I want to add more on what
I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to
Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.
First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of
Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.
Who to blame? Well, we all know who.
Secondly, in the Google search
you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have
About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have
Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have
medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf." In an
ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf. In
other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the
glossary of disability groups or organizations.
Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf. That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as
NIH. And the examples go on and on.
The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.
The divisiveness will continue.
That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the
Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD
who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed
for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.
The
old CAD Bylaws in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "Deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in
Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.
Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.
It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.
Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned
video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.
Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that
discriminatory language in place for over 6 years.
But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language.
Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.
Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.
Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people. They already
developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.
Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation.
Don Grushkin on what
you said about the d/D as being divisive.
I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.
I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work.
You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.
Good luck on undoing all that.
