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?

Why "Deaf" (big D) for all with hearing loss won't work

I want to add more on what I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.

First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.

Who to blame? Well, we all know who.

Secondly, in the Google search you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf."  In an ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf.  In other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the glossary of disability groups or organizations.  Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf.  That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as NIH.  And the examples go on and on.

The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.

The divisiveness will continue.

That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.

The old CAD Bylaws 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 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.

It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned 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.

But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language. Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.

Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.

Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people.   They already developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.

Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation. 

Don Grushkin on what you said about the d/D as being divisive.

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work. You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.

Good luck on undoing all that.
 

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.

A Deficit Thinker?

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.