ENGLISH VERSION (loosely translated from ASL):

Once upon a time, in an Italian city far, far away, the Milan 1880 Resolution was passed that removed the use of sign languages from educational programs for the Deaf around the world.  Just last Monday, thanks to the hard work of the BC Deaf committee, supported by the Deaf community, Canadian and international, paid off in the rejection of the Milan 1880 Resolution by Vancouver ICED 2010 committee.

Now what??? FORGIVENESS!

I must add this vlog as a postscript to my previous vlog: ICED 2010, the New Era: What do We do?  Markku Jokinen, the president of World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), gave a speech.  One statement he made that made an impression on me is as follows:

“We must forgive ourselves.”  He gave the Finnish sign for forgiveness.  (view vlog at 1:09)  ”We must forgive ourselves first.  Then, we can forgive the Hearing for all those 130 years of terrible oppression.”

He is correct.

Look at us, the Deaf community, both online and offline, in the real word.  We have been engaged in much infighting and horizontal oppression.  Much pulling down of individuals (Crab theory is one explanation) and antagonism has divided us all.  This fragmentation is getting us nowhere.

United, we will succeed in obtaining what we want…and need. Look at the ICED 2010 Rejection (repudiation) of the Milan 1880 Resolution.  Wow. That was quite powerful.  The BC Deaf committee could not have been successful in its negotiations with the ICED 2010 committee if they did not have the backing of the BC Deaf community  or the international Deaf community at large.  We, the united Deaf community sent them a deluge of email letters of encouragement.  This accomplished much.

True, the New Era document is not perfect, but WE GOT SOMEWHERE!

Interestingly enough, I received an email letter from a friend who is Deaf.  He  made a point related to the clause containing the terms “all forms of communication” in the New Era document.  In full, the clause reads:

“Call upon all Nations of the world to remember history and ensure that educational programs accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication.”

My friend suggested that this clause was included to show that we are not rejecting those non-signing Deaf people who  use the following modes of communication i.e. oral, Cued speech, etc., and/or use cochlear implants.  He also suggested that if this clause was not included, it would look like we are rejecting those very people, when nothing could be further from the truth.  These non-signing Deaf are most definitely part of the Deaf community!

All those 130 years of systemic oppression! WHOA!

This same friend said that at one time he knew nothing of ASL because he was raised Oral. Now he is a fluent user of ASL.  If we had rejected him due to his being oral, he would have absolutely resisted becoming involved in the Deaf community.  This would have resulted in him becoming a solitary figure.

Hence, we MUST forgive ourselves, and unite!  Markku, who thinks in global terms, is correct when he implores us to forgive.  Forgiveness (Finnish sign 4:09).  It’s a key word. Forgive!

Forgiveness. It unites rather than divides. United, we shall educate others so that they may finally see…

Proud, confident, productive, creative and enabling Deaf citizens in respective countries*.

(*BLOGGER’S NOTE: The last line was excerpted from the New Era Document, second page.)

ENGLISH VERSION (loosely translated from ASL):

The New Era Presentation Monday Night, July 19, 2010

The Deaf community was invited to the Douglas College for the New Era Presentation  and Global Panel ( Mon and Tues nights) offered by the BC Deaf committee.  (See the open invitation flyer in the video)

This vlog will only focus on the Monday night component of the two-night presentation and panel meetings. There was a good number of folks, not only from the BC Deaf community, but also from the international Deaf Community.  These International Deaf people came from countries such as:

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Saudi Arabia

Belgium

Germany

France

England

Portugal

What took place that Monday night?  There were voice interpreters as well as LSQ, ASL and Gestuno. The people running the meeting were Monte Hardy, Wayne Sinclair, Nigel Howard, Vincent Chauvet,  and Joe McLaughlin, WFD President Markku Jokinen (Finland) and one of the WFD board members, Tomas Hedberg (Sweden) were present as well.

The speakers, including Monte, Wayne and Joe, described how the BC Deaf committee  began negotiating with the ICED organizing committee 9 months ago, and how it culminated in the announcement that Monday morning.  I got goosebumps.  The WFD President, one of those… OK. I will list the parties that signed the New Era document. (View the blank lines on 2nd pages where names are to be signed in the vlog)

Vancouver ICED 2010 organizing committee

BC Deaf Community

Canadian Association of the Deaf

World Federation of the Deaf

The last signature, by President Markku Jokinen was finally done at 11 p.m. Sunday night… LAST SUNDAY NIGHT…before the Monday morning repudiation of the Milan 1880 Resolution! (Talk about the 11th hour timing!) The WFD President would never have signed the document if the CAD President had not signed it beforehand.  If that last signature had not been in place, that Monday morning announcement would have NEVER been made.

Now what will be done with the New Era document?

There are 4 original New Era documents signed by all four parties.  One original is given to the WFD organization to keep. The second one belongs to C.A.D.. The third original was handed to the ICED 2010 committee, according to Wayne Sinclair, to pass on to the Greece ICED 2015 committee to hold and follow.  Hereafter, that document would be passed on to  future ICED organizing committees of host nations every 5 years.  The final original goes to the BC Deaf community to be temporarily kept at the Western Institute of the Deaf until Wayne Sinclair succeeds in negotiating with the new Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, Manitoba, for permanent placement and display.

As for the Book of Legacy, the Vancouver ICED 2010 committee, BC Deaf community committee, CAD and WFD all signed it .  Folks in the BC Deaf community , Canadian and  international Deaf communities signed it as well on both Monday and Tuesday nights.  There were a good number of signatures in that book. (UPDATE: Approximately 600 signatures)  This legacy book is then given to Markku Jokinen (WFD President) along with the New Era document to take to each WFD meeting in various nations (beginning in Johannesburg, South Africa).  This book will also be lent to future host ICED organizing committees as reminder of our agreement to include, and  to collaborate with the Deaf community.

I wish to share what Gary Malkowski, who was the first Deaf politician in Canada, and the first Deaf MPP in Ontario, said in his fiery speech to the audience (I’m paraphrasing here):

The flag of Milan 1880 is no longer up and waving. It’s down now, and thrown away!  Up with the banner of… VANCOUVER 2010!  THE NEW ERA BEGINS HENCEFORTH!

The audience applauds. *HANDS WAVE*

English Version:

Hello, everyone. I have just arrived from Vancouver, B.C. yesterday, and am still jetlagged. My body is on Pacific Time, and haven’t adjusted to Ontario (EST) time yet. I was in B.C. for three reasons: Deaf Canada Conference and ICED 2010.  I gave some presentations at both conferences, but only attended the latter conference for one day as that conference is quite expensive.  The last reason is to give my eldest son his early 13th birthday present (which is a trip to Vancouver).  I was in the city for 7 days.

Over the course of the past week and a half, I have not viewed any vlogs or blogs even though I knew that opinions were being expressed on the announcement of the ICED 2010 committee regarding their rejection of the Milan 1880 resolution.  I wanted to hold off on the viewing until I have shared my views and experiences from that day, as well as the evenings of July 19th and 20th (Monday and Tuesday).  Once I have done this, I will view all the other v/blogs on the subject.   The sharing of my views/experiences will likely result in two or three v/blogs since I have much to cover.

The topicsI wish to discuss are:

a) what happened during the opening ceremony at ICED 2010.

b) the outcomes of the meetings on Monday and Tuesday nights at Douglas College where the BC Deaf community and international Deaf  congregated.

Now, onto the subject of the Monday morning opening ceremony events.  Allow me to describe the set up of the room, where the ceremony took place.  It was packed with about 725 attendees sitting in rows.  At the front of the room were three giant screens.  There was a stage set in front of the screens where the speakers sat facing us in rows.  Dr. Joseph McLaughlin stood at the podium giving his speech.  The screen behind him showed powerpoint presentation slides.  In the screen at the right of that screen, the ASL interpreter was shown.  The third screen, to the left of the central screen, was set up for the LSQ (lengua signes quebecois) interpreter to be seen.  In the audience, there was a translator who used International Sign, and/or Swedish Sign language (I am not sure which just yet, so I will need to confirm) with the International Deaf professionals.  I was sitting in the middle to right of the room with a friend whom I had not seen for years.

Dr. McLaughlin explained the statement of principle contained in the document titled A New Era: Deaf Participation and Collaboration (my copy of the document is shown in the vlog above)  The document is posted at the ICED 2010 website, I believe. Once Dr. McLaughlin was done his part, he passed the document on to Marguerite Henderson (whose brother is Deaf).  She read from the document:

Therefore we (ICED 2010 Committee):

• Reject all resolutions passed at the ICED Milan Congress in 1880 that denied the inclusion of sign languages in educational programs for Deaf students;
• Acknowledge and sincerely regret the detrimental effects of the Milan conference, and
• Call upon all Nations of the world to remember history and ensure that educational programs accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication.

I was absolutely floored at  the announcement of the rejection of the Milan 1880 resolution.  My brain immediately seized so that I was unable to register the next two lines.  Honestly, I had absolutely no idea what the last two statements were.  I was still reeling at the fact that they actually rejected that 1880 resolution.  The word “reject” was so powerful that my friend and I stared at each other in disbelief.  I asked her if they actually announced that.  She said, “yes.”  I still sat there trying to process that information.

Then people–both Deaf and Hearing– stood up waving their hands in the air.  That was when I finally realized it wasn’t a figment of my imagination, and that the repudiation of the Milan 1880 Resolution actually happened during my lifetime! Overjoyed, I stood up and waved my hands along with the others.  Immediately, emotion overcame me and tears formed in my eyes. Reject. Just a word, but what a wallop that word packed!

I know that there are people who demand that the word “apology” be used in the second line in conjunction with the detrimental effects of the Milan conference.  But, for us, both the BC Deaf community and international Deaf participants in that room,  the importance of the word “apology” quite paled before the sheer emotional impact of the word “REJECT” that was used in the beginning of that announcement.    We all became very emotional… yes, ALL OF US.  As I looked around the room, I saw many Hearing allies…Ah, what a historical moment!

During that day, even when I gave two presentations, I was still processing the momentous announcement in the back of my head. I STILL had no idea what the other two parts of that announcements were.   Later, when I found out what the last two lines were, I was thrilled that they called on all nations to respect all sign languages, although I wasn’t too crazy about the part “all forms of communication.”  Still, the point is that they called for respect towards sign languages, whereas before that day, there was absolutely NO official respect whatsoever.

In the next vlogs I will describe the events at the meetings at Douglas College where an interpreting program is run.  That is where the BC Deaf community and international Deaf gathered.  That was a incredible experience, which I will tell you about next.   See you then.

A commenter in my previous blog  referred me to a glossy website, Communicate With Your Child with the claim that this  website provided unbiased information from many various organizations.  She suggested that I click on “My baby has a hearing loss” section, which leads the viewer to various states that we could research.  She stated “Neutrality is now in the works. It still exists.”  

Is this commenter correct? Does this website actually provide unbiased information from many various organizations?  Has it got neutrality?

 Let’s analyze this website:

1. Count the number of times the words “hearing” and “hear” have been used on the homepage alone.  Total: 11!

2. Count the number of times ASL as a term is used on that same homepage. Total: ZERO

Talk about subliminal messages!

Now, let’s use this checklist to dissect the contents further:

a) Is t bilingual? Check! (English with Spanish translation)

b) Is it trilingual? Mais non.  Nowhere on this website do I see ASL translation.  
c) It has audio for those who may have reading issues: Is it accessible for the Hearing? Check!
d) FOCUS: the ability to hear words and songs. Check!
e) FOCUS: the ability to see ASL words and poetry. Where? Zilch and nada!

I checked “My Baby has a hearing loss” and clicked on states as instructed. This is what I found:

 The number of hearing loss professional organizations like AGBADHH, NICDC, Hearing Association, Let them Hear Foundation, etc etc far outweigh the number of Deaf-centered, or at least ASL-friendly organizations.

 I also clicked on http://www.raisingdeafkids.org which is on the list for any of the states you click on: Go to Communication choices, then you will see:

- Auditory-Oral, (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Auditory-Verbal (Emphasis: Hearing/Speaking)
-Bilingual-Bicultural- ASL and English (Emphasis: Bilingual Language Development)
-Cued Speech (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Total Communication (signing and talking with voice simultaneously… Emphasis: still hear and speak)

Consider the evidence submitted above.  One cannot help but reach the following conclusion:

 There’s an overwhelming emphasis on hearing and speaking, and little focus on ASL.  Therefore, this website is NOT unbiased.  It’s in fact heavily biased in favour of the hear-and speak ideology.  It’s got NO neutrality.

 But it’s sure got audism.

Neutrality: the absence of a declared bias

In other words, neutrality means having no opinion and declining to take sides.  ”I’m neutral about this. I refuse to take an opinion. Here are the options, and each has equal viability.   I take no stand either way.”

Does this type of neutrality exist in reality? No.  It’s unheard of.  Really.  Each, and all, of us has a bias, a philosophy in life that we follow.   My own personal bias is simply this: ASL and English are of equal value.  To be Deaf is great.   I do not want to be hearing at all.  No thank you very much.   I like the way I am now.

Now, if you want to look at biases,  take the hearing loss professionals who claim to be neutral as an example.  These professionals are audiologists, speech pathologists, medical professionals who work with newly-diagnosed Deaf babies, early childhood educators.   These people say, “Oh yes, we provide all options neutrally, and lay them out for the parents to look at.”  (True, ASL is included, but in such a way that it is not  emphasized, and overwhelmed by the array of other options. ASL is offered, but usually as a last option. )

SEE, Cued Speech, AVT/CI, Signed English, etc… all those options are geared for the development of the English language with emphasis on the hearing and speaking component,.  Even Signed English places emphasis on the hearing and speaking as it includes voice, mouthing as well as signing.  So does Simultaneous Communication and total communication that are included in the wide array of options.   ASL, although seriously underemphasized, is offered on the table for the overwhelmed and bewildered parents to ponder.

Of course, the parents would go for the options that support the development of the English language solely.  They would go for what is familiar to them: hearing and speaking.  For further explanation on how the system is stacked in favour of the monolingual, hear-and-speak ideology, view Don G’s excellent vlog.  That vlog shows that neutrality is nonexistent when it comes to offering options to parents of Deaf children.

If you want actual evidence that the hearing loss professionals are NOT neutral, just take a look at the large number of Deaf children that end up in the mainstream setting with cochlear implants, and taught to speak.  Look at the smaller number of Deaf children that are enrolled in Deaf schools.   That, to me, indicates a definite bias on the part of the hearing loss professionals who influence parental choices that impact their Deaf children.

Further evidence of that bias can also be seen in the recent passage of AB-2072 in California.   Here is the link to this article that proves that neutrality DOESN’T exist on the part of the professionals behind the writing of AB-2072.

REMEMBER: There is no such thing as neutrality in real life!

One commenter in my last post asked for better examples of how Deaf parents had their parental rights overridden or violated.  Well, here are some, from a source whom I shall keep anonymous:

a) “In Holland, I was told by deaf parents that their child would be placed in a mental institution if CI is not given to him.  This occurred in 2009. ”

b) “I know of a family of two deaf children being threatened by the state social worker to take away their children for refusing to enroll them in a public school as they wished to put their children in Fanwood, New York in 2004″

“We had a hard time to enroll our daughter who is hard of hearing in Montessori Children’s House because the school district didn’t agree with the curriculum for our daughter. It took us almost one year after enrolling her there to get the school district off our back. A lot of papers sent “fro and back” … Totally unnecessary.” This was in 1990.

“Oregon School for the Deaf is not permitted by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) to deal with deaf children under the age of 5. They are referred to their own school districts, and the parents are educated about various modes of communication. There is absolutely no ASL specialists in these school districts. ODE prides in the fact that they know nothing about ASL. There’s no one in this state department who is well honed in the language and culture of the Deaf.”

Even as I type, I am getting more examples of  Deaf parents’ rights to make decisions for their Deaf children being trampled.

Readers, if you have further examples, you are welcome to leave them here.

My point here is: that decisions like producing and voting on  AB-2072, should NOT be done WITHOUT the input of those affected, which happen to be us… the Deaf community, especially Deaf children in this generation and future generations.  Remember the rallying cry of the Blacks during Civil Rights Movement: “Not about us, without us!”

Sigh… I wasn’t planning to blog on the AB2072 issue that was raised lately; however, I was a little disturbed by the lack of balance in this blogger’s post.  This blogger and her commenters were all het up on the behalf of Hearing parents of Deaf children at the possibility of having the mythical ASL-only option foisted upon them.  She mentioned two scenarios, and I quote:

(1.) The Deaf parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must have their deaf child undergo surgery for a cochlear implant at 6 months and employ only speech therapy  in English for the child’s language development, no other options are allowed.  How would the Deaf parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

(2.)  The hearing parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must implement ASL only to begin the child’s language development.   How would the hearing parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

Then she spent the entire rest of her post defending the Hearing parents’ right to NOT have ASL foisted upon them by the state against their wishes.  Fair enough,  I agree that the state should not infringe upon the rights of the parents.

Yet, I see NO one on that post, either on the blogger’s or the commenters’ part, stand up for the Deaf parents of Deaf children who had their rights forcibly infringed upon in the name of the hear-and-speak ideology.  The blogger implies that Scenario 1 has not happened yet.  I submit that this is inaccurate information.   To wit:

The Deaf Sherlock’s post

Implanting against Legal Parents’ Wishes at Deafness.about.com

Parental Rights at Deafness.about.com

I have not seen much if any outrage re: Scenario 1 on the part of these people, and yet Scenario 2 causes them to blame Deaf ASL activists for the possibility of Hearing parents’ rights to decide for their Deaf children being infringed upon.   Why is this the case?

Hello!  Now that I’ve made my confession re: dysconscious linguicism in my previous vlog, I will discuss what linguicism and dysconscious linguicism are.  They are kind of complex concepts, so I will attempt to simplify them and keep this post short and sweet.

LINGUICISM:

What is it?

It’s a form of prejudice that involves an individual making judgments about another’s wealth, education, social status, etc, based on the other’s choice and use of language.  (Wikipedia)

It’s a form of prejudice, an “-ism” , along the lines of racism, ageism, sexism, classism and audism.  (Wikipedia)

This concept is best described in this way:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.

B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that  he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly  from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

The scenarios described above is linguicism, pure and simple.  How does linguicism as described above apply to the Deaf?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated.  This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

This judgement is blatant linguicism.  What is worse, we internalize this attitude and apply it to our own people!

DYSCONSCIOUS LINGUICISM:

What is it?

I will use the terms of racism and audism to aid in understanding the term dysconscious linguicism.

DYSCONSCIOUS RACISM:

A form of racism that accepts dominant white norms and privileges. (Pewewardy)

If one is Black, Aboriginal, or other, one allocates a high degree of respect to the dominant White majority at the expense of one’s esteem of one’s own racial group.   This individual desires to “be as White as possible” and renounce his own racial heritage and norms.  (Pewewardy describes it another way:  If you have seen these racial antics and negative behaviours … for most of your life, you may become absolutely numb to it.)

DYSCONSCIOUS AUDISM:

A form of audism that accepts dominant hearing norms and privileges.  It is the attitude of a Deaf individual that Hearing people are better than Deaf people. ” To hear is better than to be deaf.”  It is the desire to be as Hearing as possible.  I will apply Pewewardy’s explanation here: If you have seen  (audist) antics and negative behaviours for most of your life, you may become absolutely numb to it.)

DYSCONSCIOUS LINGUICISM:

(The definition is similar to dysconscious racism and dysconscious audism.)

A form of linguicism that accepts the dominant language as superior to own minority language.

It is the attitude  that English is superior to ASL (or Spanish, or other… insert language here).

Remember my previous vlog that described my perception of ASL as broken English, and how the ASL-using Deaf weren’t smart and required support because they had low-quality education?  Well, that was an excellent example of dysconscious linguicism,   When we have dysconscious linguicism in the Deaf community, that usually comes hand in hand with dysconscious audism.   You might recall the hard of hearing students in the last vlog who thought they were privileged to go to public schools because they could hear and speak better than the rest of us? Those same students also viewed ASL as broken English!

English version:

Guess what.  I’m guilty.  Guilty of what, you ask?  Dysconscious Linguicism!  What is that?  That is something I will explain in Part 2 of this vlog series.  In this part, I will give my background and tell my story.  In doing so, I will explain the reason for accusing myself of dysconscious linguicism.

I come from a Hearing family of which I am the sole Deaf member.  I am congenitally Deaf, with an unknown etiology.   At the age of 18 months, my mother placed me in a preschool program that provided a signing environment.  (Prior to that time, I had no exposure to language, neither signed nor spoken.  My communication consisted of pointing at things. )  Immediately, I began to thrive in that environment.  I also began reading books at an early age, and developing a love for books.

At the age of 3 1/2, I enrolled in a residential school for the Deaf.  It was during my time at that school that a situation arose.  I suspect that this situation was one that began my internalization of linguicistic attitude toward ASL.

One Monday morning, and I clearly remember that it was a Monday because on that momentous day, my classroom teacher was absent for whatever reason, and there was no substitute teacher available for my class.  As a result, my class was split up so that we all ended up being assigned to different classes for that day.  One classmate and I ended up in a class of 9-10 year-olds while we were both only 6 or 7 years old at the time. The Hearing teacher of that class had us write on blackboards about our weekend.  So, my classmate and I shared a blackboard and wrote extensively about our respective weekend activities.  Once done, we returned to our assigned seats in the classroom. The older students also returned to their seats once they were done with their assignment.  After looking at the other blackboards, we were baffled to see that each of the older students had only two or three sentences about their weekend activities.  This was in stark contrast to our blackboard, which was filled to capacity with our writing.

Now, all those older students had Hearing parents, although they were all ASL users. We (my classmates) were not actual ASL users though we did sign.  To clarify: we were both nerds. We were both voracious bookworms who devoured as many books as we could.

When the Hearing teacher inspected the contents of all the blackboards and saw the marked contrast between the work of his students and ours, he castigated his students severely. Basically, he said, “What is wrong with you?!  These 6-7 year-olds are far better writers than you 9-10 year olds!  They are able to fill up a blackboard while you only wrote 2 or 3 sentences! ”

When I witnessed that blistering criticism, I was mortified and felt bad for his students.  I think that  was when I began to internalize the rampant linguicism against ASL in that school .  That is, the viewpoint that when one uses ASL, one’s command of English is poor, and that ASL was broken English.  A good number of teachers at that school  reinforced my internalization of that linguicistic attitude as I grew up in that school.  There were some teachers who told me that ASL was in fact broken English.   It did not help that each time I saw an ASL using student, he or she exhibited (what I perceived to be) a poor command of the English language.

When I turned 13, I found myself struggling with math, while I did quite well in English classes.  I began to notice that most ASL-using students did quite well in math while I wasn’t.  Once I realized that, my respect for my fellow students grew.

By that time, I was also laboring under the misconception that Hearing people, purely on the basis of their ability to hear and speak, were more proficient in English than us Deaf people.   There were several hard of hearing residental students from my school who were mainstreamed in public schools.  These students exhibited an attitude of superiority simply because they attended public schools (which was taken as a sign of prestige) and we did not, and because they could hear and speak a bit.  That was blatant audism… dysconscious audism at that.  (Linguicism is closely tied to audism.  This will be expanded upon in the next v/blog.) I also internalized that dysconscious audism!

When I became a day student (after several years as a residential student), I was thrilled to be riding a school bus with Hearing kids. I communicated with them using pen and paper.  I soon noticed something odd. The person, with whom I was writing back and forth, seemed to be struggling to read my written messages, using the sounding-out and re-reading strategies.  I was puzzled by this as I had no such issues with reading.  Whenever I fingerspelled to that person, she sounded out each letter I spelled then in syllables, then in complete words.  It was a slow process and I began questioning this individual’s intelligence.

That was when I had an epiphany (… at the grand old age of 13!):  Just because a person could hear doesn’t mean this person had a better command of English than a Deaf person.  Therefore, the logic followed that Hearing people aren’t necessarily smarter than Deaf people.  (In other words, the ability to hear/speak alone doesn’t necessarily denote intellectual prowess, prodigious or otherwise).  That life-changing insight caused me to begin examining my views on my fellow schoolmates who were ASL-users.

Up to the age of 13, I had been signing in the English order and fingerspelling sophisticated words (think Dilton in the Archie comics, Reed Richards in Fantastic Four or Beast in X-Men comics).  The other students finally became quite frustrated with me because while I could understand their ASL, they struggled to comprehend what I was telling them.  Things came to a head and I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to start using ASL, or my friends would stop associating with me purely because they were fed up with having to work at figuring out what I was saying.  I understood their position, and began the long process of switching from English to PSE to ASL.    This process lasted through my university years, both undergraduate (Gallaudet U.) and graduate (U of Rochester) and my early teaching years.  Finally, I became quite fluent in ASL.

Looking back, now that I have the utmost respect for ASL as a bona fide language, I realized something.  During that time when I was signing in the English order as a child and thinking that my schoolmates were using broken English, I was actually the one who mangled ASL!  I reiterate: I had been using broken ASL all along!

Go to Part II, which will discuss the definitions for linguicism and dysconscious linguicism.  (Part II will be posted soon.)

PS:  If you wish to view comments and discussions under my vlog at YouTube, just click directly on my video twice, and it will take you there.   If you wish to leave a comment there or here on my website, be my guest.

Into which category do we Deaf people fit? Race or Disability? Well, this vlog is a sequel to the first vlog (The Canadian Definition of Audism). In that vlog, the CHS (Canadian Hearing Society) is of the view that Deaf people are not only disabled, but also an ethnic (race) minority.

How might we use existing legislation to combat attitudinal barriers? We may do so upon racial and disability grounds. Before I explain how to do this, I must first explain what happened during Gary Malkowski’s presentation Breaking Attitudinal Barriers in Policy and Practice. He asked his audience, one of which I was, this question: Which category do you think Deaf people fit into? Race or Disability? Gary then qualified this by explaining that race no longer has to do with biological characteristics, such as skin colour. Race includes these characteristics: accent or manner of speech (or language), culture, history, beliefs and practices, traditions and social constructs”.
Silly question, I thought, with a tinge of arrogance. Race, of course, especially since we have all these characteristics of a race! I don’t accept disability as a label for us! Gary’s answer startled me. He said: We fit into both racial and disabled categories. He explained that since we claim disability tax, use ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program), and use ADP (Assistive Devices Plan) in which the government pays half of what it costs to obtain TTY, and other devices we need, we have accepted the label of disability for ourselves. So, that indeed means we are both a race and a disability group. So what do we do? How do we use legal means to combat attitudinal barriers? Two significant pieces of Human Rights legislations are as follows:

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (AODA):

•Remove attitudinal barriers that discriminate against people with disabilities

•Eliminate systemic barriers in organization’s policies, practices or procedures that discriminate against people with disabilities

•Engage in public awareness activities designed to raise employer and service providers awareness of disability issues and to combat negative attitudes and stereotypes about persons with disabilities

Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines

•Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination

•Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate

•Policy and Guidelines on Accessible Education (this component will not be discussed here.)

(Malkowski, 2010)

Although we can use AODA to help us break down attitudinal and discriminatory barriers, OHRC is a significant piece of legislation. It needs to be made clear that racism and audism are both attitudes. The former is the ideology that one racial group is inherently superior to other racial groups. The latter is another ideology that to be hearing is superior to those who are deaf; have hearing loss. However abhorrent these attitudes are, we cannot take racists and audists to a human rights tribunal just on the basis of these attitudes. We cannot prove anything.

But, when these attitudes and ideologies manifests themselves openly in language and behaviours that are discriminatory against, for instance the Deaf, out of unfounded concern for safety. This then poses barriers. The use of discriminatory language in policy for instance, then becomes grounds for complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

This indeed happened in BC (British Columbia), where the Ministry of Transportation imposed a policy against Deaf people driving 18-wheelers due to safety concerns. So, of course this prevented Deaf truckers from getting trucking jobs there.

The Ministry of Transportation got hauled before the Human Rights tribunal. The lawyers for the discriminated deaf drivers asked the government for the premise they came up with for their discriminatory policy. The Ministry of Transportation pointed to the medical association in BC, who recommended that Deaf people not be allowed to drive large trucks for safety reasons. When challenged on this, the medical association revealed they based this recommendation on the number of elderly people who lost their hearing and got into vehicular accidents.

Needless to say, none of the Deaf complainants were elderly. Their lawyer called in an insurance company and asked for their statistics. The company answered that statistically speaking , deaf drivers had better than average driving records due to the fact that driving is a visual skill, and that many Hearing people tended to be distracted by music or using the cellphone. As a result, the discriminatory policy was scrapped. That is how we can use the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial legislation to combat discriminatory policies and practices that are rooted in racial and or audist attitudes. (Malkowski, 2010)

Here’s a scenario: Your employer refuses to provide you with an interpreter based on his perception that he would experience financial undue hardship as a result of providing you. This unwillingness “to use or put accommodations in place because of cost seems almost reasonable until faced with the Duty to Accommodate” (Malkowski. Vibe’s The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine, Spring/Summer 2003) Malkowski revealed during his presentation that the Ontario government has financial assistance available to support small businesses in meeting their duty to accommodate. Should your employer refuse to provide an interpreter for you, he would have failed in his duty to accommodate, and that would be grounds for you to bring your complaint to the Human Rights Commission using the OHRC Policy and Guidelines Disability and the Duty to Accommodate.

Remember, as a racial group, we Deaf people may may use the OHRC Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination to break down attitudinal barriers. As a disabled group, we may use the Duty to Accommodate component of the OHRC if we are denied accommodations that we require.