ICED....over II

From what JPR said this morning on what he saw last night April 7, 2011:

I thought I would share this news with you.

Last night, I watched Dr. Jane K. Fernandes' presentation at NTID (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) on the topic of inclusive Deaf Studies. A little bit after she was introduced, she mentioned about the past ICED and how it recognized that the Milan resolution was in error. Then, she mentioned about respecting all languages and forms of communication. She mentioned that she was giving her presentation in honor of that respect for all forms of communication. The main thrust of her presentation was that the discipline of Deaf Studies should be broadened to include the diverse deaf people outside of the standard ASL deaf signers in the Deaf culture. I am sure that this is familiar to all of you.

I thought that it was neat and nice that she remembered and recognized the importance of the respect for all languages and forms of communication that she decided to honor it with her presentation. Given that this happened in close proximity with Mr. Mike McConnell's and Candy's blog, I wanted to share this news.

(She and other co-author wrote two articles whose web links are shown at the bottom of the webpage at http://www.rit.edu/ntid/lyon/speakers/jane-k-fernandes-phd ).

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Interesting development. I wrote my blog on April 4, 2011 and she gave her speech on April 7, 2011 on basically about diversity and respect for all communications and languages per the ICED recommendations.

Thank you for the heads up, JPR.

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

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

Paddy Ladd:

What could a Deaf person, a Deaf community become?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None.

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

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

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

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

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




Basic summary of that video.

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

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

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

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


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

Does Section 504 and ICED prevent "ASL at all times" at Gallaudet University?

Gallaudet University is an institution on higher learning and is supposedly home where communication accessibility reigns supreme.  However, students who go to Gallaudet University are not necessarily fluent in signing or even ASL.  Many do benefit from the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants enabling them to speak and listen. But students new to Gallaudet University must contend with the fierce indoctrination of ASL. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if previous students left Gallaudet University because they were harassed for not being "Deaf enough" or that they feel they couldn't "fit in" which was how Charles Wirick probably felt.

For many students and staff on the campus of Gallaudet University the politics of being Deaf means that ASL should be the only means of communication on the campus of Gallaudet University for all students. That's what Ruiz is favoring in the Buff and Blue newspaper. But here's where it gets sticky with president Hurwitz.  He recently celebrated the new ICED resolution on the global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication." Which is good or is it? But then it gets compounded with Federal laws covering communication accessibility.

According to Section 504, and since Gallaudet University is a recipient of federal financial assistance as a post secondary institution which has an obligation to ensure accessibility to students with disabilities, including those with hearing loss and the need for communication accessibility.

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 you 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

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 if only the educational institution in question was a private educational institution that receive no federal funding then it wouldn't fall under the rules of Section 504.  But since Gallaudet University 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 other than ASL.

That's a stark but humbling reality there.

Since president Hurwitz 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, it would be interesting to see how president Hurwitz can reconcile these things in the midst of a call for "ASL at all times" along with changing campus demographics seeing more hearing students while competing with other universities and colleges on recruiting and retaining deaf and hard of hearing students.

Maybe Gallaudet University is slowly losing it's recognition as a Deaf Mecca?

Anybody want a HUG? (click on it!)

Gallaudet University's violation of the new ICED resolution?

In Leila Hanaumi's Buff and Blue article "It's time for the Gallaudet community to come together" was rather a bit revelatory stating that "we can not continue to demonstrate a militant attitude that causes new signers or hearing students feel excluded and in return, causes the deaf community to be a small and exclusive group."

I’ll be honest here. Before I read Ruiz’s article and the long line of comments that followed, I didn’t have a particularly strong opinion on this topic. Should we recognize Gallaudet as the Mecca of deaf people, a place where we can be the majority for once, and create rules of how, when, and where it would be unacceptable to speak rather than sign? Or should we stop battling the hearing students who come here to learn ASL and about deaf culture and treat them like the allies that they should be for us?

However, now I realize that every perspective is valuable to this discussion. I also realize that the demographics of Gallaudet is changing; we can not continue to demonstrate a militant attitude that causes new signers or hearing students feel excluded and in return, causes the deaf community to be a small and exclusive group. We must work together to expand our community by welcoming all kinds of members, regardless of their signing abilities, if we want to survive. This does not mean that we should hold ASL at a lesser value. Rather, this means that dialogues that involve the entire campus are necessary in order to understand one another and to agree on how we want to deal with this issue as a community.

Is she speaking for all of Gallaudet university? It is interesting when she said "we" as in "we cannot can not continue to demonstrate a militant attitude that causes new signers or hearing students feel excluded and in return causes the deaf community to be a small and exclusive group." Is Hanaumi saying that militancy was  and continues to be a problem on the campus of Gallaudet University that have caused new signers to feel excluded? Something like the Charles Wirick's case where he may have been a case of him getting "ganged up" on campus, so to speak? Also interesting is the latest poll result on whether people felt that Charles Wirick was bullied or not. Some 53% said 'yes' he was bullied versus 15% of those who said 'no.' Interesting poll result so far.

In Ruiz's article in the Buff and Blue it takes on different flavor that comes with a sense of an ultimatum to it:

Thus, a language policy must be accepted. ASL at all times. Language immersion at all times. Cultural representation at all times. No more wasting time coddling the hearing students or the Deaf students victimized by the hearing system who are not yet fluent users of ASL. It is time to rise up and unite, to recreate Gallaudet as a deaf embodiment.

Wouldn't this "ASL at all times" help create and foster more militant attitudes on campus? After all, questions remain on whether Charles Wirick was a victim of "militant attitudes" on campus.

Sprouse described Wirick in frank terms. “He was raised oral without much exposure to Deaf culture and community—and here at Gallaudet he, for the most part, was an outcast. Wirick vented to me before about deaf-to-deaf audism, which enraged him. He didn’t like how Gallaudet treated him and didn’t know how to fit in the university.”

Not exactly what pluralism ought to be about on campus if students are routinely faced what Charles Wirick faced when it came to communication issues and acceptance. How many students left Gallaudet University because they could not "fit in" or that they felt they were not welcomed? The idea on pluralism for Gallaudet University might prove to be a conundrum for president Hurwitz since he was elated about the rejection of the ICED Milan decision. The conundrum would lie in the acceptance of a new ICED resolution, a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf people. Remember, all forms of communication, and not just languages only.

Let me illustrate exactly why this might be a conundrum for president Hurwitz and Gallaudet University. I'll repeat what Joseph P. Rioto said earlier in Deaf Echo regarding pluralism and the ICED resolution and what it may mean for Gallaudet University in the very near future.

I would suggest that the university takes a hard look at the concept of pluralism. Although the word is not mentioned explicitly, the concept of pluralism is very obvious in the resolution that was adopted by the International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) 2010 last summer. The resolution says to respect all languages and forms of communication. I do not need to elaborate the possible consequences if the university chooses not to abide by the resolution. Some of the arguments that I have seen apparently want to reject or greatly restrict the resolution and that is a serious matter.

In other words on "all forms of communication" they include CUED speech, SEE, PSE, and even oral (speech) to go along with ASL that must respected and accepted, and not restricted. Since president Hurwitz was elated about the rejection of the ICED Milan decision will he now support and embrace the new ICED resolution to respect all languages and all forms of communication at Gallaudet University and see that pluralism flourish on campus? Will he call for the end of militant ASL attitudes on campus? Will he support or be cool about "ASL at all times"? How about a call to end "hearing spaces" or a call to support it?  Will president Hurwitz find a way to help end bullying on campus against those who do not "fit in"?   Will he open up the Charles Wirick's case and order an in depth investigation to see whether Wirick was a victim of bullying or militant attitudes levied against him on campus? And see whether a one-year suspension against him was justified or not since bias appeared to have been against Wirick all along leading to his one year Gallaudet University suspension? Or will Gallaudet University turn a cold shoulder on the new ICED resolution calling for the concept of pluralism as implied in the resolution that was adopted by the International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) 2010 last summer"?

All interesting stuff here. But will we witness president Hurwitz shoot himself in the foot soon?