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?

Persona non grata or pettiness?

It has been several months since I accessed Deaf Echo's website which is a holdover from their old DeafDC site. It has been over a year since Oct 9, 2011 when I realized that I was really persona non grata on participating in their discussion when I discovered I could no longer post comments in the "The YouTube Video You Don't See" article piece written by Chris Heuer, (an associate professor at Gallaudet University who teaches some great courses, btw). His article was about Sarah Churman's video that went viral when her implantable hearing aid was turned on for the first time. The comments are no longer there ever since Deaf Echo upgraded/renovated their website. However, comments can still be seen archived through the Wayback Machine. 

My comment did go through at first as you can see in my screen capture

Well, the video went viral with no fault of Sarah. No one expected it to go viral. She never expected to go on the Today Show and Ellen DeGeneres show, and get featured in CNN with Anderson Cooper. Never expected to get her money reimbursed. Yet, she's taking the brunt only because the video went viral and been interviewed by some of the major networks. Had it been only 200 or 2000 views, this would've been a non-story.
 

My post came approximately 14 minutes after Dianrez's posted comment. Approximately 83 minutes later I checked again only to see that my comment disappeared. That's when I realized and assumed on Oct 9, 2011 that I was persona non grata from participating in any of their discussions on their Deaf Echo website. I first got the boot in February 21, 2011 (see Mod's issuing a ban against me) but I had no idea my ban was permanent until my comment go removed did I suspect the permanency of my ban on Oct 9, 2011. That was the second time my comment was removed. The first time my comment was summarily removed was on April 12, 2011 after only several minutes as you can see in the screen capture. Nice cover-up and no attempt to answer a simple question.

Here's where I made an interesting discovery almost a year later just this week.

I found out I was unable to view/access Deaf Echo's website at home and instead got a DNS error message (i.e. "This page can't be displayed") on my browser. The same thing on my wife's laptop. But I can still view it at home on my laptop through a different channel and noticed that Deaf Echo's website is functioning fine and not simply down. I asked my friends if they could access it and they all said yes. I asked if they could view D.E. through my links on my blog pieces. Not a problem. All that led me to believe in their own pettiness (again, it IS their website, you can be petty all you want) Deaf Echo decided to block my IP address in the effort to prevent me from viewing their public website.

Excuse me?

Prevent me from viewing it? Really go that low?

Deaf Echo is not a private website but certainly a public website open for viewing.

I expected more professionalism from Deaf Echo but I suppose they do have the right to throw essentially a tantrum by putting up a wall because they didn't like what I wrote in my blogs, if that really was the case. I sincerely hope not and I hope I'm quite wrong but it's looking more like the other way.

I believe the owner of Deaf Echo eventually discovered my blog piece I did on March 12, 2011 essentially challenging Deaf Echo on the whole Wisconsin union protest and Gov. Scott Walker.  Or maybe it was this blog piece where I noted them for censoring me in a piece called "AGBell are now officially Deaf people" on Sept 8, 2012 as a reason for the blocking? I am pretty sure I was able to access their website a few more times after Sept 8, 2012 but it was just this week I discovered I was unable to access their website through normal channels on my laptop via my internet provider.  Something happened between Sept 8, 2012 and this week.

I'm fine with the ban on participating in their forum discussion. They have their own justification for doing so, however petty it may seem. But what I find incredulous is their attempt to block me further from viewing their Deaf Echo website. And the reason is....what?  This?  This?
This? This? Or this?

Dunno. Whatever the reason it's a petty thing to witness.


ADDENDUM: Joeseph Pietro Riolo made a good comment on a piece I did on April 12, 2011 about the removal of my comment by a moderator and the sadness of seeing such attitudes.

I saw your comment over there at Deaf Echo and later on, much to my surprise, your comment was gone. I questioned myself whether you removed your comment on your own or the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo deleted your comment.

Now, I know you did not.

This whole thing saddens me. I had high respect for Deaf Echo and I am trying to stay positive about it. But, this is the second time that your comment was removed. But then, as you wrote, the editor or moderator of Deaf Echo has the complete prerogative in controlling the comments and I could not argue against it. Is Deaf Echo becoming another yet platform for bashing cochlear implantation and by extension, people who have cochlear implant? I hope not.

(It seems that there is no end in attempting to make an analogy between cochlear implantation and everything else. I came across an analogy between cochlear implantation and circumcision(!) somewhere many moons or ages ago. I dread to see what will be the next analogy.)

Joseph Pietro Riolo

I, too, had high hopes for DeafDC which has morphed into Deaf Echo because many of their articles written by many different deaf authors (any hh or non-Deaf authors?) were very good, insightful and the kind that make you think. Other articles have allowed us a peak into the author's window of their "extremist" thinking. Not that it's bad but it is an interesting realization. Regardless, DeafDC is still worthy of a read but then again only if some of the people over their learn to take their pettiness out of the way and allow diverse views and thinking be a part of the discussion. I think all of this was precipitated by their own hands when I had my own views about the Wisconsin union/Gov Walker debate that were opposite of theirs did they find or at least they thought they did reason and justification to ban me since I was the only one their with an opposing viewpoint when they really wanted was total and uncompromising support instead. All of this this ended with the total IP block to their Deaf Echo website which was the manifestation of their continuing disagreement over my political stance, my way of questioning things and linking to their articles or people who commented over their since I could not do so because I was PNG. I had an opinion and blogged about. Nothing bad or extraordinary about that.

Thought of the Day.

Big mystery question of the day. Why do some people to my blog and leave comments about how great "deafhood" is or something along that line but refuse to leave their real name behind? Are they embarrassed to show their faces about a philosophical concept? The problem with "deafhood" is the people who don't walk the walk and instead become walking hypocrites. A common sight, I'd say. If it makes people feel good to tout it like a trophy, be my guest. I prefer the most simplest way without any baggage or political correctness and that is accept people for who they are...not about what they are. It doesn't matter if they have a hearing loss or not. I have said this many times in my blogs in the past and elsewhere. If people are so doggone crazy about "deafhood" then why the anonymity when commenting in my blog in the effort to advertise on how great it is? Just like anonymous Matt.

That's my "Thought of the Day."

Anonymous Matt

Below is my response to "Matt," an unknown commenter, in which we had a lively discussion in a previous blog, "Death of Deafhood?" I decided to put my response here since it would be too long to respond in a comment box that already limits a certain number of words allowed.


Matt: 1.) It was never his journey. It was a research conducted by Paddy (he was an oralist, btw.) in both the states and UK.

Mike: It was a thesis of his, I know. He related his own experiences through his own research on "finding deafhood" and to be used as a "guide" for others to use. In fact, in his Acknowledgement page he said and I quote, "My persnal journey in search of self and Deafhood has been assisted or supported by so many people....."; "Every word of this text and my life has been infused by some special sources largely hidden from view...."'; and "And so the 25-year journey arrives at this plateau." Doing research was his own journey of discovery. He also peppers a lot of his personal experiences such as explaining, "Being orally mainstreamed to a secondary school level of English literacy, I am situated outside this experience. English remains my first language. Twenty-six years of BSL use hsa brought me 'inside' to some degree, but mastering every...."; and "My account is focused mainly on the UK..." Again, I am aware it's a research/thesis of his regarding the understanding of deafness and self, and the journey about it. I have already said that "deafhood" is simply a concept. A philosopical musing of his imbedded in his research based on his own observations...others and his.



Matt: 2.) Yes, the term "Deafhood" wasn't around back then, but the feeling definitely was. Take the class to understand more.

Mike: No thanks. Until people actually walk the walk and include everybody with hearing loss, only then would I reconsider.  Their past actions betray them.  Inclusivity was never in their vocabulary because it would undoubtedly betray their agenda.



Matt: 3.) It's really really obvious right now that you have zero idea of what Deafhood is, and their participants are. The statement of yours - the one that says that Deafhood divides the community - couldn't be any further from the truth. Not saying this to throw a jab, but to make it really clear.

Mike: Matt, before I go further, why the anonymity on using your first name, if that is your real name? Secondly, "deafhood" is simply a concept. I have covered this many times over the years in my blogging since 2006 when "deafhood" first surfaced. Maybe what you may not realize is the self-hypocrisy at work within a community?

I never said "deafhood" divides the community. Rather, it's the people who insist on belonging in a closed society as I have explained numerous times in my blogs over the years. It's the people who insist on political correctness. It's the people who try to move the goal post. It's the people who claimed "deafhood" helped them "understand" yet attack those who have other opinions or disagrees with their assertions or opinions. I have said many times in my blog, it's much easier to simply respect deaf/hh people for who they are and not about what they are. This is much better than politicizing "deafhood" and obsessing so deeply about the inequality of life that each of us has experienced on different levels and scales. I'd say, please, walk the walk first. If you believe it so deeply in the gospel of "deafhood" why the anonymity?



Matt: Right now you're judging it by a glimpse of the book cover. I suggest you take the workshop. I guarantee you that there will be a diverse group of people in that room with you. There were a few of oralists in the class I took. After the class was done, we felt closer to one other.

Mike: No. I have researched this. Discussed with those who did take those workshops. Some were culturally deaf from deaf families. The problem is that in America (rather than the UK) certain groups of people took the concept of "deafhood" and politicized it every which way possible in the name of political correctness for their deaf culture. Some believe there's an agenda afoot.  My view is, as I have said many times in my blogs over the years on "deafhood," that a person's journey is deeply personal and private. Each of our own journey is unique from the time we are born to the time we die. There are some overlaps on our experiences, sure, but we do not travel the same journey as with the next person. Our paths simply intersects at various points in time and see things the same way but it doesn't mean both journeys are the same from beginning to end. Simply put.



Matt: Deafhood is basically about the fact every Deaf person shares one thing in common - deafness. You cannot deny that.

Mike: I never denied that. Please show me where I have said that. I challenge you to find somewhere in my 2000+ plus blog entries that I denied that we do not share a common trait and that is hearing loss (as opposed to your "Deaf").  Use my blog's search feature to find what you are claiming. Good luck.

The problem here is when people try and politicize "deafhood" to fit their own agenda. Which is why "Deafhood? No thanks" FB came about. It's better to simply respect people for who they are rather than on what they are (i.e. Deaf/deaf/hard of hearing). The focus should not be about our disabilities (i.e. our deafness) but as a human being who go through our own unique journey. Seriously, Matt, I have covered this many times since 2006. If you like "deafhood" and it makes you feel happy and secure then knock yourself out. As for me, no thanks.



Matt: Deafhood Foundation has made it clear that they're still in their formative stages and is willing to hear suggestions on how to make things better. Your question is valid, the one with why there is no interpreter provided. Butch Zein, the instructor, actually mentioned that in our class and they're working on it - thought you'd like to know that tidbit.

Mike: Certainly, they're in their formative stages. I have provided a challenge in my blogs several times for them and that is to walk the walk regarding inclusivity of anyone who has a hearing loss and whether they know ASL or not, or are AGBell members, HLAA members, strict oralists, SEE users, CUERs, and so forth to discuss this "deafhood journey" of yours. And ensure that they receive the same communication access as the next person who may or may not know sign language. They have not done that nor will they do it whole scale because they have deeply politicized the whole deaf culture thing intermingling with cochlear implant issues, language development, educational settings, oral trainings, audiologists, the medical field and terminologies, and so on. In short, they made themselves completely incompatible with the rest of the 98% of the hearing loss population (36 million people with hearing loss). Or from your viewpoint you could say that the 98% made themselves completely incompatible with the 2% of the people who are culturally deaf. It'd be a farce to fully expect they all will embrace your new goal moving post the new term "Deaf" to mean them, too. It'd be just as horrifying for you if they expect you will accept the word "hearing impaired." Sorry. It simply will not work as long as people continue to politicize the whole concept of deaf culture to fit their own agenda, whatever they may be.



Matt: And re: my usage of Deaf for everyone. You have mentioned in the past that you love the English language. The beauty of languages: they have the ability to evolve over time. Words change meanings. You may be right, Deaf has it's own meanings. I've made my definition clear - and I hope it changes the definition for everyone. I do not want people to feel that they're a lesser Deaf person by putting the d label on them. If they want to label theirselves as deaf, that's fine with me. It's not my job to decide for them.

Mike: Consider that not all of the 98% of the hearing loss population (36 million) will accept the new word "Deaf" to mean them, too. Especially when it's already been defined to mean culturally deaf people only.  It simply won't work expecting the masses will agree to the new term. This is all about serving their own agenda regarding their deaf culture, ASL, deaf education, and language development. We saw that hideous development during the AB2072 debacle. That's "deafhood" for you instead of considering a more open society concept.



Matt: This will be my last response re this topic. I really hope you take the opportunity to take the class one day. I guarantee you will take something with you from the class.

Mike: I have no interest because they have shown not to "walk the walk" and prefer to keep to their own status quo.  Like I said, if you like using the feel good "deafhood" term and feel secure about it, then by no means do not stop on account of me. Go ahead and spread your "gospel."  But remember, Pres. Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point that 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.  "Deafhood" is an ideological concept born of a culturally deaf person specifically and targeted to mostly a limited culturally deaf audience. So, therein lies the conundrum.

Open vs Closed Societies

President Hurwitz made it clear on the danger of practicing exclusion in his his February 19, 2013 State of the University address "Open the Gates Wide: Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet" speech.

Hurwitz warned against the destruction that exclusion can bring. "The wider the gates of acceptance open, the more room there is for all. Sadly, the community that excludes shrinks and dies," he said. He encouraged members of the audience to expand their circle of friends and colleagues to include those whose background is different from their own, and to embrace them "in the common cause of advancing our community and humanity."

It's the same warning that Deafhood? No Thanks Facebook group have told people for years, even before when the group became established, that it's better to accept people for who they are rather than to exclude them just because they do not pass your ideological purity test or don't believe in open thought or diversity. 

Symbolically, in American Sign Language, the sign for diversity is to reach out, while the sign for inclusion is to draw in. "All of us at Gallaudet ... must reach out and must draw in," he said. As members of a university community-traditionally a haven for open thought and respect for differing opinions-people who live, study, and work at Gallaudet don't need to be convinced of the benefits of diversity and inclusion, said Hurwitz. However, he acknowledged unresolved conflicts between groups on campus.

Those "unresolved conflicts" would be the whole McCaskill/Gallaudet/Hurwtiz/Bienvenu snafu and the seemingly racist hate letter aimed at McCaskill by a "former friendly colleague" at Gallaudet University.

Will Gallaudet University ever become a recognized university known for its inclusion, diversity, and open thought? An institution with the goal of being diverse in its language and communication approaches without resorting to gutter politics and political correctness? Only time will tell.

Interest on ASL on the Decline?

Not just American Sign Language that has been on the down trend over the last several years in Google search but interest in terms like "deafhood," and "a*dism" are also on the downturn as seen in Google Trends. Check out the graphs below.  

Just a bit of factoid thrown in here I think that would interest you.

Unapproachable Deaf People?

Are deaf and hard of hearing people really that "unapproachable" simply because they have a different way of communicating? In some ways I'd say "yes" and in some ways I'd say "no." That would depend on the context of a situation. Let me give you one "unapproachable" example and that would be the Deafhood Foundation organization.  On the outside they look to be very "approachable" but at closer inspection one would began to realize they are quite the opposite. The foundation's mission is:

"....dedicated to achieving economic and social justice for all Deaf people." 

 Now, note the capital letter "D"eaf in their mission statement as they are attempting to convey that word to mean all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. 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.

Some organizations even attempted to change that very definition by inserting "Deaf" into their own bylaws without giving any real definition to it and could easily be construed to mean only culturally deaf people. Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made it a point that they "own" that word and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a group that uses ASL and have a culture. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But what is obvious here is that 98% of the deaf and hard of hearing population who do not know sign language, who are not affiliated with Deaf culture, and have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, using Cued speech, listening and speaking, or preferring the use of Signing Exact English, for example. We still have an extremely large majority deaf and hard of hearing population that simply do not sign and they certainly are not "Deaf" people.

Deafhood Foundation is far from approachable because on their main web page it may look inviting except that their Gratitude video is only limited to those who know sign language which leaves the rest of  99.96% of the U.S. population out. So much for "social justice" when they've been demanding that "hearing people" ought to include captioning in their speaking videos. The irony is palpable here. With a signing video there is no way to approach the remaining U.S. audience if captioning isn't being used to convey their message. Not some social gabbing amongst Deaf people but a message they are trying to convey and put out for all to see.  Their own message largely resonates only to those within their own Deaf group rather than to the rest of the 98% of the population of people with hearing loss which numbers around 36,000,000 people. That's a lot of people to ignore when trying to put out a message of unity, acceptance and communication accessibility.


As for "approachable" deaf and hard of hearing people (i.e.. everybody with a hearing loss), they are increasingly using technology to allow themselves to become more approachable by giving them the ability to converse and interact with hearing people in a variety of ways.  Lately I have noticed that more and more deaf/hh people are using captioning technology to include with their own personal videos, this is true among a rising number of Deaf people taking advantage of that technology to spread their message to the rest of the English using U.S. population by using the captioned English language.  A good example of that (i.e. signing deaf) is Barry Sewell's latest video about John Yeh on conveying his message to the rest of the U.S. audience. Another approachable example would be the people who run HLAA whose own donation had already hit the million dollar mark last month since starting in January.

It's not just captioning technology but other technologies like face to face communication technology, and internet relay technology. Something that would allow the ability to interact easily with people and make them approachable. It's not about the competition of ideologies but about acceptance and understanding when it comes to accessible communication for all.

In the end the question becomes are you Frieda, the lovable, vain, unapproachable perhaps angry deaf person or are you one of those people who find a way to make themselves approachable as possible without the need to be so ungainly politically correct?

Thought of the day: Double standards

There is no "anti-deafhood." Just that we have no interest in such a concept and certainly don't care for these fanaticism and pushiness by means of peer pressure in order to get people to conform to their DH. They play the games of double standards. Their words betray their actions. And their actions betray their words. We prefer to accept diversity as it is and keep things simple without all of the utter nonsense.

The big boat

I've maintained the same outlook and philosophy on not needing a label to describe people with hearing loss from mild to profound and their own personal journey well before I began blogging. I made that clear in July 2006 and it is still true today:

- Basically it boils down to common sense knowing that we all go through, including hearing people, our own self-awareness discovery process as part of our journey. Self-discovery about one's own deafness or hearing loss doesn't mean the person will be led into a Deaf culture life......

- I’ve always accepted deaf and hard of hearing people for who they are and not worry about their background, signing abilities, the ability to speak or hear, or what have you. It didn’t matter to me. But to others, in many instances, did matter a lot.

- I just simply accept people for who they are since we're all basically in the same boat when it comes to equal access issues, legal rights and the narrowing of our communication gaps with hearing people and vice versa.

With that philosophy in mind the overloaded dinghy in tow is in danger of capsizing while one heavy person continues to feed himself ego, hatefulness, jealousy, fear, politics and political correctness. The eating continues to slowly weigh down the little dinghy ever more so. Sailing on the larger and studier ship are people with their own private and personal journey who don't care for the same food of politics but recognize each other for who they are. There's no denying their journeys. There's no denial in my journey or my deafness or who I am. My journey involves many things which is deeply personal to begin with. No labels. None of the politically correct terminologies but simply a journey of self discovery covering many things.

Deafhood? No Thanks.... revisited

People continue misunderstand about this loosely affiliated "group" on FB called "Deafhood? No Thanks" thinking it's based on the denial about ourselves regarding our hearing loss and who we are.

That's the furthest from the truth.

Rather it's our polite way of telling people that we do not subscribe to a closed society's approach using peer pressure, the incorporation of 'deaf power' movement or the flavor of it, the 'one communication option' approach, or using the movement to bully others through fear or use of oppressive tactics. Yet probably the most important of all is that we don't subscribe to playing the perennial victim card.  Subscribing to those approaches is a sure way to alienate further hearing parents of deaf/hh children, hard of hearing and deaf people, and even Deaf people. We don't subscribe to a victim mentality. We don't subscribe to the philosophy of exclusion and judgements regarding deafness.  We don't subscribe to going after parents who make alternative decisions for their deaf or hard of hearing children. We favor open society approaches such as equality for all deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of their backgrounds, communication methods and technology options. We invite anyone and make no judgements when it comes to deafness and their choices.We give them our support regardless the choices they make on deafness related issues.

We don't go around and mock other people's ability to speak calling it "yowling." We support them if they prefer to use their voice or not. Sign or not. Cued speech or not. Use of pen and paper or not.  Use SEE or not. Use ASL or not. Use CI or not. Use implantable hearing aid or not.  Prefer a hearing society over a deaf society. We don't go around wishing people harm or death because of philosophical difference or disagreement regarding deafness or their communication preferences. We don't harass people and sic the CPS on them. Or call their employers. And most important of all, we don't see ourselves as victims lamenting about the cruel fate of life, the unfairness of it all. The woe is me shtick. We don't need more labels. We don't need the stereotypes. We define it for ourselves as each of us see fit. Our journey is already deeply personal to begin with. A mere label doesn't do justice. And many of us simply do not care for it. While others may like the label and use it as they see personally fit, which is fine but I leave a caveat.

You may say it's simply a journey when it comes to "deafhood" but to go further by tacking on that label with a political ideology will only serve to alienate people further. Using the term to advance a political agenda and a springboard to attack individuals or companies while hiding behind an obvious facade.  Hypocrisy shines through when those things happen. We may be deaf or hard of hearing but we ain't blind. The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and simple acceptance into the maws of power, politics and even greed. If it were about diversity and simple acceptance it would have been plainly obvious for all to see. But the mask has long since fallen off.

The term "deafhood" will never be accepted by the larger population of people with hearing loss. This is a population with some 33 million people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound hearing loss. The majority of people are those with mild and moderate hearing loss.  A smaller percentage of that population are people with severe to profound hearing loss. Smaller still are people considered to be culturally deaf with ASL that makes up roughly about 2 percent of the total population of people with hearing loss (~600,000 or so).

It's like trying to incorporate "blindhood" and say that it's for all people with any kind of vision impairment who are undergoing their own journey, even those with easily correctable vision. But ask them if they are blind and they'll emphatically say they are not while others with more serious vision loss or impairment may say they're legally blind to those who have no vision at all are completely blind. The same with "deafhood" when it comes to people with mild or even moderate hearing loss who function fine with hearing aids (or even in some cases without hearing aids) and ask them if they are deaf and they will emphatically say they are not. Hard of hearing sure. Some hearing impairment? Sure. Have a hearing loss? Sure. But don't tell them they're deaf. That is the reality. That is how they wish to identify themselves as.  I'm not in the position to tell those people that they are wrong if they see themselves as deaf, hard of hearing, Deaf, partially deaf, partially hearing, hearing impaired or simply a person with a hearing loss. It's an individual thing.  Respect that.

Deafhood? No thanks!

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.

Peace or hypocrisy?

 Ok. My countdown has begun. See the countdown clock on the upper left side of my blog. Click on the link for more info on why and you'll understand, and why comments are no longer allowed for the time being.

I'll make this here simple and succinct. I'll present two videos. You decide. Here's a video of Ella just recently.



Here's mine I made back in April.



You tell me, peace or hypocrisy?

Funny thing is that she talks of "groups" ("Deafhood" vs "anti-Deafhood") while I and many others see this:

The overlapping of people with hearing loss from a wide variety of background, experiences, amount of hearing loss from mild to profound, onset of hearing loss and communication preferences. Each of us touches or overlaps with other people with hearing loss based on similarities and experiences. In some circles people experience more discrimination while others not so much but we are more or less all on the same boat.

Which is why people like Ella and many of her cohorts get it wrong time and time again. There are those of us who don't care for "deafhood" or "Deafhood" That is not the equivalent of "anti-deafhood" or "anti-Deafhood." It's like this.  We don't care for broccoli. Are we out to stamp out that vegetable? No. Are we trying to stop other people from eating it? No. It is just that we don't like the taste of broccoli and so we decline and say, "Broccoli? No thanks."  We have no need to put broccoli on a pedestal thinking it's the king of all vegetables and force people to eat it. Simply put, it's just that whenever we see or eat a broccoli it leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

We do understand that there are plenty of vegetables out there to choose from since a broccoli isn't the only vegetable around.  And so we desire not to have any association with broccoli. And for good reasons, too. Mostly it leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

We have our own opinions. There is no conflict here if we agree to disagree.

Walk the walk?

I'm promoting this anonymous comment for my blog here. That comment was made in Death of Deafread. Why am I putting it here? Because I liked what he/she wrote and makes a few succinct points about "awdism" and such.

I could also state the situation in the other direction. Deaf/hh people who prefer speaking and listening (regardless of whether they are also fluent in ASL, and have a Deaf wife and Deaf friends) are considered to be hearing wanna-be's. Deafhood supporters call them colonized and dysconscious awdists who have been brainwashed by AG Bell and OOOO (Oral Only No Other Option). Cochlear implant manufacturers, surgeons, hearing aid manufacturers, audiologists, speech teachers, oral schools, etc., are all elements of a massive anti-deaf machine bent on eliminating deafness, Deaf people, and ASL. and lining their pockets with money in the process. I'm not making this up. These are Ella's exact words. According to her, there is no middle ground: One is either Deafhood, or one is an awdist.

it isn't mudslinging to point out these public statements by Ella. I watch all her vlogs. I haven't taken any of her statements out of context. they may not be on the Deafhood web site, but they are on ASL Ella's YouTube channel.

it isn't awdism to point out what Ella and other Deafhood supporters have said about Marlee Matlin and her support of the Starkey Hearing Foundation. it isn't awdism to point out facts about Gallaudet University. I *get* that Deaf people are protective of our cultural institutions. Yet, by saying rapes have happened at Gallaudet, that it means Deaf people are bad, Gallaudet is bad, and I disrespect Deaf people by saying so, simply... isn't... logical.

Deafhood supporters feel that their cultural values, way of life, and very being have been and are under attack by so-called technological and medical advances. And so, they react in emotional rather than logical ways, such as Jeffrey did here. I understand where he's coming from. Yet, they don't seem to realize that Deaf Culture and ASL have survived the horrors of Milan 1880, oralism, and the use of hearing aids.

I liked what the first Anonymous @6:01 pm said about "We cannot help any older generation of deaf who suffered ... and still hating and blaming AGB their language problem because they have some persecution complex issues to deal with."

That's exactly what's going on. That's why folks like Ella, Jeffrey, DonG, et al, deserve our compassion rather than our scorn. Like you said Mike, they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. If they are examples of Deafhood, I don't want any part of it.

Another Anonymous

Happy 4th of July everyone!

When signing could be hazardous to your health

Mostly it's the lack of education but people who use sign language in public places to communicate could potentially be perceived as to be something else and get attacked thinking they are a part of a gang by other gang members. So, it's not a real good idea to go along with this whole "hoodie" mentality when people can easily mistake you for a gang member.  It's bad enough when you have hearing gang members think deaf people belong to a gang just because of their signing. It'd be a bad idea wear a hoodie jacket with the hood up while signing might cause some real gang members to think they're seeing a bunch of new gang members flashing their own signs. It actually happened to a deaf guy who recently who got stabbed in the back for signing in a bar thinking he was flashing signs. Crazy world, yes. But that's just an unfortunate byproduct caused by a lack of education on the general public.

Deafhood truth??

Dripping with sarcasm and heavy with hyperbolic facial expressions signifying suppressed internal rage and anger in a video and at around the 12:30 mark where Ella essentially proclaimed (or was it blessed?) Barry to be free of "deafhood" saying Barry doesn't want to know or acknowledge the "deaf truth" known as..."deafhood."

I thought that piece was a bit arrogant. "Deafhood" is all about truth now?

Sounds so very new age-y there.

The real truth is that each person's journey is a deeply personal one. I cannot tell you what your deaf or hard of hearing journey should be. Or how your journey should emulate. No one has that right to define exactly what your journey should lead to. There is no need for a label because a journey is unique and very personal to begin with. That's really up to each person. I cannot stress that enough. All we can do is acknowledge that a deaf or hard of hearing person's own journey is unique. Our own identity is unique. Just like our whorls on our finger tips. Each whorl of our own fingerprint is unique.  We may look the same but we are indeed unique and different. We travel different paths.

I have no interest on wanting to be a part of a fold that thrives on negative energy attacking people who decide not to embrace their ideology of "deafhood." Why get upset? Pretty silly to get personally upset over that. It's a personal decision. Myself, I have no need for labels like "deafhood." I know who I am. I know what my identity is. I have friends who are culturally deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing. I don't have a need to peel their skins back like a banana and see whether if anyone of the people I meet are "deaf centric" enough or not in behind closed doors. Right, Don? I don't have the need to judge others whether if they are "deafhood" enough. If Barry doesn't want to do anything with "deafhood," then so be it. His decision isn't hurting anyone. He still provides inspiration to culturally deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people. He is sensitive, respectful and understands about Native American Indians and their ancient culture. His past videos and blogs have shown that.

Again, Barry, thanks again for the subtitles. Thousands of other people down the road will appreciate your effort to include subtitles to your vlogs. That's the true spirit of including people who are deaf, hard of hearing and hearing who do not know (or very little) sign language to understand your message. That's true inclusion and not discrimination or segregation.

Yes, Ella, you are a leader in the eyes of your followers.

Back a few years ago in 2008 Ella first brought it up saying that she wasn't a leader but a "follower" and brought it up again in her recent vlog. Well, I don't know about that one since that's heck of a lot of people lining up behind her to do what she says. But that's rather strange because in 2007 there was an press release from the California School for the Deaf Fremont that mentioned her where she posted that article in her old blog.  CSDF described her as a "community leader."

A community leader and California Association of the Deaf Board member....

I certainly did not see her object to that description where she proudly displayed the press release on her own blog.

Not a leader? Um, right.

David Eberwein certainly didn't seem to mind being called as one of the Deaf leaders described by one follower/admirer.

#5. A Great Leader is always in high demand. Take Ella Mae Lentz, for example. Her personal and professional contribution, advocacy and stewardship of the language and culture of Deaf people in our world today has been profound. Yet, even after her retirement, Ella Mae continues to change the face of the Deaf World today with her contributions and discourse on empowering concepts, such as those ideas involved in the term Deafhood. And, she’s not alone. Deaf Leaders such as David Eberwein, Genie Gertz and many others also share such contemplative devotion. It’s an enviable gift. Focus and endurance are clearly the cornerstones of their creative genius and leadership.

David certainly didn't mind being seen as a Deaf leader if you read his comments. By de facto he approved LaRonda's blog piece which tells me that he agreed with her analysis that Ella is a leader, too, by basing on "specifically identified behaviors" on what makes her a leader.

Picking myself off the floor. What a great blog.

Yes - it is probably your best (so far), not because you named people, but because you SPECIFICALLY identified behaviors, ideas, etc

Not a leader? Not even one of the "deafhood" leaders? Um, sure!

From the mouth of an ex-founding DBC core member who identified Ella as one of the (top) DBC and "deafhood" leader

I’ve thought long and hard about this. I have encouraged DBC twice to become more transparent. I’ve asked two DBC leaders to vp with me, so we can discuss this further, but they both weren’t ‘available’. In e-mails, I asked them why they don’t want to acknowledge to the Deaf Community that they practice Deafhood heavily but received no response. Transparency and integrity are essential as these will benefit the organization and also the Deaf Community.

Since the top DBC leader, also the Deafhood leader, Ella Mae Lentz had accused me of assumption and confusion in the comment section of a vlog, I have no choice but to come forward. These are the facts.

I was one of the founding core members of DBC. When it started, we had a very simple mission: baby signs for deaf babies. Later it was expanded to include deaf babies and deaf children by several members. Two Deafhood leaders began to push Deafhood on us. The majority wasn’t comfortable with that as they only wanted to focus on Bilingualism and nothing further. However, these leaders persisted, ignoring the moderates’ objections. As Anne Marie Baer said, there was no voting or due process, including an election of DBC leaders, though we wanted to set up a formal system, etc. Finally two moderates, including me, resigned and four other moderates were pushed out summarily without notice afterwards. Then I found out two other leaders, including a strong Deafhood proponent, were appointed one month prior to my resignation and none of us knew about this new development. We went ahead and set up our organization which addresses to deaf bilingualism only. Some wanted to disclose to the public, but another former member and I asked them not to mention anything. We still want to see DBC succeed. Looking back, I wonder if that was a mistake keeping quiet as afterwards Dr Hocokan volunteered his hard labor for four months, believing in bilingualism only to find out the Deafhood agenda has been infiltrated into the organization. What Dr Hocokan had described so far, run parallel to what we experienced. Very recently, Dianrez and Anne Marie acknowledged being booted out without any notice.

Not a "deafhood" leader? Right. Right. Who was doing all the "deafhood" pushing again? Of course, she's not the only one doing that but people *are* certainly following her. Yet she says she's a "follower." So, who are those people following her? Man, that's a lot of followers following the "follower." 1150 subscribers to be exact. 

Heck, even one well known culturally deaf person, he who shall not be named, in his own right called Ella as a leader.

.....by bashing Deafhood/DBC leaders from day one. You see, Ella Mae Lentz, David Eberwein, Barb DiGiovanni and John Egbert made a lot of leaps and efforts to reach and educate people of social injustices upon Deaf individuals and communities.

Not..a...leader? He just made a ringing endorsement calling Ella, DE, Barb and John as "leaders."

BTW, Barb G. resigned from DBC. You could probably figure out why, too, if you study up a bit of history first.

There is no bashing here but simply pointing out the facts that perhaps the majority of culturally deaf people who know Ella already see her as a leader in their community, a leader of "deafhood" and a leader in DBC. For a follower, Ella sure act like a leader.

Two books on a life's journey - burn one and keep the other.

We continue on with own our unique but deeply personal journey in life as people with hearing loss and how we identify ourselves as and whatever makes us happy. We recognize the value of diversity. We support and respect all forms of communication and language.

We say "no thanks" to "deafhood" because we recognized right away such labeling would lead to acts of discrimination and segregation. Even threats of violence if one disagrees. It has simply become a glorified ideology specifically and mainly for culturally deaf people, and nothing more.

That's the problem.

It's not really about for anybody with hearing loss when it comes to a personal journey. There's a certain sine qua non when it comes to "deafhood." 

We don't presume who has "deafhood" and who doesn't, and that was the trap many people recognized at the very beginning.  

We don't figure out whether if a person is "deaf centric" or not in private meetings to see whether or not a person meets their main criteria. That's called "looking at a person's label on his shirt" behind him instead of looking at the person for who he is.

We prefer to move forward and not backward and would rather follow ICED recommendation to accept and respect ALL forms of communication and language whether combined or used alone be it PSE, ASL, SEE, cued speech, oral-aural, oral, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help with the communication, or plainly just do without them.  In fact, we have respected and accepted those differences since day one even before ICED came out with their own recommendation.

This is about accepting a person for who she/he is and not about what the person is when labels are concerned.

You cannot force or fool a person's own personal journey in order to align it with your own journey. Otherwise it'd be a description of selfishness and dishonesty.  

Think for yourself.

Embrace diversity and everybody else for their uniqueness on their hearing loss and how they live their life with culturally deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people and the respect and acceptance for all forms of communication and language. And be open with everyone.

Or...

Embrace conformity based on requirements, norms, memberships, restrictions, and expectations that people expect from you as a closed group.

A simple test here.

Watch what happens when you say, "No thanks," and see how certain people respond. Instead of acknowledging your personal decision on what you want to do with your life and how you spend it you will be attacked for your decision because they have lost their ability to own you, (see below as an example):

Four days later seemingly upset or mad he made a vlog on June 9th "Where is our money going?" raising a ruckus about why $656 (of fake Monopoly money) was going to an "unworthy" organization and how dare they use "our" money for that (Whose money again?? "Our"? Quite presumptuous, ain't it?) so-called organization.

Your money is your money and not "their money." It is your personal decision on how you see fit to spend YOUR money. It is not their decision. And if they get angry about your decision then that's a red flag on something wrong with that picture.

Remember, your life's journey is a deeply personal one. No one should tell you how you must live your life. You shouldn't be made to feel guilty on what you do with your life or even how you wish to spend YOUR money.

You have two books that addresses a life's journey. You have a choice. An important choice. Embrace one book and burn the other book in an incinerator. You cannot have both books since they are not mutually compatible.

I *know* which book I want.

Hood

I already know the slang for "hood" and it's certainly not the kind of word you want attached to your good name be it from a professional or personal  point of view.

From the Urban Dictionary, which of course is not the kind of dictionary you want to use in Scrabble for scrabblenoggers, on slangs has a few definitions for "hood":

1. The ghetto.
2. Someone who is from the ghetto.
3. Someone who acts like they are from the ghetto.
4. neighborhood; ghetto; project

In other words, having all this "hood" thing going on will certainly not make "deafhood" a more attractive concept nor would it make it any more understandable. Perception is everything and for people to make it appear more "darker" and even "gang-like" will certainly have people (parents, deaf, hh or hearing) questioning those behaviors, agendas, and motives by those not familiar with deaf culture. Nothing worse in trying to put a positive spin on a concept by making it even look more "cultish" (here and here) or have a club-like appeal where a certain sine non qua would be expected.

Those behaviors could easily be misconstrued as to mean something else when it's not by people not familiar with the whole movement and concept that involves specifically on deaf culture and "membership" and nothing about a personal journey. Doing the "hood" thing there is always the possibility for abuse used in such a way by "members" to harass or intimidate other people.  It is known that wearing certain colors or even specific clothing items are used to "self-identify" and even to "warn" others on who they belong to when that's the intention in the first place. Just look at some of the photos and you'll see some "members" posed in foreboding, dark or intimidating looks compared to those with a happy look that invites people.

Why the foreboding looks? What are the intentions behind that? Was it to appear more threatening? Menacing? A way to some how intimidate people who may not agree with you? A warning? Look around and you'll see what I mean.

But one thing for sure, I bet you anything that the president of Gallaudet wouldn't be doing that sort of thing and wear a hood. And I think you honestly would know why but won't admit it.

Hood? No thank you.

When deaf people play Scrabble

When you play Scrabble there is a hard and fast rule about using accepted words to the play the game. According to Scrabble's rules:

Accepted Scrabble Words

Players may place any word which can be found in a standard English language dictionary. Official Scrabble dictionaries also can be found in bookstores and online.

Types of words which cannot be used are abbreviations, prefixes and suffixes. Words that require a hyphen or an apostrophe cannot be played. Words that are spelled with a capital letter cannot be used.

Generally speaking in an English-language game of Scrabble, foreign words cannot be placed on the Scrabble board. If those words appear in a standard English dictionary, then the word is allowable. This is because the word is spoken often enough by native English-speakers that it has become a part of the English language.

On the Scrabble website there is an online Scrabble Dictionary word search. Plug in a word you think it exists (this is called "scrabblenogging") and hit the return key and see what it says. If it comes up saying that the word "does not appear in Merriam-Webster's Official SCRABBLE® Players Dictionary, 4th Edition" then that word is unplayable and does not count for points.

And so, that got me thinking. Suppose you have a group of people who are deaf, hard of hearing, hearing and culturally deaf people. One person puts down a long 8 lettered word "deafhood" that nets a good number of Scrabble points but the group challenges the person saying the word doesn't exist.  A quick trip to the online Scrabble Dictionary search gets this result:

If this were to be a real Scrabble tournament that word "deafhood" would not be accepted  and cannot be counted. The same thing goes for other made up words that might come to your mind. Something like the a-wordism, for example.

Scrabble rules are clear and firm. Let's not be the selfish scrabblenogger and do things "unofficially" when it doesn't count in the real game of Scrabble.

Let your standard dictionary be your friend. When in doubt, always refer to the online Scrabble Dictionary to do the search for you.

"Hoodless"....

It was a sad day to witness the beginning on the calling of deaf/hh people as "hoodless."  I warned people in my blog 5 years ago about the dangers of judging people for what they "have" or "don't have" when it comes to "deafhood." Which was why many of us made the point of saying "Deafhood? No thanks" and joined the DNT Facebook for that very reason. We continue on with own our unique but deeply personal journey in life as people with hearing loss and how we identify ourselves as and whatever makes you happy. We recognize the value of diversity, and that we support and respect all forms of communication and language.  We say "no thanks" to "deafhood" because we recognized right away it would lead to acts of discrimination and segregation. It has simply become a glorified ideology specifically and mainly for culturally deaf people, and nothing more. That's the problem. It's not really about for anybody with hearing loss. There's a certain sine qua non when it comes to "deafhood," believe it or not. We don't presume who has "deafhood" and who doesn't, and that was the trap we recognized at the very beginning.  We prefer to move forward and not backward and instead would rather follow ICED recommendation to accept and respect all forms of communication and language whether combined or used alone be it PSE, ASL, SEE, cued speech, oral-aural, oral, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help with the communication, or plainly just do without them.  We have respected those differences since day one even before ICED came out with their own recommendation.

I'm sad to say this but I continue to be correct on this.

I will continue to say "no thanks" and just simply accept you as for who you are, and not about what you are.  That's a simple recipe for happiness.