaf individuals to reap the educational benefits and equal opportunities that people such as Mary Wollstonecraft strived to obtain and society, particularly the Oralists, continue to cherish.

It is obvious that oralism has its own benefits and that many deaf and hard of hearing people have benefitted tremendously from that. I understand that there are those who fell between the cracks and how beneficial signing is on an emotional and social level. But that's beside the point here. If people simply cannot leave alone the philosophical concept of what a personal journey of a deaf or hh person is like but instead use it as foundation to push their own ideology while espousing for the "death of oralism" and so on certainly does give it a religion-like feel. A fanactical-like following.

If this continues then this whole "deafhood" thing will simply stay within the Deaf community circle that is mostly accepted by some Deaf people rather than seeing it accepted by the rest of the hearing loss population that is 33 times bigger than the Deaf population of some perhaps 900,000 Deaf people.  This acceptance by the bigger population will never happen if this fanaticism continues. This is the perception of what many people would probably see whether they're hearing, deaf or hh who happen to come across this whole "deafhood" drama. Especially seeing how some "leaders" and other "followers" would prop up this "deafhood journey" under the guise of a friendly non-profit Deaf organization while in the background advocate for the "death of oralism," use of ad hominems, harrassment (see Tayler Mayer's example who is the owner of Deafread) and such. No wonder other groups like "Deafhood? No Thanks" cropped up recently as a response to this whole mess.

Many people do cherish the free and independent thinking regarding the many hearing loss issues out there and recognize the fact that there is no one shoe size fits all when it comes to addressing hearing loss, modes of communication, education and language development. Especially in a period of time when technology has been a boon to help address communication, educational and language developments owing to the simple fact is that hearing loss range from mild to profound. The diversity is large and mixed out there.

As a closing, I liked what Kim said in my blog "You have to be hard of hearing to understand":

People like Ella can never understand what it's like to be me. I experienced a life time of hearing before my hearing began to decline. Those experiences made me who I am. Naturally I still identify with hearing people.

Through HLAA and ALDA, I am part of a growing, thriving, powerful mostly oral deaf community, and we don't care what Ella thinks.

And you know what?  Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) would certainly look to be the better organization to join when it comes to advocacy and support in a more neutral manner rather than wade into chest deep the hypocrisy, the conflict of interests, unprofessionalism, rogue followers and petty politics. And I'm certain people wouldn't want to be a part of an organization or group of people that has a religion-like feel to it seeing how some use an inquisition-like process whenever one states a view opposite of somebody else's opinion. And then there comes the auto de fe.

This whole thing simply doesn't feel right.