The term “deficit thinking” came out during discussions on “deafhood” last year which has become the latest buzz word, in some circles, especially when people use it to lob at other people accusing them of having “deficit thinking.” Now, exactly what is a “deficit thinker”? Well, it’s a person who practices “deficit thinking.” Ok. What’s “deficit thinking” then?
According to a book on “
The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice” (by Richard R. Valencia, which is an interesting read on the history of how that concept came about) the definition of “deficit thinking” is:
“Deficit thinking is tantamount to the process of ‘blaming the victim’. It is a model founded on imputation, not documentation.”
Imputation essentially means acts of accusation.
And further in the book it also defines “deficit thinking” as a form of oppression:
“..that deficit thinking is a form of oppression – that is, the cruel and unjust use of authority and power to keep a group of people in their place.”
John makes an arbitrary and vague charge against those who harbor “deficit thinking” ought to be removed is in fact highly ironic considering the definitions of what “deficit thinking” means. Though the book also talks about "deficit thinking" as a form of "
psuedo-science."
"process of false persuasion by scientific pretense"
Now, DeafRead is free to do whatever they want on which blogs or vlogs to accept and publish the links when it comes to deafness related issues. I have no real complaints or qualms on what they do. Just as vloggers and bloggers are free to post what they want and moderate comments as they see fit.
Ain’t free expression great in America?
But to promote or instigate for the limitations on the free exchanges of ideas and concepts just because people happen to not like what’s being discussed sets a dangerous precedence. But that’s only if government does that and interferes with that freedom of expression and speech. Personal ownership, however, of a blog or website, the person is essentially free to do what he or she wants when it comes to discussed contents. But if people are not allowed greater access that can help lead to discussions about certain ideals, concepts and even myths then how can people learn? Isn’t this about learning and being fully informed in order to make an informed decision on what’s going on? Separate what's real and what's not? Who decide for who here? Isn't this all about balance?
Perhaps it's time that John (and others who are behind him on that idea) needs to point out publicly in his blog on exactly who those “deficit thinkers” are and explain to DeafRead editors or the owner why they must be removed from DeafRead and on what grounds. Which blogs need to be removed because of the contents? Which blogsites need to be removed? Which bloggers need to be removed or banned because discussions happen to revolve around topics that they do not like surely must be big enough of an excuse or justification for removal or banishment? Is John (and others) advocating to DeafRead editors and the owner that their
policy or guideline ought to be revamped? And include a section that “Deficit thinking is not allowed”? Exactly what do you mean by "deficit thinking"? Who is really being desperate here, John? Is this imagined futility that bad when it comes to discussing various deaf or deafness related topics?
I’m sure readers of DeafRead will want to hear more about this suggestion of yours, John. And I'm sure readers will be looking forward to your list of names of those you (and others) feel need to be removed or its blog/vlog content removed because it rankles you.
The ball is in your court. You made the first imputation. Use your time wisely.
