Proof when voice is more effective than signing....

Or is it?

Well, one person was the Chapter president (Sacramento) of California Association of the Deaf, an organization who pride themselves their strong heritage on using ASL, used his voice instead at a California Senate Health Hearing discussing the AB2072 bill in a roomful of culturally deaf people which would make Alexander G. Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, John Tracy Clinic, Oberkotter Foundation and all of the oral/aural schools around the United States quite proud.




Sign language interpreters were at the hearing to help interpret both voice and sign language.  Yet it's perfectly alright to use your voice, even at Gallaudet University, CSUN, or elsewhere as long as there are interpreters and/or CART services available so that everyone, deaf, hard of hearing and/or hearing can understand what's being said. Tim Riker, former chapter president of CAD, made it perfectly clear on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing that using his voice was wholly acceptable finding it preferable and more effective than signing.  Although one cannot avoid noticing the total irony coming from a chapter president of an organization that exclusively use sign language.

It was perfectly clear that using my voice at Gallaudet University's blog/vlog conference with interpreters and real time captioners available for the audience and for those watching over the internet (it was a live taping) was more effective for me than signing. It was simply due to my preference and communication ease. I discussed one of the topic surrounding the use of technology on whether ASL is in danger of disappearing.




It was perfectly clear when a Gallaudet University Board of Trustee member, Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, used her voice at a Gallaudet University graduation commencement speech was an effective use of her communication preference to the graduating class of 2006  with an inspirational speech but you need to know the true story of why she had to use her voice before you get angry first.

It was perfectly clear that John Fortius, an oral person who does not know sign language, who used his voice at the California Senate Health Hearing was an effective and efficient way of communicating to the assembly members.  Even though, ironically enough, the former chapter president of CAD criticized John (it appears he was talking about John) for having "unintelligible" speech.  Even though there is a complete transcript of John Fortias' speech and that sign language interpreters were clearly interpreting in ASL what John said for the deaf audience in attendance at the Senate Health Hearing.





Thank you, Tim Riker, former California chapter president of Sacramento CAD. Thank you, John Fortias. Thank you Dr. Brenda Brueggemann.

Whatever mode of communication you find most effective and efficient is what really counts.

Walk4Hearing to break donation record

I reported on this earlier this year in April and in 8 months time the Walk4Hearing organization was able to raise another $800,000 with $1.2 million dollars already raised with the goal of $1.4 million dollars this year. From the looks of it they will definitely break the $1.4 million dollar mark this year beating out last year of $1.3 million dollars.

Money raised is shared between national and local programs and services including support of children with hearing loss at www.kidsandhearingloss.org.

National Programs and Services      

• Provide timely and reliable information about hearing loss through HLAA’s website, Hearing Loss Magazine, HLAA e-News, the Hearing Loss Support Specialist Training, message boards/chat forums and annual conventions
• Advocacy at the national level to affect legislation that impacts people with hearing loss, whether it’s funding for hearing aids, cochlear implants, communication access in public places or other important issues
• A nationwide network of chapters and state organizations providing peer support
• Support for parents of children with hearing loss at www.kidsandhearingloss.org
• Outreach to veterans returning with hearing loss
• Social networking site for young adults with hearing loss at www.hearinglossnation.org

Local Programs and Services     

• Captioning and hearing assistive technology at HLAA chapter meetings to make them accessible
• Scholarships toward college tuition for students with hearing loss
• Funding for hearing aids and assistive listening devices for people who cannot afford them
• Installation of hearing assistive technology in public places, such as community rooms and public libraries
• Captioning of live theater productions
• Seminars on coping with hearing loss

The www.kidsandhearingloss.org website is to help

...empower parents of hard of hearing and/or deaf children by providing the resources necessary for them to make informed decisions about their children’s hearing loss.

Discrimination against hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University

Yes, discrimination (and even oppression! keep reading) occurs everywhere, even at Gallaudet University by some of their own deaf and hard of hearing people whether coming from students, faculty or the staff. Discrimination is probably more pronounced against hard of hearing students than not for reasons that will be made clear below. Discrimination can happen consciously or subconsciously as in the recent McCaskill case but for an entirely different reason.

What brought me to this discrimination problem was an old Buff and Blue article "This is Gallaudet" electronically printed two and half years ago. I noticed a comment left by a parent of a hard of hearing son that made me think.

My son is a HOH rural- always mainstreamed-student. No ASL ever offered. The last thing he needs is another place he won’t be accepted without “conditions”. At least he knows what he is up against at a “hearing school”. Was so hopeful that this college could be a welcome break from discrimination for being who he is. I am so disappointed that “adults” act in this manner- especially ones who have been horribly discriminated against as he has been. He has worked so incredibly hard- zero possibility of being torn apart in DC.

What prompted this response was due in part of the article's coverage on "Deaf Zone" or "Deaf Space" which are essentially designated signing only zones on campus, no voice allowed. A clear act of discrimination good intention aside.

Let's step back a moment here.

One reason why I attended Gallaudet University (1988 - 1991) was to learn sign language and be around deaf/hh students who are like myself, a hard of hearing person whose identity is through speaking and listening while growing up and continuing through adulthood. I met my goal and made many friends who are hoh just like me. Just as well, I made friends who are culturally deaf who grew up with a deaf family or grew up signing.  I was not about to lose my identity as a hard of hearing person who grew up loving to listen and speak once I stepped inside the "golden gates" of Gallaudet University. No. My goal was to learn about Gallaudet University, the students and faculty there, the signing environment, the deaf culture, improve my signing and to finish my degree as quickly as possible which I did in 3 years time. I gained a language and a new perspective but that doesn't mean I had to change my own identity that I've always been comfortable with. My preferred mode of communication is and will always be speaking and listening in my own native English language with the help of my hearing aid. If I'm around deaf people who know sign language, I'll sign. Not a problem. If I want to do a presentation and there are interpreters and/or real time captioners available, I'll use my voice to do the presentation. Not a problem since the message wouldn't be lost on the deaf, hard of hearing and hearing audience whose own mode of communication preferences and comfort zones vary from one person to another. They can either listen to my presentation and get supplementary help with the live captioning at the same time. Or combine those with the interpreter signing. Or rely on just the captioning part alone for those who are weak with sign language and cannot hear/understand well the spoken words. Or preferably rely on the interpreter as their preferred communication access. Everybody gets accommodated. Everybody wins!

This "Deaf Space" concept might sound great at the surface but poking deeper into it presents potentially deeper problems depending on who you ask.

(Chris) Heuer stated that “there is one specific attitude that needs to change. If a non-signer is willing to learn sign, hands off! Let them learn in freedom. Help them. Include them. Make them a part of the community pride. If we exclude them, where else will they learn sign? How can we expect them to sign if we never interact with them?”  

“ASL is an official language like English, and it cannot be mastered overnight. We can’t force everyone to sign outside of the academic buildings and in private, like the dorms and the cafeterias. Imagine telling deaf people at a hearing school (or even oral schools back in the days) that they could not use their native language, sign language, to communicate. Would they like that? No. Now imagine telling hearing people not to talk — which is their native mode of communication — outside of the classroom,” said a hard-of-hearing student who chose to stay anonymous.

Exactly, which is why trying to enforce these "Deaf Zones" would be fruitless and even counter-productive depending on where these zones would be and who they are targeted for. In the same article Amanda Koski, a hearing student at Gallaudet University, commented:

Amanda Koski on November 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM said:

I agree with Sara 100%!
Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle.
The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful!
To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now? 

Here is the thing.

Native language through talking/listening isn't just for hearing people only but for hard of hearing people who grew up with English as their native language and are comfortable with it. That's key. They must be comfortable with it. There are hard of hearing students who are comfortable talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students, faculty or even staff or even among other hard of hearing people who can or prefer to speak and listen. It is a part of their identity, too. It doesn't do anybody any good to try and suppress or constrain their identities.

While as a student at Gallaudet University I've even requested several times, in their own private offices and elsewhere, for a hearing instructor or a staff member to not sign but simply speak which made conversations so much easier and faster. I have that right to request that kind of accommodation if I feel that signing simply "gets in the way." All hard of hearing students want are better accommodations to go with their education at Gallaudet University like access to CART, note-takers, voice-interpreters, and so on like they would expect the same kind of accommodations at any other universities.  This is so students won't be constrained completely in ASL only with no other accommodations to help fill the missing communication gap for those new or struggling with sign language. Eventually they will catch up. They like to be able to understand, get the full communication access, and participate just like everybody else.  Understanding only a third or half of what was signed doesn't help anybody's education.

Next is Jonathan Beattyon, a hard of hearing student, who expressed himself well about the problems hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University facing prejudice and discrimination against them.

Jonathan Beattyon November 29, 2010 at 3:12 PM said: Terrific. Some of the points here are points I make on a daily basis; specifically, the point about the new students not being told about the so-called darker side of Deaf culture. I have found the culture here to be somewhat exclusionary at times.  

I’ll explain myself: I’m hard-of-hearing and have been since birth. However, I “fit in” in the hearing world well. Face-to-face communication is easy enough for me (even though using the phone is painfully difficult with some voices) that I did not *have* to come to Gallaudet. However, I’ve had good experiences with the Academic Bowl, having come to Nationals three times. I was always met with respect and patience, even though during the competition I used a voice interpreter. I came to Gallaudet as a new signer (in the summer program as well) expecting similar treatment.  

Ha! I was wrong.  

In only the third day of the New Signers’ Program, my table at lunch was approached by a proud Deaf girl who proceeded to tell us (with a good friend of mine translating for my benefit, of course) that Gallaudet was a Deaf university and that we should only sign while on campus. Those competent in ASL at the table were sim-comming, but two of us were just speaking. At that point, I knew letters, numbers, and days of the week, along with a smattereing of other useful signs (“right”, “wrong”, “day”, “morning”, etc) so I was not pleased at being told that my language skills were not good enough to be allowed to express myself.  

I am also offended that it’s somehow right for people to criticize my signing skills just because they are Deaf. It’s well-accepted on campus and seen as being just a sign of “Deaf bluntness”. I’m sick of it; I do make an effort to improve my signing skills, but what if I were to laugh at a Deaf person trying to order food at McDonald’s: “Your speaking is awful. You should practice more.” That would be completely unacceptable.  

The argument from tradition is a very, very poor one. Something is not good just because that’s how it’s traditionally been done. Some examples of “cultural traditions” here that I have come to abhor:  

1. The cultural policy on phones. I personally do not have voice on my phone (when I use the phone, I prefer to do so on Skype with my amplified headphones and equalizer). That being said, if someone wants to use the phone, let them. Is it right to sit at the table with Deaf people and speak on the phone? No, and for the same reason that it would be inappropriate for me to greet a phone call from my friend Hans with “Tag, Hans! Wie geht’s?” and proceed to rattle off in German while surrounded by English-speaking hearing people.  

2. The repression of simultaneous communication. Yes, I said it. The point is communication; when you get stuck in the game of being prideful in something just because it’s part of *your* culture, you’re playing the same stupid games oppressive people have always played. I’d like to be able to understand lectures and be able to participate. For the same reasons that Deaf students in mainstream schools do not typically participate in classes (linguistic processing is slow with or without the interpreter) I find it difficult to participate in a class when, by the time I understand what was signed, the conversation has already moved on. I do not think deaf people should be encouraged to sim-com if they’re not comfortable with it, not at all. However, I must say that I’m always appreciative when someone notices my poor signing skills and sim-coms for my benefit.  

3. The oppression of signs with “No, that’s English”; a lot of people on campus sign with an English structure anyway. That’s what happens in bilingual environments. It is very rare to see two languages side-by-side without “contamination”; Deaf English typically is missing things like articles, plurals, etc while Hearing ASL can contain signs which are, strictly speaking, completely unnecessary in a sign language. This occurs even when the people in question are fluent in both languages. There is a line between comfortable language and formal language; “Pidgin Signed English” is that line for a *lot* of students of all backgrounds.  

And with all due respect to President Hurwitz, I must say I disagree strongly with this comment:  

“And no, this is not about stifling speech or marginalizing those whose signing skills are undeveloped. Rather, it’s about respect, courtesy, tradition and harmony.”

I don’t care what it’s about. I am more concerned with what it DOES. These policies DO stifle speech and they DO marginalize those whose signing skills are underdeveloped. Your intentions are irrelevant.

Their intentions are indeed irrelevant (i.e. the making of "Deaf Space") when you still have those kinds of problems discrimination against hard of hearing (and hearing) students whose identities are quite diametrically different than those who grew up signing in a deaf family. Discrimination is alive and well on campus of Gallaudet University. It's certainly not harmony in the making if new hard of hearing students come on campus, new to signing or have rudimentary signing skills become shocked at the pervasiveness of how some deaf people treat them according to their speaking/listening and/or signing abilities.

President Hurwitz was correct when he noted the variety of signing skills among students at Gallaudet University:

 “We all know and accept that Gallaudet is a bilingual university. Communication here happens through American Sign Language (ASL) and English. While the expectation that everyone on campus becomes fluent in both languages within a reasonable amount of time, the reality is that some people, however diligent, take longer to master one or the other language.”

President Hurwitz of Gallaudet University also re-iterated on Sept 7, 2010 the key point on what 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.

You see that? "All forms of communication."

And if you don't like the idea of people using SimCom then consider former interim president Robert Davila who used his voice and signed at the same time for those who were never aware of it. You can see (and hear) in the video below at time stamp from 1:15 to 2:01 with president Davila using his voice while signing in sign supported English. Also note in the video deaf/hh people signing and mouthing the words at the same time, oftentimes in English order. Pure ASL? Not really. Signed English, sign-supported English or PSE? Sure. Question: How does president Hurwitz sign?





From the NTID page "Raising and Educating a Deaf Child" Mark Marschark of NTID (author of Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students) responded to a question "Can you tell me what the story is on sign-supported English?" (note the highlighted yellow bold words below) which I think is something that seriously need to be discussed, explored, researched and studied more:

I know, I know, everyone says that sign-supported English (SSE) and simultaneous communication (SimCom) – both involving speech and sign at the same time – are bad. On the theoretical/political side, people point out that neither is truly a language unto itself, and argue that they therefore are “inappropriate.” Empirically, people point to two studies, both done over 20 years ago, which found that several teachers and parents of young deaf children said more than appeared on their hands (by anywhere from 20 to 50%). The sign abilities of those parents and teachers were never examined, however, and some people are extremely good at SSE (or whatever language) and SimCom. Research over the past 30 years has shown that when teachers are highly skilled at SSE or SimCom, students learn just as much or more than with ASL from a teacher, interpreting, or spoken language alone. In our own work, we’ve recently have found the same thing, as deaf college students learned exactly the same amount when they had teachers using SimCom, voice-off ASL, or utilizing interpreters. Importantly, these were skilled teachers of the deaf, who had been using SimCom for many years with classes that included oral students, ASL students, and everything in between. Although it frequently is not discussed (at least in public) many deaf students request teachers to use SimCom and ask interpreters to include “English on the lips.” It seems likely that SimCom would be particularly beneficial for children with cochlear implants, who generally do not receive auditory input as clear as that received by hearing children.  

Unfortunately, the unearned stigma associated with SSE/SimCom seems to have prevented anyone from doing the appropriate study. Meanwhile, both are used effectively in many classrooms, even if students use a natural sign language or spoken language in other settings. What is essential is that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have early access to fluent language. That usually is difficult with spoken language alone and most parents are not fluent in sign. So, SimCom/SSE might be helpful in ensuring communication for new-signing parents, but this DOES NOT mean that SimCOM/SSE can replace full access to a natural language (actually, there isn’t research one way or another). The issue clearly is more complex than we can deal with here.  

For full discussion of what we know and what we don’t know, see Spencer, P.E. & Marschark, M. (in press). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York: Oxford University Press.

I thank the math and physics professors and other professors I had while a student at Gallaudet University for speaking and signing at the same time, it'd made my early years at Gallaudet University easier to transition and be able to participate better.

Hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University who feel that they are being discriminated or even oppressed because of their native language (spoken English) as their primary or preferred mode of communication need to stand up against these internal prejudices and discrimination on campus by voicing their concerns.  By doing so helps raise greater awareness of the problems that still persist on the campus of Gallaudet University.  They just want to be accommodated like everybody else and be able to participate while in the process of learning and using sign language.

Deaf Schools similar to Hogwarts?

I saw Amy Cohen's link to a video in Facebook of Michael Stultz, an ASL teacher, who did a video explaining to his hearing students on what deaf schools are like. In a moment of inspiration he used the Hogwarts school that Harry Potter and his friends, and their enemies, attended as having that similarity. Mr. Stultz explained that Hogwarts and deaf schools have similarities such a having a cafeteria where students would come together and meet and eat, dormitories, classroom settings, and even sports or contests settings, and a place where self-identity would be realized. Although I'm wondering if deaf schools would include Gallaudet University as the final place for  "advanced wizardry students" to attend and graduate?

Seeing the video title I wondered who Lord Voldemort would be while I watched the video. Of course, I wasn't surprised when Mr. Stultz targeted AGBell and other oral schools as being the "Lord Voldemort" equivalent although never mind the fact that Lord Voldemort is a character and not an institution in the Harry Potter books/movies. Does teaching ASL includes teaching students on what to think about AGBell and other oral schools?

Just wondering.

Mr. Stultz gave an example of how "Voldemort's" goal would be to eradicate the Muggle born (not born into pure blood of wizard parents) and their kind of wizardry (which happens to be the good kind and used for good and not fall prey to the dark magic like Voldemort did - aka Tom Riddle). In other words, Mr. Stultz made the claim that the ultimate goal of AGBell and other oral schools (so called "Voldemort") would be to deliberately eradicate the culturally deaf community (so called "Muggles").

Desperate are we?

Problem number one. Lord Voldemort is Muggle born, too, but believe in blood-purity even though he became the most powerful and feared half-blood Dark Wizard. Dumbledore explains the blood-purity complex and problem that Lord Voldemort and other arch enemies of the dark magic believe in.

Dumbledore asserts that the much-vaunted blood purity does not exist, and is only a fiction maintained by the deceptions of supremacist wizards.

At Hogwarts they have their pure-bloods, too, like Draco Malfoy and others in the House of Slytherin. So, that's problem number two.

The pure-bloods are those born to wizard parents with many of them believing on mixing only with their kinds (e.g. nth generation family of pure blood, no miscegenation ). Examples of pure-bloods and what they do in order to maintain their "blood purity" lineage would be the Blacks, the Lestranges, the Crouches, the Fudges, the Gaunts, the Longbottoms, the Malfoys, the Potters and the Weasleys but not all of them believe in mixing only with their kinds like what the Malfoys believe (pay attention to the underlined bold below).

To maintain their blood purity, supremacist families have been known to inbreed into their own families by marrying their cousins, resulting in mental instability and violent natures. The Gaunts displayed both tendencies by the time of the sixth book with the exception of Merope, the last female member of the line.  

Pure-blood supremacists believe blood purity is a measure of a wizard's magical ability – notwithstanding examples of highly skilled Muggle-born witches like Hermione Granger and Lily Evans, and less skilled pure-bloods such as Neville Longbottom – and Muggles to be low-life, having no magic in them. Supremacists apply the term "blood traitor" to pure-bloods who harbor no prejudice against non-pure-bloods (enjoying their presence and relations with them).  

The antagonistic wizards in the Harry Potter books are almost all supremacists, while Harry and his friends disagree with this ideology. Rowling draws several parallels between the pure-blood supremacists and Nazi ideology in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the belief that pure-blood wizards have the right to subjugate the Muggle world and view themselves as a "master race", laws requiring Muggle-borns to register with the Ministry of Magic, rounding up Undesirables, etc.).

Sounds familiar? Traitors of "pure-blood" in the deaf sense would be culturally deaf people who enjoy intermingling with deaf/hh people of AGBell and those who are products of oral or even mainstreamed schools.

Who would the "pure-bloods" be if Michael Stultz is determined to use Voldemort and Hogwarts as examples?  Since "pure-bloods" are those wizards born to wizard parents sound very much like culturally deaf people born to culturally deaf parents and are a part of the "nth Deaf Generation." Those "pure-bloods" sometime advocates "Deaf purity" in all aspect of their Deaf life such as no hearing aids or cochlear implants coinciding with their own elitism of having been born, if they are lucky, as the nth culturally deaf generation who associate mostly with "their kinds" like other culturally deaf friends and families.

Deafhood anyone?

You see the problem now? The "pure-blood" at deaf schools would be the "nth born culturally deaf" students who do not wear or believe in hearing aids or cochlear implants, does not talk or do the "yowling" and use ASL only as their primary mode of communication. The "pure-bloods" at Hogwarts believe that Mugglehould not be taught magic and wizarding skills who limit their interaction with them by marginalizing them in many aspects of their lives.

Does that not sound familiar already? Do you see where I'm getting at?

Does the pure-blood Malfoys sound familiar, too?

Who would the "Deaf Malfoys" be at Gallaudet University and other (signing) deaf schools if you *really* want to go that far, Mr. Stultz?  Who would be the "Deaf Potters" be at Galluadet University and other deaf schools? What about the Longbottoms and the Weasleys who do not believe in the blood-purity requirement?

This gets worse (or better depending on your view).

Michael Stultz's attempted to compare (signing) deaf schools to that of Hogwarts using Lord Voldemort (aka Tom Riddle who is the ultimate character villain of Harry Potter) to represent AGBell and oral schools presents a number of problems as you can probably already see it by now.

Not everybody who attended Hogwarts were Muggle borns. You had the Malfoys, remember? The same pure-blood Draco Malfoy who sneered at Muggle borns at Hogwarts by calling them derisively and derogatorily as "Mudbloods."

Harry first encounters Draco's snobbish bigotry after their initial encounter at Madam Malkin's.[2] Rowling uses the Malfoys to introduce themes of intolerance and bigotry into a setting where people are often judged solely by their blood lineage rather than their good character or accomplishments. Draco, adhering to his family's beliefs, thinks that Muggle-born witches and wizards, which he and other characters derogatorily describe by the epithet Mudbloods, should be denied a magical education. Harry's first impression that the Wizarding community is a "magical wonderland" is instantly shattered. Says Rowling, "[Harry] found out that many people in power in the wizarding world are just as corrupt and nasty as they are in our world." Malfoy was originally named "Draco Spungen" in the earliest drafts of Philosopher's Stone. "Spungen" also appeared on her pre-canon class list, but it was crossed out and replaced with the surname "Spinks", while "Malfoy" was later added after the completion of the list. Philip Nel believes that Malfoy is derived from the French phrase mal foi, meaning "bad faith."In an article published in 2002, Nilsen and Nilsen argue that "Draco" has connotations with draconian, and that his name starts with "mal", a French prefix for "bad" or "evil". Many of Draco's relatives on his mother's side of the family (the Blacks) are named for stars or constellations (e.g., Sirius Black, Regulus Black, Andromeda Black Tonks, Bellatrix Black Lestrange, Cygnus Black, Orion Black). Another constellation is Draco (the Dragon). Draco Malfoy eventually named his son for yet another constellation, Scorpius.

Again, sound familiar?

In Hogwarts there are four Houses in the school of witchcraft and wizardry: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin. Prior to starting school the Sorting Hat identifies each new Hogwarts student by wearing the hat. The Sorting Hat would either identify the new student belonging either to  Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, or Slytherin House,

The Sorting Hat claims that blood purity, is a factor in selecting Slytherins. This suggests that it bases its decisions more upon the views of its members than on any accurate test of a student's lineage. Muggle-born Slytherins exist, but are very rare, as noted insultingly by Scabior the Snatcher.[9] There have also been definite examples of half-bloods sorted into the house, including Tom Marvolo Riddle (Lord Voldemort) and Severus Snape. Harry Potter was nearly sorted into Slytherin, but ended up in Gryffindor instead.

So, what is the House of Slytherin?

Slytherin is one of the four Houses at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and is traditionally home to students who exhibit such traits as cunning, resourcefulness, and ambition. Its emblematic animal is the snake and its colours are green and silver. The house ghost is the Bloody Baron. Founded by Salazar Slytherin, the house is composed mostly of pure-blood students, due to its founder's mistrust of Muggle-born witches and wizards. Slytherin house has a negative reputation, with many claiming that it is the source of most Dark Wizards in Britain, notably Tom Marvolo Riddle, a.k.a. Lord Voldemort, as well as many of his Death Eaters (followers). It has a traditional rivalry with Gryffindor.

The Sorting Hat selected Gryffindor House for Harry Potter who noted for his good character and strength rather than for his blood purity. The Sorting Hat almost put Harry Potter into the House of Slytherin. And if you remember the movie Harry Potter was praying/hoping that he wouldn't want to be put into the House of Slytherin. The Sorting Hat explains what a Slytherin would do :

Or perhaps in Slytherin,
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means,
To achieve their ends."

- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" by J.K. Rowling        

The Slytherins will use any means to achieve their ends and that means cheating, killing, lying, providing misinformation, backstabing, defamation, and so on. Just making a point here and not making this a literal comparison so calm down by now.

But the House of Gryffindor emphasizes a completely different set of philosophy and belief:

The Gryffindor house emphasises the traits of courage as well as "daring, nerve, and chivalry," and thus its members are generally regarded as brave, though sometimes to the point of recklessness. They can also be short-tempered. Notably, Gryffindor house contributed many members to Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix.

Ah, remember Dumbledore's Army during the Battle at Hogwarts?

The Slytherin students left while many students from the other three houses remained behind to fight against Lord Voldemort.      

"Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement. The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves." —before the Battle of Hogwarts.

If you want comparison, Mr. Stulz. I'm that "Muggle born" the "half-blood" deaf/hh guy. I'm that person in the "House of Gryffindor." Heck, I could be that "Harry Potter" who unwittingly became the leader in the fight against the Slytherins, the Malfoys, the Voldemorts and their evil "pure-bloods." I join with the other two Houses, the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws in the fight against the Slytherins and the "Voldemorts."

Nah. But I'm making a point here.

If you really want to get down to brass tacks then the "Muggle borns" at deaf schools (or even at Gallaudet University) would be deaf/hh students who are mostly born to hearing parents with most of them wearing hearing aids and cochlear implants who know how to talk and even listen, along with other communication tools such as CUED speech. The "pure-blood" would be those who are born to culturally deaf parents who advocate strongly ASL (as opposed to be open to PSE, SEE, Cued Speed, aural/oral methods), does not usually talk and usually do not wear hearing aids or cochlear implants. Their status as "pure Deaf" are coveted and used as an elitist badge of theirs.  I can play this game, too. Just humor me hear, folks. The "pure blood" would be the "nth generation Deaf family" students at a (signing) deaf school and Gallaudet University.

Mr. Stultz and others, do you really want to compare Hogwarts to that of deaf schools/Gallaudet University and "Lord Voldemort" to that of AGBell and oral schools supposedly bent on destroying Hogwarts and Muggle borns?  If I were you, I'd avoid the whole comparison game else you'd end up with the whole pure-blood contradiction and conundrum backfiring on you.

The continuing attacking, smearing, misinformation and disinformation campaigns against AGBell and other oral/aural schools are mostly done by those in the culturally deaf community and not the other way around. Look who really are doing the attacking. Look at those who are proud of their "pure-blood" as the "nth Deaf generation family member" (I have no beef about that one).

Look at the "Muggle borns" at deaf schools, Gallaudet University, NTID, and even CSUN who are made up of all walks of life those born deaf or late deafened. Those who grew up deaf, hard of hearing, or Deaf. Those who are CUED speech users, SEE users, PSE users, and ASL users. Those who prefer to talk and listen over signing. Those who are born to deaf parents, born to Deaf parents, or born to hearing parents. "Muggle borns" are the kind of people who simply accept others people with hearing loss for who they are. They do not care for the measure of "blood purity" (e.g. nth generation Deaf family, ASL only, etc) but rather look to the depth of a person's character born out of goodness and strength.


ADDENDUM:  See "Part II" of this blog piece.

Doubters of Sarah Churman...and the hypocrisy

Oh, I covered this before but it was done in a video format about how so many people, especially some deaf people, doubted Sarah Churman's ability to hear and even speak so well even after getting her implantable Envoy hearing device. What surprised me out of all of the videos I produced this one video I did has netted me with over 8,500 hits since last year in October 2011.Must've been a flurry of video searches going on when Sarah Churman's video went viral.

Neat.

The other video I did in July of 2009 that turned out well netted me over 5,400 hits. A video I produced called, "A positive ASL video of a 1 year old baby." And the next video I produced back in July 2011 was a video for hearing people only called, "When deaf/hh people speak, the hypocrisy from the deaf culture." A video where I discussed the hypocrisy I saw from a certain select group of deaf people in the deaf community when I pointed out to Jeff who did the very same thing producing a video for hearing people only. Just as well I also pointed out Tim Riker who did the very same thing by talking at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing. And when I pointed that out in my blog about the hypocrisy they certainly circled the wagon around Tim Riker in the effort to "protect" him for speaking when they have furiously for years tried to prop up the positive message of ASL. And in the end, that group had to fall back speaking to a group of hearing people at the Senate Health Hearing despite having an ASL interpreters readily available. And this was a deaf guy, fluent in ASl, who was the the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter). A chapter that represents culturally deaf people who chose to speak over signing.

Now, as I think about it, my "for hearing people only" video for some reason has gotten more attention than Jeff's video even though we both produced a video for hearing people only. Why is that? Interesting.

Oh, and don't forget. Sarah Churman's new book is almost out. Don't forget to buy a copy.

Having "perfect speech"....

What still boggles my mind today is to see some deaf people who are still hinging on the idea that speech theraphy is all about attaining "perfect speech." 

No.

There is no such thing. It's laughable to even think that.

If you don't believe me then you certainly have not heard a hearing native southerner or hearing native northerner speak.

This is all about attaining intelligible speech and not about "perfect speech." It's important that people need to understand this. This is about attaining good diction habits. Good enuciation of words to be spoken well. It is about obtaining an oral skill that will last a lifetime.

There are many benefits in having intelligible speech whether it's done as a one way conversation or to have a dialogue with people around you.

To say that speech theraphy is about trying to get deaf or hard of hearing people to get their speech as "close to hearing people's speech" is nothing more but a play on emotion rather than about facts.

Speech sessions have its benefits for deaf and hh kids. I should know because I was one of them and the beneficiary of having taken those sessions.

My lost video...resurfaced!

This is an old video (with subtitle) response to Deaf Pundit's, aka Jeannette Johnson, comment that I've long forgotten. Never bothered to put my video up on YouTube the day after she mentioned about a blog I did and "Candy's" back in June 2011 with her comments in one of Deaf Jeff's blog piece. Needless to say, it was something that made me shake my head with incredulity and a raised eyebrow. So, once again, if you're curious go ahead and see my video.

Speed Limit

Which is faster in communicating? American Sign Language (ASL), Signing Exact English (S.E.E.) or Oral (i.e. speaking)?  Is speed really that important? Does speed indicate intelligence? Does speed indicate IQ capability? Why does it matter when it comes to the speed of communicating?  What's really important when it comes to communicating? Well, in my humble opinion it does not really matter when it comes to "communication speed. It doesn't matter which communication methods is used as long as whatever works and that the person is comfortable with it. Speed isn't a factor here but the ability to communicate effectively, comfortably and people are able to understand you. And that the communication is an intelligible one.  But I'm still quiet impressed if a person can speak at an ungodly speed breaking the world record as the fastest talker at 600+ words per minute. And I can only type 80 wpm! Holy schmoly!

Forgetting your deafness while not forgetting that you're deaf.

Lately there seems to be a bit of twisting of a particular quote on what Naomi Horton of Indiana Hear said not too long ago in a recent Indiana Hear press release last year in June:

When deaf kids don’t consider themselves deaf… the magic begins.

The context of her quote is quite simple once your read the rest of the press release. It's from a point of view that when kids are having fun and are communicating with each other, they forget that they are deaf. Hence, the "magic begins." That press release provides a much better context in support of her quote.  In fact, in the press release it stated that the kids when asked a question about camp they don't talk about their deafness:

....queried the children about what makes this camp special. A sample of the answers were: “swimming in the lake,” “horseback riding,” and “the friends we make.” None of campers surveyed even mentioned being deaf.

That's the gist of it. They have fun at camp forgetting completely about being deaf. The kids know they have a hearing loss or are deaf and certainly are not ignoring that very fact themselves. 

Tyler McAchren, a Junior at Huntington University, was a chaperone this summer after attending as a camper for three years. McAchren who wears a cochlear implant was asked, “Do you consider yourself deaf?”

“I usually say I’m hearing, but I’m not opposed to using the word deaf either. After all without my implant I am profoundly deaf.”

Hear Indiana’s executive director, Naomi Horton, queried the children about what makes this camp special. A sample of the answers were: “swimming in the lake,” “horseback riding,” and “the friends we make.” None of campers surveyed even mentioned being deaf.

Naomi Horton spoke about the summer camp for deaf and hard of hearing kids with the goal to help build up their confidence and self esteem. Nothing more, nothing less. 

“Camp reminds us all that deafness is no longer a limitation. Our campers amaze me with the gentle way they encourage each other to complete our challenge tasks. Our camp is fostering future leaders, not just within the hard of hearing and deaf community, but within the hearing world at large.”

The kids at summer camp communicate amongst themselves forgetting that they are deaf just like any other deaf kids who communicate whether by speaking, listening or signing.  It is a common thing to forget about our deafness in our effortless moments whenever we communicate with other people but certainly have not forgotten that we have a hearing loss. It'd be ludicrous and delusional to think otherwise.

The solution...

Have a hearing loss? Deaf? Hard of hearing? Don't know sign? Have a hard time mingling with hearing people? Watch this video and figure out how another way of doing face to face communication can be done.



The answer is simple. Even Noah Buchholz knows the answer. But the bigger question is how willing will deaf or hearing people take the time to sit down and have a genuine face to face conversation? Or will people continue to reject others simply because they cannot hear well or do not know sign?

Learn to let go of the status quo.

Captioned Video: The Doubters of Sarah Churman

Remember the phrase people, deaf people can do anything...even speak really, really well just like Sarah Churman. Even hear pretty good, too! But we still have a hearing loss at the end of the day when we turn off our hearing aids or cochlear implant.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Churman

I predicted this would happen a few days ago that Rush Limbaugh would discuss about the YouTube viral sensation of Sarah Churman and the Esteem implantable hearing aid remarkable result and impact on her and to the rest of the viewers. I heard Rush discussed the whole thing over my radio this morning. And his transcript can now be seen on his website.

The video of it on YouTube has gone viral. Millions of people are watching it. They got one thing wrong. She was not deaf. For the Esteem to work, you have to have some hearing. If you're a hundred percent deaf it won't work because it restores your natural hearing using your own eardrum. It's a prosthetic hearing implant, just became available last year, totally invisible. If you were to meet her today you would not see it. The Esteem works with her natural hearing to restore it to near optimum levels. The video I mentioned, you can actually see Sarah, the minute the Esteem is turned on she can hear herself laugh for the first time. She can hear her own voice clearly for the first time. She's so overwhelmed by all of this, something that we all take for granted, that she starts to cry.


Now, the video's only a minute and a half long, but it's a couple-Kleenex video. She's crying and laughing so hard, she goes through several tissues. Her husband, Sloan Churman, videotaped the moment for her, and he posts it for family and friends to see that could not be with her in the doctor's office when they turned the thing on. So one person tells another, the video starts to go viral and a week later six and a half million people have seen it or there have been six and a half million views of the video and what made it all possible was the Esteem from Envoy Medical. Now, you can see the video on YouTube, and we're gonna post it at RushLimbaugh.com, too. You can see the Esteem at EnvoyMedical.com, or call them, 800-518-7320.


But you should see this video. The moment it's turned on for the first time in her life she can hear, and it's an amazing thing. If you've never lost your hearing you have no clue what it's like and it's just an amazing thing to see, and it's a fabulous product, and when I saw the video, I said, "That's it! That's the Esteem, that's our client, that's our sponsor." I was proud as I could be, as we only associate with the best.

One thing Rush got wrong was that, yes, Sarah was born deaf. Maybe Rush was thinking in the context as stone deaf but yes, she's deaf and even hard of hearing, too. And now, she's easily hard of hearing to the point when people would automatically assume her to be hearing the way she would speak so clearly.

Congratulations, Sarah!

Parental rights and their deaf child

Joseph Pietro Riolo (JPR) made some very salient points and asked the important questions when it came to parental rights and their deaf children as seen in Patti's blog. I'll use some of Joseph's points and comments in my blog by highlighting them. What it really boils down to is that parents do have the right to decide on how to raise their deaf child in terms of mode and mean of communication and language acquisition.

First, let's talk about the article “And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped: An Examination of the Cochlear Implant From a Jewish Bioethical Perspective” by Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh whose last paragraph makes a conceding point.

“A consolidation of these views leads only to the idea that from a Jewish perspective we ought not to impose opinions on the people who must make a decision vis a vis the cochlear implant, namely, the parents or legal guardian(s) of deaf children. The responsibility of Jews with respect to the cochlear implant is only to make sure that individuals considering this medical procedure have access to all of the relevant information from the medical community, the Deaf community, and from within Jewish tradition. Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.”

JPR makes this comment regarding the article in the last paragraph and I agree with his assessment, too.

This paragraph actually supports the decision to put cochlear implant in a deaf child if his or her parents decide to do so. Also, it supports the decision not to put cochlear implant in a deaf child. In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child.

Certainly, nothing wrong with putting or not putting cochlear implant in a deaf child. Parental rights are ensured here in allowing them to make the necessary and informed decision for their deaf children.

Next, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26(3) it states:

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” 

I agree with JPR's assessment that this

"strongly suggests that the parents of a deaf child can choose the pure oralism for the deaf child." 

There is nothing in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights document that states that this parental right would be overridden by the right of a deaf child to be culturally deaf. In fact, there is no mechanism to enforce the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf over parents' rights, and there shouldn't be a mechanism to ensure that due to numerous inherent problems as JPR explained why.

How a person is supposed to do when he or she sees that the right of a deaf child to be culturally Deaf is violated? Is he or she supposed to report the violation to police? Is he supposed to report the violation to Child Protection Service (or similar agency)? Is she supposed to report the violation to National Association of the Deaf, Deaf Bilingual Coalition or similar organization that will send a legal team to defend the right of the deaf child? Is he supposed to report the violation to any organization that focuses on human rights? After the violation is reported, how is the right supposed to be enforced? Does this mean that the parents are to be ordered by court or governmental agency to respect, maintain and support the right of the deaf child to be culturally Deaf? What will happen if the parents still refuse to do that?

Indeed. Lots of problems once that Pandora Box is opened.

But let's look at the "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." In that document it states that no obligation is required of the parents to use sign language with their deaf children. In other words if parents choose pure oralism without using a signed language approach for their deaf child, the parents do not violate anything in that document supported by the United Nation. Although the document does require governments to accept and recognize the use of sign languages as seen in Article 21(b) and (e):

(b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means,modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;

(e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages.

Also in Article 24(3)(c) it states:

“Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children,who are blind, deaf or deaf/blind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development."

Note the underlined bold in the above which could mean to include CART services, FM loop, sign language (ASL, PSE, SEE, what have you), speaking and listening, and so on. There are a variety of ways that can meet those assurances.

In Article 30(4) it points out for people with disabilities on the

“recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture”

As far as I can tell there is nothing in the document (Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) forbidding the parent’s right to choose pure oralism, ASL, SEE,PSE, SE, SimCom, contact language, manual alphabet, cued speech and such. Just as well there is nothing in the  document that showed any support of governments to actively suppress the use of sign language through laws, governmental actions and so forth, either.

In fact, JPR pointed out an all too apparent of an obligation and concluded that

"a government has the obligation to deliver education in the modes and means that agree with pure oralism. What the governments cannot do is that they cannot suppress or exclude any modes, means or languages when the parents of children with disabilities want them or ask for them."

And that's the bottom line when it comes to governmental intervention, which is already limited for a reason, on language and mode of communication and that such a decision is still within the parents' rights.

Some people might see choosing oralism over ASL as "punishment" or acts of "genocide" but according to the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" it says nothing of the sort.  JPR elaborated: 

Again, if the parents of a deaf child decide to exercise their right to put cochlear implant in the child and to use the pure oralism when raising the child, they do not violate anything in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The only thing in the document that seems to be related to the topic on hand is the term “mental harm” as in “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;” (Article II(b)). Although the enumeration of groups does not include linguistic groups (“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, …” (Article II)), I will assume that the enumeration is broad enough to include the linguistic groups that include Deaf culture.

It may be possible that some people will attempt to argue that depriving a deaf child of ASL is equivalent to “mental harm” on the child. However, the child is usually not a member of Deaf culture if the parents are hearing or are of the Hearing culture. Just because a child is deaf does not mean that he or she is automatically a member of the Deaf culture. In this interpretation, the parents do not violate anything in the convention if they decide to raise their deaf child in a Hearing culture without using sign language.

Two points here as seen in the above underlined bold words. First, there is no intent, systematic or otherwise, to rid or destroy the use of ASL or sign language. Second point is that a deaf child born into hearing parents is not automatically a member of the deaf culture. And that brings up an important consideration about raising a deaf child in a hearing culture without using sign language because doing so does not violate any of the articles or documents I provided in this blog thus far. 

Below JPR explains and clarifies his position which mirrors much like mine in a lot of ways.

1) It is always my personal position that any deaf child – actually, any child – should have the freedom to sign (not just ASL or any natural signed languages but also SimCom, Cued Speech, Signed English and contact languages). But, I would never want to impose my position on any parents. I would write a true story about a deaf child being punished for signing at home; I would write an opinion article criticizing some parents who do not allow their children to sign; I would make a film that tells about a deaf child who run away from draconian parents who do not let him or her to sign; I would search for grants to research on deaf children who are not allowed by their parents to sign; if I were a professional, I would confront the parents and inform them that they are going too far in not allowing their deaf children to sign; and so on.

But, I would never want to create a new right for a deaf child to be culturally Deaf. When we create a new right for a deaf child, we are eroding the parental right. This will give a precedent for the majority (read: Hearing culture) to create another new right for a deaf child to have the access to spoken language through cochlear implant and doing so erodes parental right further more. If the parents of a deaf child refuses to put cochlear implant in the child, the majority will say, “See, any deaf child has the right of access to spoken language and therefore, your child must have cochlear implant. Never mind your parental right to decide how to raise your deaf child. After all, you want bilingualism. Giving cochlear implant to your deaf child will help bilingualism. Your child will have both ASL and the spoken English language. More power to bilingualism!” The deaf child is taken away from their parents for surgery at an undisclosed hospital.

I may go too far in describing the above scenario but it can happen. It is not hard to predict that cochlear implant technology is getting better and better and the success rate is increasing steadily. Before, the success rate was around 1/3 (33%). Now, it is around 1/2 (50%). Maybe, by the year of 2015, the rate may go up to 2/3 (66%). Maybe, by the year of 2020, the rate may go up to 3/4 (75%). It is very tempting for the majority to override the parental right and go directly to the deaf children and have them receive cochlear implant in spite of the objections from their parents.

Creating a new right for deaf child may be cool now but it could give a new precedent for the majority later on.

In other words, be careful on what you ask for.

In my own clarification, I'd be wary of allowing the idea that government be given the consideration to force parents with deaf/hh children on issues regarding sign language, cochlear implant, oral/aural routes and educational upbringing.  Removing parental rights is not the answer. The parents have the right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf/hh child when it comes to mode of communication, the means, language development, and educational upbringing. All we can do is provide all the necessary information for parents and provide them them the necessary resources and support so they can make an informed decision. Just as Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh said in the very beginning of my blog on parents making an informed decision:

Once this is done, others should step back and respect the divine image within those individuals, and allow them the space and freedom to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

And so there you have it.

Quit yer bitchin.....

dFor a person with a hearing loss going to college for the first time will come to the realization (mostly the parents' realization) that cost of college just keeps getting more expensive with each passing year. The best thing to prepare well ahead of time by researching all of the available and possible scholarships and grants that can help keep expenses down. There are some 2.7 million local, state and national college scholarships and grants worth over 19 billion dollars for free! Imagine that. There are several possible scholarships or grants a deaf or hard of hearing person can apply for.

Each of these organization or institution has the right to define the eligibility criteria in order to qualify for a scholarship or grant such as Alexander Graham Bell's which provides about 18 or so scholarships each year to qualified applicants. But what happens when deaf people find out about AGB and do not qualify?

"Life is soooooooo unfair!" (*rants* *rants* *throws self on floor and proceed to Defcon 4 temper tantrum*)

That's pretty much in a nutshell. Unbelievably so.

People need to learn to move on and keep digging when it comes to searching for free money. There are scholarships and grants available that have nothing to do with hearing loss or disability. In fact, there are tons of them! If you are a female and want to study law, there are scholarships/grants out there for that. African American? Yep. Good at sports? Sure thang! Even kids of deceased parents can tap into scholarships specifically for them. Are you a single Mom and going to college? Yep, there's a grant for that, too. Amazing. Just about almost anything you can think of there's a grant for it. And you can tally up those grants worth $300, $150, $500, $800, $100 and so on. It can add up quickly when you "nickle and dime" your grants together over time.

How about pound the pavement for a change instead of trying to find something easier that focuses directly on a person's own hearing loss? Look around. Invest your time and energy and dig up these valuable scholarship and grant resources that are worth over $19 billion dollars. How can you get that piece of the pie to help with your college expenses? Simple. You dig around for it like you would panning for gold along a creek. Be sure to give yourself at least a year's time to dig up these gold nuggets before attending college and make a note when to apply for them when the time is right.  And do not stop looking. Just because you have a good list of possible grants or scholarships doesn't mean you stop looking because not you may not get that award after you apply. It's best to keep looking and add more to your list of grants and scholarships. 

Bitchin' about AGBell's scholarship award program regarding its eligibility criteria is simply a big waste of time. AGBell has every right to define those criteria for eligibility purposes just like any other scholarships or grants you apply for.

Time to stop crying like a baby over that. Let's be an adult for a change because going to college is an investment of your time and resource. Spend it wisely.  Know where to look and get that gold nugget you were looking for.

Good luck for 2012 and beyond. You'll need it.

The new deaf generation....listening and speaking.

Cochlear implant technology has enabled a whole new generation of deaf people enabling them the ability to speak, listen and understand the spoken word, and acquire a language. Below are two split videos of a documentary of deaf children who were outfitted with cochlear implants while very young. They were interviewed later on in life as pre-teens and teenagers and talking to them, you wouldn't know they were deaf. These group of deaf people are the next upcoming crop of new generation of deaf people with cochlear implants.

In the documentary, those children and teens are from Australia where all of them grew up with all of the inflection, pitch and intonation in their voices with an apparent Australian accent. When that happens you know for fact that early intervention works and that cochlear implant provides that very access to a world of speaking and listening, and spoken language acquisition. For parents of deaf babies to watch this documentary would prove to be powerfully insightful and full of hope for them that anything else wouldn't be anywhere near as convincing. This documentary points out that cochlear implants do work and that early intervention is the most important key of them all because of the brain's early plasticity development. Parents would be the glue to make it all work.

Be sure to watch all of the video documentary before commenting so that you can be properly informed on what was covered in the video.

Part I
http://youtu.be/0lmCuyrgc80

Part II
http://youtu.be/ttd2l9J9oqE


When I watched that documentary I was simply amazed at the children and teens' voices and I could actually hear their full inflection, pitch and intonation of their accented (Australian) voices as opposed to hearing American kids with cochlear implants (they do just as well, btw). The difference was hearing their Australian accent vs American accent. Which means one thing, cochlear implant does work even to capture the accent of their (hearing) native spoken language. Not only just speaking but listening as well. The boy with the rocket ship doesn't need to look at his teachers' mouth (i.e. lip reading) to have a conversation. He even understood the electronic voice in the space rocket announcing a countdown (5, 4, 3, 2, 1...blast off!) and the boy would hear that and lifts the rocket up.

Early intervention is the key and parental involvement must play a huge role in this. Not doing those things would simply be left to chance. All this is from an aural and oral development point of view I acknowledge readily. I still see that signing such as SEE, SE, PSE or ASL can play an important role for deaf and hard of hearing children although perhaps in some areas not as critical to others (e.g. profoundly deaf vs those with mild hearing loss at 30 db). It's simply up to parents to make an *informed decision* before moving forward. And we must accept those parents' decisions. The decision does not rest with anyone else. Yet this documentary video will prove to be compelling to parents of deaf babies by providing them the biggest hope and a confirmation that it does work.  How can you compete with that when it comes to speaking and listening development?

The Growing Cued Speech Advocacy

One of the best way to encourage the growth and use of Cued Speech is have native cuers who grew up using Cued Speech help spread the message. They are now the first generation of native cuers in their twenties and thirties.

In the video below shows several young adult cuers getting together at a retreat on strategies to help spread the word about Cued Speech. This is one of the true examples of a positive grassroots in action at the regional and local levels in workshops, conferences, exhibits, cue summer camps (more here), and community of cuers on helping spread the use of Cued Speech. It has been proven to be highly successful and beneficial when it comes to helping improve English literacy. I'm quite encouraged to see these young adults taking the reign on helping spread the message about Cued Speech and an interest on improving English literacy.

For more information on CLEAR (Cuers for Leadership, Education, and Advocacy Retreat) or visit their Facebook page.



History of Cued Speech

• Cued Speech was developed by Dr. R. Orin Cornett at Gallaudet College (now Gallaudet University) in Washington, DC in 1966. 
• The National Cued Speech Association was formed in 1982 and now has numerous affiliates across the country, including Cued Speech of Colorado.
• To this date Cued Speech has been adapted to over 60 languages around the world.

Before you say anything else, do yourself a favor and read this position statement by NCSA on Cued Speech and sign language.

Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group? Potentials, myths, problems and slippery slope

There's an article that came out this morning called "Should the Deaf Be Considered an Ethnic Group?" An issue brought up by Richard C. Pillard, a School of Medicine professor of psychiatry, saying that the (culturally) deaf should be recognized as a distinct ethnic group. That argument raised (and will raise even more in the coming days) a lot questions, issues, potentials (positive) and myths. But one of the things I noticed is Pillard's bias (just like Harlan Lane who is hearing) against cochlear implant.

For people unfamiliar with them, the implants sound like a medical marvel. But they are problematic, he says. “They work poorly, and that’s something worth emphasizing. You get 24 channels for different octaves and tonal recognition, but the price you pay for that is you’re a kid trying to play soccer and so on with this business strapped to your body.” And the implants, designed to be optimal when used in both ears, destroy residual hearing in people who were not completely deaf before the implants. “It seems to me that what we’re doing is transforming someone who could have a perfectly healthy ethnic identity and turning him into a marginalized kid who can’t speak or hear well, but could learn to sign beautifully,” Pillard says.

Pillard uses a typical red herring tactic by bringing in sports as a reason to not get a cochlear implant implying that such an implant will severely restrict a child's sports activity thereby dooming him/her to a childhood life without sports. It's also a non sequitur because soccer isn't the only sports a child can participate in. It's also incorrect to say that a child with cochlear implant cannot play soccer. This is an attempt to use unfounded fear as a reason not to get an implant. A child with cochlear implant can play soccer without worry using a protective head gear as a recommendation. Just as well, one can even play football just like Adam Strecker who uses his specially designed football helmet adapted for his cochlear implant while wearing it.

Using sports as a reason not to get a cochlear implant is an extremely poor argument to use. Don't go there.

Another argument used is "They work poorly." That is an entirely subjective argument either because Pillard is not overly familiar with the design, up to date procedures and processes involved with a cochlear implant and the implantation itself.  There are varying successes on the beneficial use from this implantation ranging from poor to highly successful.  Various factors play a role in determining success such as parents' participation, the age of implantation, educational input, enthusiasm, and support as well as the integrity of the implant itself.


Adrià and the music of his dreams by octaviroyo

The above video is an example of how a cochlear implant works extremely well as opposed to "they work poorly."  This is only one of the many videos seen on the internet that show children with cochlear implants, implanted at an early age, who have acquired successful listening skill giving them the ability to discern, understand and respond to a spoken language without even looking.  This is complemented with their excellent speaking skills that are equal to that of their hearing peers. If those are the successful cases of cochlear implants working "poorly" then I can't imagine what it'd be like if cochlear implants were to work extremely well. Here's one video of a girl who was implanted at 22 months old with her talking and listening at age 16 years old who wants to be a cochlear implant surgeon.



Over the past few years insertion techniques as well as new cochlear implant electrode design have improved to the point where it doesn't destroy residual hearing.

Success in conservation of residual hearing after cochlear implantation has benefited patients with high levels of residual low frequency hearing who were not previously considered for conventional cochlear implantation. Technological developments play a key role in minimizing trauma to the cochlea during placement of electrodes.

Wearing a hearing aid or even a cochlear implant does not preclude anybody from learning sign language whether it's SEE, PSE, or ASL. Many hearing parents of deaf children with cochlear implants do include sign language as part of the whole communication and language package.

Increasingly you have deaf parents of deaf/hh children where they are cochlear implant wearers, fluent in sign language and are a part of the deaf culture such as the Artinians (from the show Sound and Fury) with the mother who wears an implant after their daughter getting one and the Errigos where both the mother and father wear their implants while their son wears one since age 2.

If the idea is to grant culturally deaf people the status as an ethnic group then, too, culturally deaf parents and their deaf child who all wear cochlear implants and are fluent in sign language should be given that same status as well. There is nothing to say upon granting the status this new ethnic group designation for culturally deaf people that they cannot wear hearing aids or, in this case, cochlear implants. Nothing about the status implies that an "organic" case must be met. There are no disqualifying criteria on signing and talking/mouthing the words at the same time. And if these criteria are to be made absolute then enters the slippery slope problem here on who gets "admitted" into this special ethnic group designation.

More on that later.....

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.

"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.

Using your voice to speak

I use it everyday. Marlee Matlin obviously uses her voice at home, around hearing people, on the Celebrity Apprentice tv show and even when she was roasting Donald Trump (see 2:25 mark). I understand that other people prefer not to use their voice and that is their right but lets get real here on a few things.

1. Just because you can speak well and how some people may mistake you based on your voice as a hearing person is not really a good reason to not to use your voice. More like chickening out and do the whole "my dog ate my homework" kind of excuse. Something just doesn't add up if somebody says that.

2. Reminding people that you do have a hearing loss and that they need to communicate with you better so that you can understand them comes with the territory of being deaf/hh. People with hearing loss ought to already know that but that alone shouldn't even be an excuse to not use your voice. Pretty dumb if you ask me. 

3. Fearing that hearing people won't accommodate you with additional communication access if they discover that your speech clear and quite intelligible is pure baloney. Hinges on irrational fear. Having good speech does not equate excellent hearing. It should be quite understandable for them to realize the differences and importance of supplying you with visually oriented communication methods in order to help you understand and be an active participant. That fear or concern is a poor excuse not to use your voice.

4. Afraid of sending out a message to deaf people if you use your voice to communicate? What message? Is that a valid reason or did someone managed to convinced him/herself  of that already? 

5. Here's a good one I heard recently. Using one's voice will cause people to miss the spoken message or the content of that message because they were so enamored by a person's excellent speaking quality the message gets lost. What? You gotta be kidding me. That's the most absurd thing I ever heard.

6. Using your voice equates to the level of intelligence. What!? Gonzo logic there, dude if anybody actually thinks that. Either you are comfortable in using your voice or you're not.

7. If you need help in understanding what's being said then ask the people to change what their doing to better accommodate you. How hard is that? Of course, provided that you have a very understanding group of people.

8. Some people would say that the use of a one's own voice should be viewed as a gift and should only be shared with other people you trust. Lame to even think that, I say. That excuse is more like a reason to not talk in public because of some supposed "inadequacies."

9. And lastly, if one *thinks* his/her voice is just like a hearing person then it could be true. Why does this even matter?

Saying all those excuses is really an attempt to cover one's rear. It's either you can talk, can't talk or are simply afraid to use your voice and live in a prison of your own fear because you might "offend" somebody.

What's the next excuse?