New CAD by-laws continues to discriminate and profile?

Without much fanfare or notice to the public the California Association of the Deaf  (a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, incorporated in the State of California) managed to slip in their newly updated and redacted CAD bylaws dated August 13, 2011.  The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 (see archived bylaws here) mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3  Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.  Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years. And because of that change Barry produced a video thanking CAD for the revision.  CAD may have changed its language in the new by-laws because of the recommendation from the California Department of Justice or from somewhere else. It doesn't matter. What matters is that CAD made the effort to correct a past mistake, however.

The new CAD by-laws appears to favor culturally deaf people, again, only because the term "Deaf" (upper case "D") is not defined and there are profiling and discrimination questions as well.  The term "Deaf" is used almost exclusively throughout the new by-laws.

For example:

Section 2.1 PURPOSE
The mission and advocacy of California Association of the Deaf is the promotion, preservation and protection of the civil rights, social, cultural, health, educational and economic well-being of the Deaf.

Section 3.1 MEMBERSHIP, DUES, AND TERMS
The Association is a membership organization with members having either voting or non-voting privileges and shall be open to all subgroups within the Deaf Community without discrimination as per Article II, Section 2.1 Purpose.

Section 3.3 HONORARY
Persons eminent for distinguished services to the Deaf may be made honorary members of the Association. They shall be entitled to all privileges of the Association.

Section 7.1.10: Communications/PR Committee
Communications/PR Committee shall support Association purposes with informational activities and increase public awareness of Deaf issues; inform members, as well as the general public, of developments in legislation and administration programs; promote communication and coordination between other organizations affecting Deaf issues; and work with Public Policy Committee on any announcements pertaining to advocacy issues. Shall also work to ensure that Deaf individuals living throughout California who may not know about the Association become familiar with who we are and what we do so that they may consider becoming a member and participating in the various activities that are offered.

Over the past few years notable people in the Deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

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

What is obvious is that there are deaf people who may not know sign language, are not affiliated with Deaf culture, have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, use Cued speech, or use Signing Exact English.

In the August 2011 CAD by-laws Policy and Procedures Guidelines it uses both terms "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" but offered no definitions or meanings for those terms. The only definition offered in the new CAD by-laws is "Deafhood."

PPG:1:2011 Definition of Deafhood:
The phrase “Deafhood” was coined by Paddy Ladd and was adopted by the membership of this Association in 2007. First posted as a counter to deafness, it describes the life-long process by which Deaf identity can be cultivated, maintained and deepened. It is a philosophical search for Deaf community and culture.

In the past CAD omitted the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing" in favor of using the newly invented term "Deafhood" in their 2005 CAD by-laws. It was a term not found in an approved dictionary (e.g. Merriam-Webster). It was a term that could not be enforced should it get legally challenged because there is no legal definition.  In the new CAD by-laws update the upper case "D"eaf is used extensively throughout its by-laws language as the dominant term used.  This alone gives the appearance of profiling and discrimination that favors heavily culturally deaf people or Deaf people.  In my opinion, CAD needs to redact or revise their August 2011 by-laws and provide the proper definition or clarification for terms "Deaf," deaf, and" hard of hearing."  Not doing so will undoubtedly assure that the CAD by-laws will continue to favor heavily Deaf (culturally deaf) people. Even the CAD's Mission Statement as seen currently in their website,

The mission of the California Association of the Deaf is to protect the civil rights of the movement (empowerment) of Deafhood and promote the social (American Sign Language), cultural, health, educational, and economic well being of the Deaf (Californians) Community in the state of California.

is exactly the same one used in the old 2005 CAD by-laws but not used in current and new 2011 CAD by-laws with the exception that the old 2005 CAD bylaws use the term "hard of hearing" throughout. The new 2011 bylaws does not.

Seeing all this would make it appear that CAD is in an exclusive organization aimed at Deaf people rather than those who are not culturally affiliated (e.g. deaf, hard of hearing), those who do not know sign, or those who prefer to communicate by talking and listening and are comfortable in a hearing community. The California Association of the Deaf needs to re-think, again, their language as it is written currently in their by-laws so as to keep their credibility intact and be taken seriously once and for all.