The Walking Effect

The difference between Walk4Hearing and Walk for ASL?

Walk4Hearing involves the community on a much larger scale with thousands of people every year in 22 different cities from June through October. The local media reporting in each city help generate more public awareness about hearing loss. It's a public relation dream machine. Walk for ASL on the other hand involves 15 culturally deaf people who will walk for 30 days from San Francisco to Santa Monica, California with the hope that their actions and message will capture the attention of the media.

Walk4Hearing is again raising money and has a very successful formula since 2006 because approximately 1 out 8 Americans with hearing loss have something that they can relate to each other with a common condition. There are many more hearing parents, friends and families who know someone with a hearing loss.  It could be their grandpa who experienced hearing loss later in his life. Or have a deaf or hard of hearing brother or a sister. A parent with a hearing loss. A hearing person whose best friend wears a hearing aid. A next door neighbor whose teenager experienced hearing loss from Meningitis.  Hearing loss is such a common condition in the United States the majority of the population are familiar with it. And because of the familiarity about hearing loss they become much more approachable about auditory-oral education, hearing aids, cochlear implants, or implantable hearing device that uses the eardrum as a natural microphone. No wonder auditory-oral schools are succeeding in their public relation efforts with their communities.

In its first year in 2006 the Walk4Hearing raised over $300,000. Since 2006 they have raised several million dollars. In 2011 Walk4Hearing successfully raised $1.1 million dollars in a matter of months. In 2012 they surpassed the $1.2 million dollar mark. This year their goal is to raise $1.4 million dollars and so far they are 24% of their goal with $336,000 raised already and they are on track to surpass the $1.4 million dollar mark before the first walk to start in June of this year.

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.

Below is a Walk4Hearing video promotion with subtitles.




Walk for ASL is a new venture idea to help raise awareness and seek funding for their own agenda and cause. It only actively involve 15 deaf people who will walk in California the 600 miles from San Francisco to Santa Monica in 30 days along the Pacific Coast Highway. Their goal is to get the attention of the media.

The difference here is that ASL and deaf culture are essentially a hidden language and community. They are more apparent in large cities such as Washington D.C.; Rochester, NY; Seattle, WA; and Austin, TX. Even in large cities the bulk of hearing people go about their daily lives and never get to meet or see a signing deaf person in their life. And for a good reason because the culturally deaf community make up about 0.2% (0.002) of the total population in the United States. The chance to meet a signing deaf person or a deaf group would be quite small. It becomes harder for hearing people to even sympathize with such a small deaf community when they try and raise awareness on ASL, a language and culture that are totally foreign to most of the hearing society. They might hear about signing deaf people in the news on rare occasions or by chance see a deaf character in a television show. But to the hearing society the language and culture of deaf people are still completely foreign to them.

Below is a Walk for ASL video promotion but no subtitles or transcript available.

Power of Communication at a Table.

Are you deaf? Ever had a long conversation with a hearing person who does not know how to sign? If you did, did you bluff your way through? Nodding your head pretending to understand everything he's is saying?  Or were you really more frustrated than you cared to show? Or perhaps you have the secret fear of meeting with hearing people? Ever wished you could find a better way to communicate than to bluff and get 100% communication gain instead?  It's pretty easy if you know how.

Watch this video.

Reframing Hearing Gain

Back in the days before electronic hearing aids or cochlear implants became effective the term "hearing loss" was used to described a condition caused either by genetics, disease or accident. It is a medical descriptive term just like "vision loss" that accurately describes the condition.

With the leap-frogging advances of hearing technology the concept of "Hearing Gain" takes on a more meaningful interpretation on what was once lost has now gained new sound and opportunities in the hearing world, yet people can still retain their identity as a person with a hearing loss or deaf. The term "Hearing Gain" has nothing to do with on becoming like a hearing person but rather the opportunity it gives and the opening of doors to a different world.

This is true of one deaf woman, Sarah Churman, who made a Hearing Gain when she was given the Envoy implantable hearing device. The device is not a hearing aid since it has no microphone but uses the ear drum as a natural microphone. Sarah experienced a Hearing Gain going from a world of muted and hushed sound that her old hearing aids could not fulfill to a rich, stereo-sound world with the two devices naturally amplifying the natural sound into her eardrums.  This is probably the ultimate form of "Hearing Gain" so far (short of having stem cells restoring hearing loss naturally) that is done on gaining and using natural sound. This cannot be done with hearing aids since sound goes through a microphone and gets digitized and amplified at the end to the ear drum. The same for cochlear implants where sound is converted into digital form before reaching the cochlea in the ear.

If not that then hearing aids or cochlear implants people would give deaf and hard of hearing people their own kind of Hearing Gain experiences where sound and opportunities would open up for them. We saw the strong reaction of Sarah Churman who experienced a life-changing moment with such a new hearing technology it overwhelmed her expectations. Same for cochlear implants.  And even hearing aids. Putting them on and realizing just how much sound they were missing and the connection with the hearing world.

True Hearing Gain would be the time when the restoration of hearing loss could be reversed and restored. In the mean time, Hearing Gain continues apace every day each time a hearing aid, cochlear implant or implantable hearing device gets turned on.

A win-win-win situation

For any organization that serve the deaf and hard of hearing population as well as for parents of deaf and hard of hearing children should take every effort to accommodate the potentially wide ranging communication access needs for an audience with deaf, hard of hearing, culturally deaf and hearing people when doing live presentations.

The concept and idea are quite simple. Three things are needed at the same time.

1) Real time captioner where the spoken words can be displayed visually for the audience.
2) Sign language interpreter.
3) Voice interpreter.

Using that prescription it wouldn't matter if the people in the audience or the speakers are deaf, hard of hearing, culturally deaf or hearing, communication access wouldn't be missed by anyone. This is how you "walk the walk" instead of talking out of the sides of your mouth.

Using the three communication access points satisfy 6 different possible outcomes for people who are:

1) Culturally deaf people who rely exclusively on sign language can take advantage of sign language interpreters.
2) Hard of hearing and deaf people who are not native signers can get assistance from captioning to help supplement their weak signing skill.
3) Hard of hearing and deaf people who can hear well with their hearing aids or cochlear implants and sign well can take advantage of either voice interpreter, captioning and/or sign language interpreter to help fill all of their communication gaps.
4) Hard of hearing people who can hear well and understand the spoken words well but do not know sign language can take advantage of voice interpreters and captioning.
5) Deaf people who do not know sign language or cannot hear well to understand the spoken words can take advantage of captioning.
6) Hearing people who do not know sign language can take advantage of voice interpreters and, if they need to, captioning.


If you're a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that caters to deaf and hearing people, and even hearing people such as parents of deaf and hard of hearing children would be wise to use take advantage of all three communication access points if you plan to do presentations at a workshop, training session, or at a convention where the public is invited. It just make smart sense to do this because no one would be left out of the communication loop. No one would feel discriminated or left out. Everybody can participate and be a part of the larger discussion. Catering to only a specific group of people with hearing loss or cultural identity helps no one when the bigger picture is to help everybody understand deafness-related issues and concerns. 

The Dangers of Cultish-like Behaviors

Over the years I have seen this red flag go up again and again from certain groups of deaf people or even certain deaf run organizations that exhibit certain cultish-like behaviors.  I don't believe that these groups or organizations are cults at all. Just that there were some warning signs that could signal a deeper problem in their effort to control ideological thoughts and actions.

Just an observation of mine.

The year 2006 was the start of Unity for Gallaudet University protest (DPN2) when new array of dazzling terms suddenly appeared all of which reminded me of cult-like speak. These new terminologies were tossed around heavily early on and over the next 5 to 6 years to be used as a weapon of choice against those who disagree or have a different viewpoint or opinion. Terms like "deficit thinking," "deficit thinker," "colonialism," "post-colonialism," "dysconscious," "dysconscious **dism" (i.e. Deaf Uncle Tom), "subaltern rebel," "linguicism," "intergenerational unification," "discursive system," "subaltern," "subaltern-elite," "elite," "subalternity," "unconscious internalization," "minority imperatives,"  and many more. Enough to dazzle all new comers with such impressive array of words. All those terms reminded me of Scientology speak and how they were mostly successful in using their own words to "de-program" their new subjects to fit their new world "reality." In this case, ironically so, many deaf subjects or new comers were taught these new words and new ideological concepts who actually lacked English-literacy skills and are effectively monolingual in their own  (visual) language which happens to be ASL or sign language.  These "leaders," "higher followers" or "sub-leaders" use the written English language to include those dazzling terms in a format much like you would see in a doctorate paper heavily laden with psychological terms. It sounds impressive to new comers. All those fancy terms. This helps to "legitimize" the whole indoctrination process at "de-programming" centers at specialized workshops with the opportunity to simplify those terms further and its ideological concepts using ASL or sign language.

Bait. Hook. Reel them in.

Those were the obvious red-flags that something was amiss. I was actually targeted by one "elite" follower who used ad hominem attacks against me and others using an organization's website as his personal site to be used against me.  That certainly didn't help the situation exhibiting certain cult-like action and attitudes. That organization tried to cover their tracks by deleting that particular webpage the next day but they failed. There was never a public apology to this day from that particular person for his cyberbullying and wholly unprofessional action.  It was an absolutely surreal moment and at the same time a bit fascinating to have witnessed that personally.

Moving on.

The term "deficit thinking" is a form of "psuedo-science."

"process of false persuasion by scientific pretense"

Indeed.

According to a book on “The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice” (by Richard R. Valencia, which is an interesting read on the history of how that concept came about) the definition of “deficit thinking” is:

“Deficit thinking is tantamount to the process of ‘blaming the victim’. It is a model founded on imputation, not documentation.”

Imputation essentially means acts of accusation.

Words like “deficit” and the prefix “dys” in "dysconscious" are tinged with negative connotations. The prefix “dys” comes from "dus" (bad) spoken by people of Greece starting about 1000 B.C where "bad" modifies the word. And, of course, deficit means “inadequate” or “insufficient.”

So, you can see why people like to use those particular terms with its built in negative connotations as way to attack and bludgeon others for having a different perspective and opinion.  People have different viewpoints, perspectives, life experiences, failures, and successes whose own reasoning may be just as valid as the next person’s.  It’s easy to call somebody a “deficit thinker” or "dysconscious **dist," for example, but then again that person may exhibit that very same attitude as well.  It's like when a person accuses somebody by pointing a finger at him and in response you get 20 fingers pointing back at the accuser. To me, those terms are meaningless psychobabble and are worthy enough to have them drop kicked over a football field goal when it comes to deafness-related discussions. It simply doesn’t help the situation or the discussion. It invites confusion. We have seen it happen again and again. It never stops.  It's full of generalities when used improperly and solves nothing.

Certain deaf leaders and "sub-leaders" like to use those "cult-like" sounding terms in their initial effort to impress and recruit potential new comers as part of the whole collectivism and "consciousness raising" efforts. That reminds me of spiritual gurus or swami who try and "enlighten" their new starry-eyed students who are desperately looking for answers, the meaning of life. But if you disagree with them or have an opinion different from their "world" views you'd be called loudly as a "deficit thinker," a heretic, an apostate, or something worse.

Those "cult-like" sounding terms or unfamiliar words usually get legitimized further from people who hold doctorate degrees in Deaf Studies or something similar. They are there to teach those (i.e. new or potential recruits) who don't know any better or don't understand the words and ideological concepts at specialized workshops, usually for culturally deaf people only.  And in signed videos which are usually not captioned or supplemented with a transcript which is interesting when they usually scream about oppression, discrimination, lack of accommodation, and such. They play the same sick games of oppression just like their hearing counterparts.  The irony is simply too much.

All in all, it was fascinating to watch this new kind cultish-like behavior take place and how it has evolved over the years. But the warnings are still there. Be careful not to be taken in or dazzled by impressive sounding words and concepts. We all understand that discrimination occurs and do take place everyday. We understand that hearing, deaf and hard of hearing and culturally deaf people need to be educated about hearing loss, deaf education, language acquisition, mode of communication, communication preferences, and the acts of discrimination and intentional prejudice based on hearing loss, ability to speak/listen, and/or even the ability to sign.

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.

Using your voice at Gallaudet University and elsewhere is OK

There were several instances of a protest supporter, student, faculty or alumnus who used his/her voice (without signing) in front of hearing, deaf, and  hard of hearing audience. Most of these people who used their voice instead of signing were either deaf or hard of hearing at places like Gallaudet University and the Senate Health Hearing in California on the AB2072 bill. In all cases there were sign language interpreters available and in some cases included voice interpreter and real time captioner.  This is about respecting communication preferences of deaf and hard of hearing people. A preference that they feel most comfortable in. Due to certain circumstances sometimes voice had to be used instead of signing.

Before I get started I want to remind people that Gallaudet University is a true, bi-lingual institute. I would like to think students attending Gallaudet University are not linguistically disabled in the English language, especially towards the end of their undergraduate career with a strengthened English competency and literacy.   I see both the English language (spoken or written) and sign language as equally supported on campus. Both ASL and the spoken English language deserve equal respect in the cases I'm about to present.

Secondly, I must remind people that president Hurtwitz of Gallaudet University re-iterated a key point that ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people. There were no restrictions or specificity against the use of Cued Speech, oral-auditory methods, SEE, PSE, AVT, note takers, CART, captioning, texting, voice to text, use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help communicate and listen, and so on. Nor did ICED specify or condemn for using one form of communication method over another. Nothing was said about which form of communication MUST be used but rather that all forms of communication MUST be accepted and respected.

Did you get that?

Thirdly, as a side note, most students on campus do not sign in "pure ASL" but instead mouth the words while signing almost or completely in English word order like a PSE or signed English format. Some do sign and use their voice at the same time like former interim president Robert Davila of Gallaudet University as you can see (and hear) in the video below at time stamp from 1:13 to 2:01. Also note in the video on how deaf/hh people sign and mouths the words at the same time and oftentimes in English order. Pure ASL? Not really.



Moving on.

 

The first notable so called "scandal" that I'm aware of took place at Gallaudet University in 2006. Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf, was the Commencement Speaker for Gallaudet University's graduating class of 2006.  She used her own voice instead of sign language.

 

 

 

She was at the time the interim Acting Chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees. She was essentially pushed to take over Celia May Baldwin's position after she suddenly resigned claiming threats were made against her by some nutty pro-DPN2 protesters.  After the 2006 Gallaudet University graduation ceremony Dr. Brueggemann was wrongly attacked for using her voice.  The attackers simply did not see the bigger picture the reason why she had to use her voice in the first place as explained to me by Bruggemann in her email to me in 2010.

Meanwhile, I do also completely understand the reason and "right" for using ASL more and "better" --especially at places like Gallaudet. My ASL is only about half-good right now--not even as good as my German probably. But I can have conversations. I did so all the time as Board Chair with King and other Gu administrators directly on VRS (not using interpreters). I get by. And had I had any time to actually prepare my remarks for the GU graduation last May, I probably would have signed them more or at least part of them. But I didn't have that prep time. I was dropped into the Acting Chair's position on May 10, to be exact--once CM Baldwin resigned. And I was handed the remarks she was supposed to deliver (already scripted) for graduation on May 12. In fact, they didn't even give me the script until the morning of May 12. And it still had her name at the top of it! So, using oral/spoken English, I could feel comfortable enough to develop a few of my own "touches" in the prepared script. But I sure couldn't do that trying to use ASL....

If only the attackers knew about the little known history of why Dr. Brueggemann used her voice then they would not have screeched themselves into an apoplectic fit.   Instead, they get eggs on their faces just like Random Thoughts and Musings by moi blog who got everything wrong about Dr. Brueggemann's reason to use her voice that day.

Feeling silly right about now, don't you?

Let's keep an open mind here, folks.  Signers have a different level of fluency and visual reception/recognition. Not all deaf or hard of hearing people know sign language.

Dr. Brueggemann gave me a poignant but funny message in her email to me to share with everybody:

"Hey, I like my voice!" I'm proud of it. It's unique, it's mine, I like it. I think I'll use it! - Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. Sept 1, 2010.

Yeah, me, too.

The second "scandal" occurred around November of 2009 when a hearing doctoral candidate at Gallaudet University presented a dissertation defense in spoken English rather than ASL to a diverse audience of deaf, hard of hearing and hearing students as well as professors. Gallaudet University provided ASL interpreters. That "scandal" was short-lived, too.  Not much details other than it happened. Although I do admit this has nothing to do with a deaf or hard of hearing person but it was the idea that a doctoral candidate was allowed to use his own voice to speak in his dissertation defense at Gallaudet University.

Then we have an unknown person named "Bobby W" who claimed to have used his voice in 2006 to defend his student teaching experience for his degree at Gallaudet University:

If it makes you feel any better at the height of the campus scandal in 2006 while I was defending my student teaching experience for my degree from Gallaudet in front of the Education Department. I also choose to use my voice to do so. I used ASL for the answering/question session but the actual defense I used my voice. Imagine defending an education degree from Gallaudet University orally. I'm sure I was the FIRST to ever do so.

I received a few funny looks from my peers and a few of the EDU professors but It was a success...

-Bobby W.

Bobby W, where are you? Are you deaf, hh or hearing?

Next, of course, you have another Gallaudet University alumnus, which would me, who used his voice to speak at an audience at Gallaudet University's first ever vlogging/blogging conference in 2007.  I was one several panel members at that vlogging/blogging conference.  It was streamed in live in front of an internet audience and those physically present. Most people, I think, were quite receptive of my decision to use my voice based on the comments I received compared to Dr. Brueggemann's who probably got more people their panties in a bunch.  I don't think mine counted as a "scandal" by any stretch of the imagination.

And then we had this culturally deaf guy who was the Sacramento chapter president of CAD used his voice at the Senate Health Hearing in California in a room full of culturally deaf people which easily outnumbered the number of hearing people present. It's not a scandal if a deaf person choose to use his or her voice to speak or use sign language. The deaf and hard of hearing community support those who have a different but preferred mode of communicating.  You can find the original video of Tim Riker and others at the Senate Health Hearing in here.  




But the real eye-brow raiser was when Tim Riker criticized another oral deaf person, John Fortias, for having "unintelligible speech. " The sad thing is that the "unintelligible speech" claim is not true at all. John's speech is intelligible as evidenced in a transcript and by the interpreters in both videos (see above and below). It is quite evident that a sign language interpreter could understand John's speech as evidenced in the video below (video source).



The message?

If you're deaf or hard of hearing, whether you wear hearing aids, cochlear implants or none at all, it is alright to use your voice to speak in a public setting as long as other modes of communication are accessible to those who cannot hear, have trouble understanding the spoken word or unable to understand a different language such as ASL.  Let's hope students and faculty members at Gallaudet University will not shame students for using their voice as a choice.  After all, Gallaudet University is a bi-lingual institute.  Don't let people bully or chide for your preferred communication choices.

Positive Quote of the Day

There are lots of positive quotes out there made by people who see the value of making positive encouragements. Here's my own personal quote I just made up that I think sums up the importance of encouragements no matter how small.

"The tiniest encouragement can yield the greatest result." - April 20, 2013 by....me.

 

The Last Boston Marathon Race?

The good news? The hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers is over with the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  The bad news? Will there be another Boston Marathon race in 2014? 

Did last week bombings near the finish line signal an end of an era or did it just made logistics, planning and raising money that much more complicated? Does this bode well for future Boston Marathon races, an annual race that spanned for 117 years?

These questions are important because if the118th Boston Marathon Race is to take place in 2014 security measures and protocols will need to be revamped to adjust to the new climate of fear, the fear of seeing a repeat bombing attacks by wannabe terrorist copy cats who have seen the results of what two people can do to maim, kill, terrorize and shut down an entire city, and gain instant international recognition and even martyrdom.

Not good.

The chase to find the bombing suspects sets off the first ever security precedence of shutting down an entire city and several surrounding suburbs.  There were no rail and bus services, traffic was stopped, businesses were forced to close and people were told to stay indoors and lock their doors while police, FBI, and SWAT teams combed the city for the last remaining bomber suspect.  The new fear is that this incident will only serve to inspire other wannabe terrorists to repeat the bombing attempt because the attacks had gained such international attention and traction because it happened on American soils.

Securing the 26.2 mile route for next year's race has now become a logistical and PR nightmare. Security costs are expected to take a huge jump to assure the security and safety for each runner and people watching the race on the sideline.  Control points will need to be secured along the 26.2 mile route for people who congregate on the sideline to watch runners at the beginning of the race to the end where they cross the finish line.  Where there is a crowd, there's a target. You have a crush of people who watch and cheer over 25,000 runners who cram the streets in the beginning of the race like packed sardines.

The Boston Marathon route goes through several small towns such as Hopkinton (pop. 15,000), Ashland (pop. 16,500), Framingham (pop. 68,000), Natick (pop. 33,000), Wellesley (pop. 28,000), Newton (pop. 85,000), Brookline (pop. 59,000), and ending in the city of Boston (pop. 620,000) (see population estimates). The question now becomes on how will security address crowds along that route since security was compromised in last week's attacks near the finish line? How will security address people carrying bags and backpacks? Will they be banned? Will key check points be established? What about parking areas? What about vehicles? More metal detecting wands in the hands of security agents? More drones? More bomb sniffing dogs? Will we see more of those airport security scanners and metal detectors at key entry points with the familiar long lines just to get close to the finish line? Or what about at any key entry points along the 26.2 mile route? Will TSA now officially take control of large events with the Boston Marathon bombings signaling the opportunity (and excuse) to expand their reach and control?

Turns out the TSA goes to NFL games and political conventions and all kinds of places that have little or nothing to do with air travel. It even has a special division called VIPR — an unfortunate acronym for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team — that conducts these searches.

Few people know that $105 million of their taxpayer dollars are going to fund 37 VIPR teams in 2012, whose purpose is to “augment” the security of any mode of transportation. They don’t realize that these VIPR teams can show up virtually anytime, anywhere and without warning, subjecting you to a search of your vehicle or person.

That’s not a fringe observation, by the way. Even the most mainstream news outlets have reported on the problems of these random checkpoints. And it’s being observed by mainstream news personalities, not just consumer advocates with a long list of grievances from their constituents.

But almost no one noticed when the Department of Homeland Security signaled its intent to broaden the scope of its off-airport searches even more in 2013. Buried deep in the Federal Register in late November was a notice that could dramatically shift the focus of transportation security. It involves the government’s efforts to “establish the current state of security gaps and implemented countermeasures throughout the highway mode of transportation” through the Highway Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) program.

The Boston Marathon Race is not just an event taking place at a single location like a convention or football stadium where security measures are less complex to maintain. The Boston Marathon is an event that spans over 26.2 miles along the Boston Marathon route though several towns and ending in the city of Boston which would be the most crowded place there is. The expectation could turn out that the TSA will have a greater and visible presence and security role to ensure the safety and security of each individual attending the race.  Not only would this be a logistical nightmare since people aren't quite fond of TSA agents with their zeal to grope people's junk but the huge cost associated with it to plan and install newly revamped security measures along the 26.2 mile route, a street that is part of the highway mode of transportation which now falls under the jurisdiction of the TSA with the help of the DHS.

The burning question is who will bear the security costs if the 2014 Boston Marathon race is to take place next year? The Federal govt? The state? County? Or the towns where the route runs through? In 2009 there were serious cost issues and concerns by some of the area towns along the 26.2 mile Boston Marathon route, enough so that could have easily impacted the race had they not gotten the extra financial support from the Boston Athletic Association.

Now, officials from four of the area towns along the 26.2-mile Boston Marathon route are grumbling that they aren't getting enough money from the Boston Athletic Association to cover the demands for police and other services every year.  

Town officials from Ashland, Framingham, Natick and Wellesley have delayed granting permits for this year's race until after a meeting, slated for this week, with the Boston Athletic Association to discuss their concerns.  

"We're looking at cutting back resources, and this is a major drain on our public resources," said John Petrin, Ashland's town manager.  

Though the town learned last week that its donation from the BAA will increase by $3,000, Petrin says the new total of $29,000 is still not enough to cover the race's logistical, financial, and business impact on the town. Natick, Wellesley, and Ashland will receive the same donation from the BAA.  

The four communities, whose administrators regularly communicate throughout the year, sent a letter to the BAA requesting the meeting.  

"We won't vote on anything until we've resolved this issue," said Hans Larsen, Wellesley's executive director. "We're racking up the costs as we speak."  

Guy Morse, the BAA's executive director, said the organization is sensitive to the amount of resources expended by communities along the route, but believes the international attention and business traffic generated by the race, as well as the donations, more than make up for it. " 

Besides the prestige . . . there must be an economic impact in addition to whatever planning cost there is," said Morse. He said towns have received donations only since 1986, when the John Hancock insurance company started supporting the Marathon, and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency oversees the coordination of public-safety aspects of the race, reducing the local burdens.

Last year's race the cost to compete in the race by eligible runners was $150. And with over 25,000 runners that turns out to be close to $4 million dollars.  The 2011 race was at $130. The price steadily rose along with rising popularity of the race over the last decade going from $70 to $150. Could we expect the price for the 2014 race to double or perhaps triple up to $450 to help defray security cost measures in advance of the race? Would $500 per race entrant be doable or affordable in this case?  Will towns see an increase in donations to help defray costs for next year's race and not siphon donations away for other projects that benefitted from the race? How will towns help bear the extra security and logistical costs when they could barely cover every year's race? Will it be on taxpayers' dime to help pay for the increased security if TSA gets involved, for example?  Is the Boston Marathon race over because it has simply become too burdensome, risky and expensive in a time when the economy isn't so great?

Because of our American spirit and steadily resolve, the 2013 bombing attacks will not stop people from planning for next year's event. It will not stop runners and the crowd from attending the next Boston Marathon race in 2014. It is just that things have become a lot more complicated since the attacks. Compromises will need to be made. Freedom and security will continue to shift and adjust. People will need to learn to increase their awareness of their surroundings should they decide to attend next year's Boston Marathon race. We may see less runners signing up and people attending next year's event or we might see an opposite effect as a show of American spirit and resolve. It's hard to quash the American spirit when you have a tradition that brings people together every year to celebrate the love and zeal for life.

In memory of the Boston Marathon victims.

I have a question

A captioned video, "I have a question."

Can you spot the video difference?

Can you spot the differences between these three videos? Maybe the irony? Before you complain, think first. Keep it clean...and nice. That's my only request.





The last video talks about this guy in a screenshot which can be found here.

Enjoy.

Bullying Inside the Deaf/HOH Community Rehashed

It's sad whenever (cyber)bullying occurs by deaf/hh bullies in the deaf/hh community whether bullies know sign language or not over deafness-related issues or that the target has a communication preference different from others as a reason for the attack. Recently an unfortunate circumstance occurred a few days ago in a Facebook forum that got out of control between two adults with one being the obvious aggressor. Equally unfortunate was that the author of the Bullying Inside the Deaf/HOH Community article used the situation by making unfounded assertions.  The admin of this Deaf/HH Blogs FB group, yours truly, had already rectified the situation as already explained yesterday, April 10th, under Aaron's post that began on March 27, 2013 (scroll down until you see Aaron's March 27 posting).

If you click on "members" in the upper right part of the FB you can see who currently are members. The said person is no longer a member since yesterday. It is understandable that Sveta is upset with what has happened. One thread was already removed yesterday. I already explained on the day of the incident that I will need to sit down and read what was going on before deciding what I needed to do since I've been busy away from home. People here do have the option to not respond to an offensive post. People are mature enough to recognize when to stop and let the admin handle it should it get out of hand. This is a low volume FB group and it just so happens personality and conviction clashed.

I purposely let the Aaron thread alone so others can see exactly what had happened and how perspectives, feelings, and beliefs can vary widely even in the deaf/hh community regarding communication access and deafness-related issues. I have made my points clear more than a few times that any hearing loss organization should be prepared to provide the proper communication access when requested by deaf or hard of hearing individuals. Not doing so make them a hypocrite organization. There is a difference when one tries to accommodate vs those who do not try at all and flat out refuse such service.

This is also a reminder that even those in the deaf/hh community (non-signers) still need to be educated on the value of communication access and the need to help others feel accepted in the community. And conversely, some in the culturally deaf community need to be educated as well.

The discussion did stop on March 28 with Aaron's initial post that began on March 27th. However, the discussion was picked up again on April 10th, Wednesday, almost two weeks later after it stopped and it all went downhill quickly after that. I addressed the incident on April 12, Friday coming off of a week long multiple projects that required my attention. I can't always hover around each and every posts that get submitted and follow each every comments made. There's a reason why you turn off your FB apps on your phone.  In this situation some give and take are needed as well maintaining proper sensibilities.

The bickering made worse when ad hominem attacks were used instead of using cogent arguments to make the case.  Feelings ran high, people made rash decisions and rash words. But because emotion was running high so soon after that incident the author of Bullying Inside the Deaf/HOH Community who felt victimized by the whole incident, and I don't blame her, decided to use my name to skew the situation unfairly.

Bullying inside the deaf/hh community, especially in the culturally deaf community, isn't new. It has been going on for years. I've written many topics on cyber/bullying in my blog (see http://tinyurl.com/d99o7d4 ) and I have been a target myself many times because of my views and opinions. I don't see myself as a victim but rather that some people still need to be educated. That includes the Deaf community, deaf community, hard of hearing community and the hearing community.

And that, folks, is in a nutshell.

Deaf man kills deaf sister and deaf brother-in-law with rifle

Gruesome. Thomas Simich, Jr, a 46 year old culturally deaf man who cannot speak or hear at all, does not wear a hearing aid or cochlear implant and has history of mental illness while growing up with his deaf parents just upped and killed his deaf sister and deaf brother-in-law with a rifle blast to their bodies at close range. Thomas was living with his deaf parents at the time of the killing. 

More postings on the brutal double homicide are found here, here, here, here and here.

Several years before the killing he began to act strange which lasted for several years.  You have a mentally disturbed person living with his deaf parents. What caused Thomas to snap? What caused him to be mentally undisturbed? Was it because of the deaf family environment? Why make up stories of talking voices inside his head (as opposed to "talking hands") and blame it on his own psychosis for the killing? Was he a product of bad deaf schools with ASL only programs? Bad English programs? Bad advices from deaf counselors? Bad deaf teachers? Bad deaf parents who refused to speak or encourage Thomas to learn how to speak? Bad deaf parents who decided against use of hearing aids and AVT since after all he was hearing voices in his head which perhaps signal a longing desire to speak and listen?  Bad medical industrial complex, the pharmaceutical companies and the medical community that influenced Thomas to take his medicine even though it probably didn't help? Maybe he was a product of a bad ASL environment? Maybe he was a product of deaf bullies while going to a deaf school growing up? Whatever it was, those silent murders took place in a town, ironically, called Freedom.  Nothing funny about it.

Please calm down, folks.

And, oh, yeah, that crime took place eight years ago. He's already in jail in Pennsylvania for those murders. And, yeah, I made these assumed over-generalizations by blaming certain things on purpose just to make a point. 

Don Grushkin's Piece on Dylan Quick : Self-Flagelation Begins

The news hit with blaring headlines after headlines on the tragedy of 14 students who got stabbed at the Lone Star Community College by a crazed student. I dreaded reading such depressing news but read I did.  Then I saw the words, "deaf," and then "wears a cochlear implant" but nothing on whether Dylan Quick knew sign language or whether he was another culturally deaf person who went on a killing spree or rampage.  A rampage that would make the cut for the Texas Chain Saw Massacre movie like this culturally deaf woman did by using a chain saw on her dead lover after murdering her. I knew it would be a matter of time until somebody from the culturally deaf community would take advantage of the news as a clarion call against cochlear implants, AGBell, auditory-oral schools, cyber/bullying and Auditory Verbal Therapy for deaf and hard of hearing kids all on the premise of Dylan Quick's supposedly intolerable upbringing as a deaf kid. Some actually made the claim that this stabbing spree was a manifestation as a result of the "oral-only philosophy" impact which "destroys deaf children."

Whatever.

But lo and behold it wasn't long until a deaf person named Donald Grushkin, a PhD holder (more of him in YouTube) in the field of deaf studies wrote a piece called "I was Dylan Quick" empathizing with Dylan Quick's own deafness issues as if Donald Grushkin knew what Quick's own psychological or social issues were in the first place.

However, an even more important issue soon arose: it was revealed that Dylan Quick is a Deaf (capitalized to indicate ethnicity, regardless of cultural affiliation) person who was orally-raised and uses a cochlear implant. My thoughts just as rapidly turned from gun control to the issue of mental health, especially where Deaf and hard of hearing people are concerned, and moreover, I quickly envisioned the media reports characterizing Dylan Quick as an “isolated loner” without mentioning he is Deaf, or focusing on causes and issues related to his rampage which have nothing to do with his being Deaf, insinuating that this is an isolated incident. Yet, finding out that Dylan Quick is Deaf himself, I immediately empathized with him in his expression of what must be intolerable rage and frustration, for I, at one point in my life, could have done almost exactly what he did. 

If I may say so while I'm at it the capitalized "D" in "Deaf" as explained by Donald Grushkin was used to indicate "ethnicity" presents numerous problems.  Aside from that in Donald's piece he seems to be assuming a lot of things on what Dylan's personal and social life growing up as a deaf person might have been like and whether his life was a "tolerable" one or not. Rather than wait and see exactly what the media may report on what Dylan Quick's own life was like growing up as a deaf person, Donald Grushkin took the empathy route and attempted to project his own life experiences growing up as a deaf person with that of Dylan Quick's even though we know nothing about Quick's own social and life background while growing up as a deaf kid.  Although there are a few tidbits of information gleaned so far on Dylan's supposedly eccentric behaviors we can only assume so much (but shouldn't anyway) at this point.

"He was an eccentric kid, so a lot of people thought he was weird," Chalflan explained, adding that students sometimes would make fun of the suspect behind his back. "He was always in his own little world but was super friendly."

The suspect, who was rumored to be hard of hearing, was known for his odd clothes and the pair of work-out gloves he'd always wear, according to Chalfan. He was often seen carrying a stuffed monkey toy.

Perhaps we will know more in the coming days what Dylan's personal and social life was like, and what his preferred mode of communication? Eccentricity or weirdness does not equate with tendency towards extreme violence.  Even if a deaf person who made a zombie clip mocking another deaf person would not necessarily mean anything other than a person was simply venting or having a bit of fun when all else fails and having a PhD just won't do.

Donald proceeded in his article piece describing his experiences while growing up as a deaf person:

I was born Deaf.  Upon finding I was Deaf, my parents decided to do exactly as Dylan’s parents did: raise him as an “oral” person, meaning we were taught to speak through auditory pathways and to use whatever hearing capacities we had to the best of our abilities.  Unlike Dylan, I was (in my view, fortunately)born too soon to receive a cochlear implant; this technology did not become commonplace until around the 1980s. Through the use of lipreading, hearing aids, intensive and ongoing speech therapy, I learned to speak; my speech is nearly indistinguishable from that of a Hearing person’s.

His speech is nearly indistinguishable from that of a hearing person's? Must've been really hell during all those speech therapy sessions but I'll bite.

But what about the hypocrisy some "Deaf" people have against deaf or hard of hearing people who prefer to speak and listen, even if they know sign language?  As long as speech is intelligible then everything is fine. Speech intelligibility is the important key here rather than how well a deaf person's own voice ranks with that of hearing people. Why even bother? Ever hear a native southerner speak with a deep, southern drawl while chewing on wad of tobacco?

The term "born Deaf" with the capitalized "D" has its own problems, too. As for Donald Grushkin's own hearing loss situation we don't know when Donald was fitted with a hearing aid as a toddler or a young child at age 3, 4 or 5 years old.  Studies have shown that early exposure to auditory input can make a huge, huge difference along with parental involvement.  We don't know exactly how much his hearing loss is or the type of hearing loss he has. Or what his word discrimination is like. Or the whether he derived any real benefits from using his hearing aid that gave him his speech ability that is "nearly indistinguishable from that of a Hearing person’s."

He further described how his life was peppered with bullying experiences and how it was "hell":

Prior to the sixth grade, my family moved to another state, where I entered Middle School. As almost everyone knows, these “tween” years are quite often stressful for many students, especially those who stand out as “different” –intellectually, physically, or socially. Being Deaf, I naturally stood out among all these other Hearing students, and as a result, I experienced extreme ostracism and what today would be termed “bullying” wherein certain students would deliberately use my abilities to lipread and inability to hear against me, in order to elicit reactions they thought were funny.  It is fortunate that my parents are not gun owners, for I can all too easily envision myself at that time taking a gun or two to school and shooting my tormentors.  All too likely, some innocent students would have become “collateral damage” during my expression of rage, if I had done this, and I am thankful today that this never took place.  After two years of this personal Hell, I convinced my parents to allow me to attend a school for the Deaf, where I knew that my being Deaf would NOT be a cause for such bullying.  I cannot begin to express my gratitude for my education within the Deaf world, for without it, I know I would not today be where I am – a successful, happy, married with children Deaf man with a doctorate who teaches at a major state university.

Luckily parents are not gun owners? I'll bite, again, but the most startling revelation was Donald Grushkin's own statement that he could've been the "Dylan Quick" of his day 30 years ago while as a young adult had his parents owned guns at home.

Scary.

He  acknowledged his own past repressed rage because his life was deemed "impossible" to live in a "hearing world" or so it seems.

Of course, not all deaf or hard of hearing people are the "Dylan Quick" kind. In fact, Richie's, who grew up as a deaf person since birth with profound hearing loss. He is a big gun advocate. His own life turned out pretty darned well. He wrote his own rebuttal article piece, "Not all Deaf People are Dylan Quick," against Donald Grushkin's empathy piece.

Some deaf people empathize with the crazed guy who stabbed 14 people in Texas, pointing out the frustration in gaining acceptance with the mainstream given the deafness. I don't buy it.

According to the news, Dylan Quick received his cochlear implant at the age of seven and had fantasies of stabbing people at the age of eight. Is there a correlation? Or was it sheer coincidence? You decide. I was offered the opportunity to hear at the age of six but declined. I was very content and saw no reason to change anything. Thirty-five years later, I have no regrets whatsoever. Furthermore, the technology was crude back then and was in desperate need of being perfected. Now that the technology is much closer to perfection, I will still decline for I am now an old dog who cannot be taught new tricks. However, I have no qualms with younger deaf children being given the opportunity to hear. The younger, the better. Although, I'm more of a stem cell guy.

Was it the deafness that prompted the stabbing or was it the fact he was a loner? Not all loners are deaf nor are all deaf people loners. Some deaf people get along with those who are not deaf while some don't. It could be due to impropriety as deaf people have the tendency to lack familiarity with social norms particularly with humor or sarcasm. Or it could be that people don't have the patience to scribble on a piece of paper to communicate with the deaf person. There are other factors as well. Less than 1 out of 1,000 people can claim fluency with sign language so it is a very rare language. I can assure you the repeated claims of American Sign Language (ASL) being the third (or fourth) most widely used language is a myth. If there was any truth to this, I would encounter a lot more signers in shopping malls or in public settings.

Despite my profound deafness, I have friends who are not deaf, some from high school, some from my childhood neighborhood, and some co-workers. In fact, my oldest friends are not deaf and I see them regularly. They do not know sign language but they are used to me as well as me to them. I also see my former co-workers whenever I'm in the area of my former job. We're close although they don't sign.

My friends who are not deaf won't scribble on a piece of paper nor have they expressed interest in meeting other deaf people. They like me for who I am. Perhaps it's my sense of humor. Also, they don't see themselves as "hearing." Here's a perfectly logical explanation behind this:

Blind people call us "seeing," assuming we are not also blind. The word "seeing" is foreign to us since we don't encounter blind people very often. Since we're deaf, we regularly use the word "hearing," but most hearing people have yet to encounter a deaf person so they are not accustomed to that particular word.

I was born without hearing. I was classified as profoundly deaf since birth. Hearing aids were moot and I stopped wearing them at the age of seven very much to the chagrin of my teachers who insisted I keep them on to maintain my speech. They were sorely mistaken, hearing aids never worked on me but I retained my ability to speak. I do not claim to be educated since I dropped out of high school at the young age of sixteen. I went to college for only one year and realized it wasn't my cup of tea seeing how it would have no effect on my future or my success.

I started using sign language at the age of six and still sign. I sign fluently and easily pass for a native ASL signer. I have deaf friends too but I am also very fortunate to still speak. The thorny issue is that had I been unable to speak, I would not have been able to work in a company. Sure, I could find work in the VRS industry, the government, or at a school for the deaf. Instead, I chose to work as a marketing manager responsible for graphics, writing proposals, ensuring production milestones are met, and making sure our marketing materials are up to date. There are times I wish there were more deaf people working in non-governmental jobs. The level of discrimination is at unbearably unacceptable levels but we also need to look at it from their perspective. Would you hire a Navajo speaker to do the job? Exactly.

Frankly, it is a difficult dilemma. An interpreter just won't cut it, hence my sheer frustration. I usually spell frequently, thus risking misunderstandings when I say something such as, "The animation sequence is messing up the shadow effect." A simple sentence that took me 20 seconds to describe to the interpreter so she could relay it to the person on the other side of the line. Saying it would take only three seconds. Mind you, that was an experienced interpreter. Sometimes it'd take me three seconds to sign something and the interpreter would take 30 seconds to explain it. ASL is funny sometimes.

Anyways, not all deaf person are Dylan Quick so hearing people mustn't fear us.

This is insofar about a deaf or hard of hearing college student who had this lurid and unhealthy obsession to stab people since he was in elementary school. He finally acted out his fantasy to stab people at random. He fulfilled his own wish to hurt or attempted to murder them during the stabbing spree which appears to have been done at random. Quick was mentally unstable. Off his rockers. Nuts. Just like how a culturally deaf man murdered two culturally deaf people with a 20-gauge shotgun. He was mentally unstable. Or the Joseph Mesa case, a Gallaudet University student who murdered another deaf student on campus. Or a culturally deaf woman who murdered her own culturally deaf lover and then cut her up into pieces with a chain saw. No doubt mentally unstable. It's no surprise that deaf people do go out and kill/murder other people whether they're deaf or hearing. They're just a bunch of mentally unstable people who don't know any better. I have no sympathy for them at all. I side with the true victims of the crime. I don't make excuses for them.

Each of us as a deaf or hard of hearing person we deal with adversity in our own ways. Some see themselves as perennial victims, complaining and bitching every step of the way and rail against the "hearing system." Others do not see themselves as victims but see the very people who attacked or looked down on them as simply a bunch of misinformed, uninformed, and uneducated lot. But thank God for my hearing aid, my mother and for her to not put me into a "Deaf school" because I did very well in regular schools, made friends and competed in sports winning national championships otherwise I would not be who I am today. 

Let the self-flagellation begin by some in the deaf community in the effort to assuage their own internal guilt complex.




Hat tip for the help with thanks to Richie B.