The Vanilla Deaf Label: Audist or Not? You Be the Judge!

Posted by Shel

Jun 1

Vanilla Deaf. “What the…? Is racism at play here?” was my first reaction, and that of some Hearing friends, as well. At first, my thoughts were that it probably meant White Deaf. Is there such a term as “Chocolate Deaf”? Turns out it isn’t racism, but something else entirely.

I googled it, and came across the blog of a Hearing mother of a young Deaf child who explained that the term was used by Hearing Loss professionals to define Deaf children without developmental issues that prelude language acquisition. In other words, Vanilla Deaf means “clean” or “normal” Deaf. This term isn’t widely used, not even in the Deaf Education field. It is my understanding that this label is a fairly new one.

I had NEVER come across this label until recently. Why didn’t most Deaf professionals, and the Deaf Community know about this? Read on, and we might glean the answer to this question.

Check this link out: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/9/3/346.pdf Scroll down to the bottom of that page. A professor recommended that teacher-educators require their student-teachers to read this book in their courses. What I found interesting is the rationale this professor used for this recommendation, as well as the department with which this professor is affiliated.

Deaf children are being categorized from an early age as either “Vanilla Deaf” or Deaf-Plus (this term will be discussed separately at a later date) by “hearing loss professionals”, who then encourage the placement of vanilla deaf children in non-signing educational settings. Who are those “hearing loss professionals”? Examples can be found in this link:

http://www.insightcinema.org/hearinglossprofessionals.html

Type “vanilla deaf” in the search box of any of the organization websites, and you’d be surprised at the number of documents that come up. For instance, at Better Hearing Institute, you’d find 47 documents that contain this term!

Out of curiosity, I decided to google “Vanilla Natives”, “Vanilla Aboriginals”, “Vanilla Hispanics”, “Vanilla French”, and “Vanilla Francophone”. Guess what? None of them exists. What I came up with had to do with food or scents. Therefore, NO ethnic minority children had the dubious honour of having the vanilla label attached to them.

What conclusions can we draw from these facts?

Obviously, racism isn’t even on the radar here. The label of “vanilla deaf” is apparently part of the jargon used by “hearing loss” professionals when they discuss young Deaf children without developmental issues that hinder language development. It seems that some Hearing parents of newly diagnosed Deaf children have been exposed to this label while most Deaf educators and the Deaf community remain in the dark.

If this label is used by “hearing loss” professionals and others who adhere to the Listen and Speak ideology to encourage Hearing parents to place their Deaf children in non-signing educational settings, then one could most certainly conclude that audism is very much at play here.

One more thing: the very act of labelling of Deaf children as vanilla deaf (or otherwise) can also be deemed audistic in practice. So, the label of vanilla deaf can be considered an audist label.

What’s your conclusion?

Filed under: Audism, Deaf

53 comments

Comment by Ecnarb on June 1, 2009 at 7:42 am

I never heard of “Vanilla Deaf”

I’ll explore this term right away.

Thanks,
Ecnarb
Comment by Don G. on June 1, 2009 at 8:05 am

I have seen the term used before. I would agree that it is audistic because basically it once again reduces being Deaf to a medical conception of deaf as problem (“Deaf plus” just further compounds the perception of ‘Deaf as problem’). It is interesting to note that other minority groups are not referred to by any type of medically-oriented label as “vanilla”, which reinforces the argument that “vanilla” as a descriptor is indeed pathologically/audistically based.
Comment by Insane Misha on June 1, 2009 at 8:27 am

Shel….

I have heard of that term before but I couldn’t place where I’ve heard before. I don’t recall who ever came up with that term. Even though I don’t know much about it however “vanilla” could mean “pure”. I may be mistaken. It needs more clear and precise definition.
I believe it’s form of audism because of what I read your blog about hearing loss professionals. Obviously those professionals are hearing people, not Deaf people. Therefore, they would find a way to make up as they go along.
If that is the case of audism, we need to educate those professionals not to use the term ever again.

Insane Misha
Comment by Valhallian on June 1, 2009 at 8:50 am

I had the same experience as you did when I first read it in a comment in one of my previous postings. I had originally overlooked it until another commenter brought it up and when I saw what that commenter was referring to, my first thought was that it was racism at play and i immediately deleted it from the comments as it was my blog posting.

I then decided to look it up cuz it was the first time I had seen those words used and saw that it had nothing to do with race, but there are deaf people that have another disability along with their deafness, such as blindness, cerebral palsy etc. Vanilla deaf means that are just deaf, and have no other disabilities.

While I do think that it is the wrong choice of words to use, because it would lead to misunderstandings and first impressions that it relates to racism, however, I would not say that it is audistic, because it tries to define it as a person that does not have a dual or multiple disability.

My reasoning for my answer is quite simple, I tried googling “vanilla blind” and links popped up. If nothing came up, then I would think it is audistic, but the fact that the “vanilla blind” term is used, therefore it is not audistic, however, I still don’t like the use of it for the simple fact that it looks racist, even if it isn’t intended.
Comment by Dianrez on June 1, 2009 at 9:07 am

Thanks for an excellent article exposing the intent behind the latest jargon by hearing and speech professionals.

In the social services field, workers said “multiple agency involvement” or “multiple issues” to describe clients with a variety of problems. The implication was that these clients were less likely to succeed.

Less formally, clients had been described as “nuts” “apples” (sweet and easy to process), “oranges” (tart and sticky) or even “watermelons” (thump once and sort out) I’ve also seen “nuts” described as “lug nuts” and “wing nuts”.

The human services field is unfortunately full of this jargon, often humorous and intended to take the edge off a very stress-filled job. Usually it is used only in the office, though.

You’re right, the terms “vanilla” and “deaf-plus” used in professional publications shows labeling that might miss important features. Whether it is audism is open to debate, as it seems to be more ignorant than willful.

We shouldn’t allow professionals to categorize our children like this since it limits choices for them. Protest! “My child is not a stereotype. He is a person!”
Comment by a parent on June 1, 2009 at 9:24 am

It isn’t a negative connotation… it’s just a general explanation that people use to indicate that their child had deafness and not additional developmental or physical issues which would perhaps affect the evaluation of their therapy, education, etc. It has nothing to do with communication choices, use of ASL vs. speech, etc. It is not said with the sneer as is used when people say “audist,” that’s for sure. I have actually only heard people use it in reference to their own children, in order to quickly sum up their having, say, Connexin 26 as the cause of deafness vs. infection at birth, which would cause a more complex situation. It sounds like you have already made up your mind, but I think you ought to reconsider. Just because someone makes reference to a medical issue or lack of one doesn’t infer that they only think of their child as a medical statistic. I would say that that is probably the furthest thing from the truth. I don’t use that term much, but then again, I don’t even really use the term “deaf” to describe my kids very often. But if I am speaking about their medical issues, either term might come up.
Comment by Don G. on June 1, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Valhallian –

In the case of the blind, it can’t be audism, but it does show a certain paternalistic or “oculocentric” point of view toward Blind people (although a major difference is that Blind people don’t really have a culture like Deaf people), but still definitely maintains a medical perspective like I said it does for Deaf people, and I think that’s what Shel is trying to point out.
Comment by observer on June 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm

I, for one, find it very offensive, regardless of the reason behind the wording.

It definitely comes from an audist stance, as does “deaf plus” because both terms come from the perspective that to be deaf is to be disabled. And it’s being used to place children in non signing settings.

UGH!
Comment by Ella on June 1, 2009 at 7:56 pm

YIKES! GRR!!

It’s not only audist…because they went ahead and established that term that determines our life paths EVIDENTLY WITHOUT consulting Deaf-centered professionals or concerned laypeople…

It’s ALSO RACIST….IMHO…because it powerfully implies that being white is better and without any defects!

Shame on those so called HEARING LOSS professionals who know NOTHING about our everyday lives, our minds, our desires, our REAL needs, etc. YET they arrogantly proclaim their superiority…and push their colonialist degrees upon us and others.

Thanks, Shel! for alerting us to that term and ugh! Deaf-Plus. Do you know that Gallaudet Vision 2015/2020 strategic plan is using that term “Deaf Plus” as opposed to “Hearing Loss”? Now, it looks like it’s opposed to “normal” or “without defects”.

Speaking of divisions…. WHO ARE CREATING THEM?
Comment by David on June 1, 2009 at 9:13 pm

The origins are not really racist or audist. “Vanilla” is a slang that has long existed in various professional circles. It is also seen as “plain vanilla”. The meaning is “run-of-the-mill”, “usual”, “what we are most accustomed to dealing with”.

It is a short-hand way of giving a quick, condensed view of a situation (most commonly) or a client/patient (less commonly, in my experience).

I have most often come across this bit of slang *not* referring to a person.

Many professinal short-hand terms can be misunderstood by laymen and people can find many terms offensive depending on the context or lack of context. That is why we were taught to keep any slang to private settings – *not* where we could be overheard by the general public! Your post clearly demonstrates the results of forgetting this bit of professional behavior.

David
Comment by p on June 1, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Shel – thank you for covering this – you da bomb

This “vanilla Deaf” keeps reminding me of the Nazi rhetoric – eugenics movement

while the Nazis tolerated Deaf folks existing withing the fatherland, one of their first legislations was a law mandating the sterilization of Deaf folks who MIGHT carry a Deaf gene
(17,000 Deaf folks were sterilized, 250,000 + other folks were sterilized – Blind, developmentally disabled, alcoholic, etc)

they also went on to actively kill Deaf-Plus folks in their T-4 program – this is when gas chambers were first introduced into the Nazi regime

Considering a Deaf person to be more worthy or desirable than other types of Deaf people is sad and rooted in ethnocentric thinking. To consider any human life to be more valuable or workable than another is rooted in ethnocentricism and often leads to eugenics and genocidal practices

it is interesting to note that for the “vanilla Deaf” the “hearing and speech specialists” are advocating for the severing off of a fully accessible language and culture

Call racial hygiene or eugenics – it still ain’t pretty

I wonder how much of this push to separate those who have genetic causes from those who have health or environmental causes is to:
1. examine the genetics to prevent more offsprings
2. create an elite pool for higher and more favorable scores and data collection to “prove” oral / aural only methods are superior

been there done that on both counts

history repeats itself constantly when we have no idea of where we come from – we can never determine where we are going

thank u again

peace

patti
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 2, 2009 at 12:21 am

Hi Shel!

Great topic to bring up in your blog! This term bothered me in the back of my mind since I first saw that word while reading a blog not too long ago. I originally thought it meant White Deaf because the word, vanilla, means white. Now that vanilla Deaf actually means that there are no other developmental disabilities or in other words, “normal” Deaf children but it still spells confusion. I am reluctant using the word vanilla deaf which may easily be misinterpreted. I know an African American friend who told me that she is a vanilla black meaning she has a light skin. Here is a blog that talks about it: http://chocolate-vanilla-caramel.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-african-american-mother-in-law.html

I just brought up the term “vanilla deaf” with my colleagues even administrators an hour ago and they were surprised that the term was used and published by Shirin D. Antia, the Department of Special Education and University of Arizona. Their initial reaction was NO WAY we should use that term as it is not favorable at all.

And to answer your question, is it an audist practice to label them? Actually, to label them using “vanilla deaf” is more of a racist practice (although it is not intended) that can be easily misinterpreted. As for audist practice, it is the area that there may be a lack of consultation with the Deaf professionals in the Deaf Education field and how the term was used to push for these Deaf students (who don’t have additional disabilities or perceived “normal”) to be placed in a non-signing environment. According to the book, Parents and Their Deaf Children (I have it right here), it does not even use the term, vanilla deaf. What this review article fails to describe is that there are actual success stories using sign language/bilingual approach with Deaf children that have helped improved their behavior and academic progress making them “normal”.

Thumbs down for the review that was made by Shirin D. Antia!
Comment by Anonymous on June 2, 2009 at 2:43 am

I am a Deaf professional. I’ve used the term “vanilla deaf.” David is exactly right. It’s jargon and a slang term. It does not refer to the color of someone’s skin. The analogy is plain vanilla ice cream. My colleagues and I have used it only in casual contexts, not the general public or in professional writing. The term has been around for years and is not commonly known among laypeople.

It’s important for the Deaf Community to understand that in the old days, infant mortality rates in the 1700s and 1800s were high. Babies often did not survive illnesses that would have made them deaf. In those days, a high proportion of deaf people became deaf after surviving a high fever, like scarlet fever or meningitis. This also means they became deaf AFTER they had acquired spoken English. With progresses in medical care, more and more babies are surviving the serious illnesses that made them deaf — and possibly caused other learning issues as well. Ototoxic medications are a direct cause of deafness but save the baby’s life. Babies placed on heart-lung machines (ECMO) survive, but with consequences such as developmental issues. These babies who had complicated births still can acquire language.

There’s another 60% who were born deaf and no one knows why, but it’s suspected that the cause is genetic. The most well-known genetic factor is Connexin 26. There may be others. Those deaf people are most likely to be called “vanilla deaf” because their genetic deafness does not seem to be associated with other learning issues. (There are other known genetic syndromes that DO include hearing loss, mental retardation, facial anomalies, etc., FYI. The syndromes are usually present at birth and identified by an obstetrician or pediatric neurologist, not a “hearing professional.”)

Professionals, including myself, look at the whole child, not only their ears. We know that there is tremendous heterogeneity in the Deaf Community. Deaf people use spoken English, simultaneous communication, cued speech, signed English, ASL, or can code-switch. They use hearing aids, cochlear implants, or no amplification. Some have deaf parents, some have hearing parents, some hearing parents sign and some don’t. Some deaf people have vision, motor, learning, or physical disabilities, some don’t. Some are mainstreamed, some go to oral schools, some go to deaf schools, and their school options may change several times.

I view “Deaf” as normal, not a problem or a disability. I do view any other issues as something I can help with, if needed and wanted. Deaf people are not all the same, and some have different needs than others. I accept all deaf people as equal members of the deaf community regardless of any superficial differences.
Comment by Deafchip on June 2, 2009 at 2:57 am

Hi Shel,

Thanks for alerting us about the term of “Vanilla Deaf”. The term cannot be accepted because it could create more unhealhty approach toward Deaf people. The commenters above who think the term is okay are way off the point. They have not experienced reality. They only accepts the illusion that is the biggest problem of all. We have had enough of that.

THe person who wrote that should be disciplined for making inappropriate and destructive term without consent of Deaf community. And what’s more, that person has made audist comment. We must fight againsgt people who promote that term…

Deafchip
Comment by Anonymous on June 2, 2009 at 3:02 am

Patti Durr said: “I wonder how much of this push to separate those who have genetic causes from those who have health or environmental causes is to:… 2. create an elite pool for higher and more favorable scores and data collection to “prove” oral / aural only methods are superior.”

Actually, it’s more likely that the “elite” Deaf of Deaf will create a pool for themselves that they use to prove their own superiority and exclude other deaf people from their privileges.

For example, at one school for the deaf, there were two graduation parties held on campus. One was for 9 Deaf of Deaf students and their families in the cafeteria. The other was for everyone else, and in the gym. Students from the second group who wanted to join the first group were turned away. When the school superintendent heard about this, he was so angry that he said next year there will be NO graduation parties on campus.

It saddens me that the Deaf of Deaf group excluded other deaf in this way. I really wonder whose idea it was to have two separate parties in the first place. Why could there not have been one party, period? Seems to me schools for the deaf should practice inclusion, no? These are challenging times we live in. Unity is called for.
Comment by Joseph Pietro Riolo on June 2, 2009 at 3:41 am

I checked the search feature at Better Hearing Institute’s website (http://www.betterhearing.org/) that you tried. If I select the exact phrase from the dropdown list of three different ways of searching, I would get nothing on the exact phrase of “vanilla deaf”. The 47 documents that you mentioned resulted from searching for either words “vanilla” or “deaf” as opposed to the exact phrase of “vanilla deaf”.

It is no secret that when it comes to deaf children, almost all Deaf parents do not want to see their deaf children have any other disabilities. It is a taboo or extremely sensitive subject.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 3:51 am

Indeed, that is why I checked out other minority groups for labels assigned to them. When I found they were not assigned similar labels that the Deaf are, it’s quite easy to view such labels as audist.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 3:53 am

Misha, your impression of vanilla as meaning “pure” is as good as any… Vanilla Deaf indeed means Deaf without other disabilities (clean or normal)… as was explained in my post above (and corroborated by the Hearing mother in the other blog).

Education is the best way to go to make changes in attitudes and assigning labels, indeed.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 3:56 am

I didn’t think to try googling vanilla blind. Since links popped up, it just goes to show that the Deaf are viewed as disabled and therefore in need of medical intervention. This is indeed audism.

I don’t blame you for disliking the term, even if not for the same reason as many of us dislike it.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 3:58 am

Thank you for your perspective, which echoes mine and for educating us on the jargon of the human services field.

One thing,(and I’m certain you’d agree)vanilla deaf isn’t intended to be a humorous label, but a way of categorizing/classifying Deaf people.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:04 am

Thank you for your comment. I can see where you are coming from, but consider this question:
What is wrong with simply saying this child is Deaf, without the accompanying label of “vanilla”? Is “vanilla” a necessary term to add onto Deaf?

In many Hearing people’s view (especially those in the medical/pathological fields), the term deaf connotes medical issues, whereas we, the Deaf do not view the term as having medical issues.

Therein lies the rub! Quite often the views of the majority and the minority clash.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:07 am

No I didn’t know about Gallaudet’s strategic plan. Deaf Plus isn’t a term I would accept. Wow. I will have to look it up. The Deaf-Plus term also has negative connotations for me.

You’re correct that the Deaf community or professionals were NOT consulted, or the “vanilla deaf” label would not have continued to be used.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:15 am

Hmmm. You are correct that vanilla can be used as a slang term. When it is used without labelling minorities, it’s innocuous enough, but consider the racist undertones.

I have to ask you this:

Supposing racist or sexist terms are used as part of jargons in professional circles AND kept private, without public knowledge, does that mean these terms are OK?

Are you saying it is ok to use terms that label or denigrate people as long as the public is in the dark, especially the section of people to which these terms refer?
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:19 am

Thank you for the history lesson, and you have reminded us of why we cannot accept labels on us. Hopefully those who are bewildered by the reaction to the term “vanilla deaf” will better understand why we view such labels as audist after having read your comment.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:29 am

Thank you for your thoughts. I think it’s time for Deaf professionals in the educational field to get in touch with the hearing loss professionals and share their views on the label vanilla deaf and educate them.

As for the book itself, I may have to put it on the list for summer reading. It looks like Dr. Antia has either skipped the success stories section, or disbelieved them.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:40 am

While I agree that Deaf people are not all the same, and actually come in different packages, I honestly disagree with the use of “vanilla deaf” label regardless of whether it’s part of a professional jargon.

What is wrong with simply saying “this child is Deaf.” Full stop. Deaf says it all. There is no need to split hairs here.

When there are other issues, one can simply say “Deaf child with special needs.” In mainstream society, people say, “So-so is a child with special needs” when referring to a child who belongs to the majority group.

I believe we the Deaf have been slapped with so many labels that we have to start shedding them. It is time to view Deaf children as whole children (as you are doing now), WITHOUT attaching labels to them.
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:49 am

I understand the point you are trying to make re: the commenters who disagree with whether the label was audist, but keep in mind their (most particularly the parent’s)have NOT experienced OUR reality, so they cannot truly understand the anger expressed by many of us, or where we are coming from. It is up to us to educate them.

The best way to fight ignorance and prejudice is to provide education, really.

We have a long way to go in many ways for sure!
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 4:53 am

Joseph, try the other organizations and see how much information you can get on the vanilla deaf label. If not much exists online, it would be for the reason that Anonymous (at 2:43 a.m.) and David stated… to keep such jargon within professional circles rather than the laypeople.

The problem is that NONE of the Deaf professionals were consulted on the appropriateness of such term. Had they been consulted, I seriously doubt the label would have endured to this day.

NO parent would want their children to have any disabilities, period, regardless of whether the parent is Deaf or not.
Comment by Joseph Pietro Riolo on June 2, 2009 at 5:12 am

I tried every organization (in http://www.insightcinema.org/hearinglossprofessionals.html) and except for five organizations that did not provide search capability, the rest of the organizations returned nothing for the exact phrase of “vanilla deaf”.

I am not sure if your last statement is true for most of the Deaf parents. I know that most of them would like to have deaf babies over hearing babies if they are given the choice.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 5:22 am

Joseph, I couldn’t find much information on the Internet related to vanilla deaf, either, which simply goes to show that this term is an inside one, not shared with laypeople in the outside world.

Many Deaf parents wouldn’t mind having Deaf babies. Perhaps you could consider the fact that these parents DON’T view Deaf babies as disabled? It would simply mean having babies like them. Being Deaf is simply a state of being, nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by Deafchip on June 2, 2009 at 6:18 am

I want to clarify that. I did not say commenters are audists… I realized I should have said article, not comment. I referred to one person who wrote the article. My apology for wrong word.

Deafchip
Comment by deafcdn on June 2, 2009 at 6:42 am

No problem, Deafchip. I did wonder about the commenters part. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by Anonymous on June 2, 2009 at 8:00 am

here’s the original quote by Shirin D. Antia that Barb DiGi referred to. “The book is readable and provides easily digestible but valuable information much needed in the field. Teacher-educators looking to disillusion their students of the belief that their primary activity will be to sign to ‘vanilla deaf’ students should assign this book as required reading.”

I believe what Dr. Antia was trying to say is that teachers of the deaf today must be prepared to teach students who are deaf AND also have other needs. Those other needs could range from mild to severe. They could have learning issues that require accommodations, modifications, or auxillary services to the IEP: vision issues, behavior or emotional issues (NOT because they are deaf, but because deaf children experience behavioral or emotional challenges just like hearing children do), or cognitive, memory, or visual-motor delays.

I’ve often wondered if some people choose to become professionals who work with the deaf because they met some really cute, adorable deaf children, adolescents, and adults, come to love ASL, and think it would be a fun job to have. Well, I’ve known hundreds of cute and adorable deaf people of all ages, they are fun, and there’s nothing more heart-warming than seeing ASL used fluently, BUT … there’s also a significant number who will struggle academically and socially, and for innumerable reasons, not all having to do with audism. Even some children who have deaf parents, exposure to ASL from birth, and every conceivable advantage still have barriers to learning that cannot be overcome, such as mental retardation. But we still believe that every deaf child can grow and become as independent, happy, and self-fulfilled as is possible. Each child’s definition of “success” will be different.

My colleagues and I don’t use terms like “vanilla deaf” to classify or track. We look at individual students’ needs and try to meet them where they are.
Comment by Ben Vess on June 2, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Hello Shel and Hello Everyone,

I know, I seem to be getting in the game a bit late lately; but, I’ve been doing some reading and thinking after reading this one. First, I must say, Shel, this article is indeed, thought-provoking. Unfortunately, your arguments seemed to have fell apart as you were making them.

I’m not sure whether you’re really personally offended or you simply want to incite something–I’m hoping it’s the latter.

The first and probably a fatal flaw would be your implication that deafness did not occur frequently with something else. There’s meningitis, rubella, polio, and many other factors that could cause deafness and other disabilities. The term, “Vanilla Deaf,” just may not happen as often as some in the deaf community would like to think; hence, the lack of widespread use of that term.

A perfect Deaf child, born without hearing and without any other health problem is rare.

Now for your second fatal flaw, probably the one that killed your whole argument. This above all, you cannot disregard facts. Once you do, you cannot argue any more.

Deaf is not an ethnic minority. It never was and never will be. (Note to other commenters, this is final–I will not debate on this).

Anyone who took Sociology 101 would know this: to be an ethnic minority, one must meet a certain set of criteria. One of them and, thus effectively disenfranchising the Deaf from this status, is that a group of people must come from a single point of origin. Think like, blacks from Africa, whites from Europe, and so forth.

Deaf fails that so badly, it cannot be considered for the other criteria. Deaf is a global occurrence regardless of nationality, creed, religion, race, sex, orientation, and all that.

We are not an ethnic minority. Linguistic, perhaps so, but not ethnic.

So…Here’s how I see your argument. I think this was blown out of proportion, you see. It’s not meant to be taken personally; so, let’s try to take the whole “I’m so offended” attitude out the window right now.

It’s silly.

Let’s try to see it from my perspective, yes? For far too long, my friends, the Deaf have been clumped together with the multi-handicapped and the learning disabled. I’m sorry if it may offend some, but I believe it is time to separate the two groups.

I am a “Vanilla Deaf” person. I was born without my hearing and with no health problems besides being deaf. If them calling me “Vanilla Deaf” to mean that I have no other problems…

No reason to be linguistically delayed, no reason for getting special attention, that I should be treated as normal as the next kid. Then call me “Vanilla Deaf.”

Instead of being offended, because I know it’s not about me, I’m saying, “Wow! This is really some progress.” With this label, my test scores will not be clumped with my deaf peers who can barely read and write because they have more problems besides deaf. With this label, I can now tell my school’s Board of Education that “Vanilla Deaf” is not special education.

“Vanilla Deaf” means that, now, you have no excuse to be linguistically delayed, no excuse to be “disabled.”

You just deaf, my friend. Ain’t nothing special to it, no more. (Could it be, that’s the very reason you got all riled up??)

Sorry for the lengthy response.

-Ben
Comment by Ben Vess on June 2, 2009 at 8:23 pm

One last thing, about the consulting of Deaf professionals…

Come on, are you for real?!

Any published papers in the field of academia are subjected to scrutiny by its peers. One does not consult and forget the paper or whatnot BEFORE its publications. That doesn’t make sense.

In Physics, you publish your theory and wait for someone to publish something that refutes it. Galileo published his proof of the Copernican Heliocentric theory without consulting the Church.

No, no, and no! they have the right to publish without consulting any Deaf professionals. That does not change anything.

Now, it’s time for you Deaf professionals to get your arses out there and do your researches and refute her so–without consulting with her, even!

*whistles* Welcome to the world of Academia. If you’re so easily offended, perhaps then, you shouldn’t be in this field.

I hear they’re less offensive in a factory, or even on a farm.

-Ben
Comment by Anonymous on June 2, 2009 at 8:40 pm

and by the way, Shel, just to clarify: in community, political, or social settings, there is no need to separate deaf individuals into categories (“vanilla,” “grass roots,” “low functioning,” etc.). Deaf is Deaf, period. But in educational or social service settings, it’s important to recognize NEEDS, and not provide the same services to every deaf person just because they are deaf. As an example, some need an ASL interpreter, and others prefer CART, an oral interpreter, or an FM system. Some deaf people use their oral speech, even if not perfect, and others prefer to write notes.

Once when I was in grad school, a professor asked the class, “Are deaf people more like hearing people than different?” One person said, “Yes, they are very different!” I said, “no, there are more similarities than differences.” That applies to deaf people as a group too. As a group, deaf people are more like other deaf people than they are different. All deaf people need telecommunication access, accessible language from birth, and access to education via one’s preferred language. In other words, there are more within-group differences (e.g., between one deaf individual and another) than between-group differences (low functioning vs. high functioning).
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 2, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Well, I realize that this paragraph of Antia’s is not exactly easy to interpret. Just what threw me off is that it said “teacher-educators looking to disillusion their students of the belief that their primary activity will be to sign to ‘vanilla deaf’ students should assign this book as required reading.” Disillusion means freeing from false belief that the author suggests that it is a myth to use signs to Deaf students and that to me is not acceptable.

“I’ve often wondered if some people choose to become professionals who work with the deaf because they met some really cute, adorable deaf children, adolescents, and adults, come to love ASL, and think it would be a fun job to have.”

It is not about having a fun job, mind you. It takes a hard work, effort and dedication to develop an explicit ASL curriculum (so unlike other subjects as not many bilingual resources are easily available) in an unchartered territory where ASL standards are raised in order to ensure that Deaf children have acquired a full language foundation that will increase their thinking ability. It is all about having a higher expectations.

Actually, I find it amusing when people say that teachers are taking the job for fun just because of cute children using ASL. Of course, they are cute but it is not because I chose to become a professional in this field. You seem not to have a full idea about what it takes to be a teacher as heavy commitment is required to make the outcomes favorable. It is all about strategies and the use of techniques to make ASL Deaf children successful in academics. You are right that we just cannot expect ASL Deaf children to automatically take its course on their own just like those hearing students who speak English as strategies are required for them to possess certain skills through literacy. Without ASL and a full language foundation, it makes it much harder for Deaf children to learn English and for them to acquire literacy skills.

Yes, it does have to do with audism as there are some teachers who are resistant using a bilingual approach in the classroom because they don’t possess the skills or recognize the benefits. I am not saying that they are audists but they don’t feel comfortable to apply bilingual strategies at first until they had received support and training, they took off and became more motivated when seeing clearly how much progress students have made in an amazing short year. We should be looking at the root of the problem which is teacher preparation training programs that don’t incorporate bilingual strategies in teaching. Too many teachers start the field with little or no background of this area and this audism practice in colleges/universities have to stop.
Comment by David on June 2, 2009 at 9:26 pm

In belated reply to:

“Are you saying it is ok to use terms that label or denigrate people as long as the public is in the dark, especially the section of people to which these terms refer?

Comment by deafcdn June 2, 2009 @ 4:15 AM”

I was simply providing the information that a very large body of slang exists in professional circles, most commonly during the training years. Good or bad, it happens. Much of the slang is actively discouraged by the staff who provide the training.

In some (many?) cases, slang serves as one way to deal with enormous stresses during the training years. Extreme sleep deprivation is only one of the stresses. (I even learned that I can catch a nap for about 20 seconds while standing leaning against a wall, before I lose muscle tone and begin to slide down the wall

One of the tasks to be learned during professional training is to learn appropriate and productive ways to deal with profession-related stresses that can potentially become life-threatening. From all I can tell, many training programs are doing a better job in pro-actively teaching better stress management skills to those in training.

My apologies if I have drifted off-topic.

David
Comment by Ben Vess on June 2, 2009 at 10:38 pm

Barb,

I think you may have missed the point of what Anita is trying to say. It’s not meant to be personal–so, try not to take offense of what she said.

She is correct in her thinking. Not all deaf people sign. In a strange sense, it’s much easier to deal with a deaf person with other disabilities (especially with language) than it is to deal with just plain ol’ deaf.

You see, I’m not sure if anyone noticed, but, everything related to deaf and language seems to be disproportionately political. It is false to assume that all deaf people can sign.

It is equally as false to assume that all deaf people can speak and read lips. We are in such a politicized age within our community that to sign to a deaf person may be offensive! That is true!

Essentially, from that sentence alone, I’m interpreting it as rational…the primary activity of vanilla deaf shouldn’t be signing but rather–communicating.

Now, Barb, you may have your beliefs what communicating means. But do keep this in mind, Anita is right…Not everyone subscribes to your beliefs.

If we did it your way and not Anita’s, we’d be offending a lot of deaf people who prefer not to sign. Are their opinions so insignificant you’re willing to impose your beliefs on them?? I don’t think you’re that type.

But really, Barb and Shel…Try not to take this personally. Yes, it may affect you on a personal level but their intent was not to be personal. Don’t be too blinded by your emotions..
Comment by Anonymous on June 2, 2009 at 11:55 pm

don’t worry, Barb. I’ve been in the professions(s) working with deaf individuals from birth to adulthood for 29 years now. I certainly don’t have any illusions left about how challenging it can be. Just wanted to point out that possibly, some people who aspire to be teachers of the deaf might have had very positive impressions of the ones that they met, whether from personal experience or from afar, such as seeing songs or plays interpreted in ASL.

I absolutely agree with you that aspiring professionals really, really have to have lots of direct, hands-on experience with real live deaf people before they consider going professional, including fluency in ASL. In my graduate class, one person started the program with NO ASL or deaf experience, and she really struggled through. But now she is experienced and fluent, because she was very determined to succeed.
Comment by deafcdn on June 3, 2009 at 3:57 am

Barb, my interpretation of that particular paragraph with the term vanilla deaf is that Antia seemed to be saying that it’s a myth that one SHOULD sign to Deaf children without special needs, and that that particular “category” of Deaf doesn’t require ASL, like you just said. This is partly why I made a blog post on it. That section was a bit vague and I wanted people’s take on that section.

Other than that, you pretty much said everything related to teaching and what it involves… lots of time and hard work… in short, it takes true dedication to remain in the profession, especially when it comes to the field of Deaf Education (which is a separate field from Special Education… and that is one thing many Hearing educators without previous contact with Deaf education often gets confused about.) They lump Deaf education and Special education into one field, often under the umbrella of Special Education. This is another reason I found it significant that Antia worked in the Special Education Dept. It’s partly due to audism, and to a larger degree, plain ignorance on the part of many educators, and especially of teaching colleges.

Teaching colleges are definitely where well-seasoned Deaf educators need to go to help prepare and educate young teachers-to-be, not only in strategies related to bilingual education, but also related to cultural knowledge, issues and nuances that most programs either barely or don’t touch upon those things.
Comment by deafcdn on June 3, 2009 at 5:01 am

Ben, welcome to the game, however late you got in

I will be frank. The reason I posted this blog is partly because I’m offended by the label, AND partly because I wanted to see what people had to say about it, and at the same time start a discussion to examine this label. This examination is necessary and of course this would mean differences in opinion and perspectives are inevitable.

In response to the perceived flaws in my argument.

Flaw #1. “your implication that deafness did not occur frequently with something else. There’s meningitis, rubella, polio, and many other factors that could cause deafness and other disabilities. The term, “Vanilla Deaf,” just may not happen as often as some in the deaf community would like to think; hence, the lack of widespread use of that term.”

RESPONSE: Please read the 5th paragraph in my post where I stated clearly that I would discuss “deaf-plus” label in another post. The other disabilities are included in the “Deaf-Plus” label. I decided to not go into this into depth here as that is another topic that deserves its own post. Otherwise, this present post would have gone on and on to infinity, as the topic would have become too bulky to give each label proper examination.

Vanilla Deaf simply serves to emphasize that being Deaf is to have a disability. The term “vanilla” is also connected to Blind, according to one of my commenters… I haven’t had the chance to check that out yet.

Flaw #2. Deaf is not an ethnic minority. It never was and never will be. (Note to other commenters, this is final–I will not debate on this). We are not an ethnic minority. Linguistic, perhaps so, but not ethnic.

RESPONSE: I agree, but you are assuming that I am saying Deaf IS an ethnic minority. Nowhere in this post did I say that! However, I do argue that the Deaf is indeed a linguistic minority.

This is why I mentioned the Natives/Aboriginals, Hispanics and Francophones. In Arizona, the Navajos are a linguistic minority, just as the Ojibway in Ontario is a linguistic minority. Both have spoken and written forms of their own languages. The Hispanics and Francophones are also linguistic minorities in North America. Hence, my choice of these particular minorities for comparison with the Deaf linguistic minority.
(You brought up Blacks, and had I used Blacks as part of my argument, I would have defeated my own argument, no question about that.)

I believe I have taken care of the flaws you pointed out.

In response to your statement that it is time to stop lumping the Deaf together with the multi-handicapped and learning disabled, I agree. This is why I argue that “vanilla deaf” label is still another way of lumping us with the disabled. This term is similar to “vanilla blind” (another disability label…brought up by one of the commenters here). So, when the medical professionals apply the same term to both Deaf and the Blind, that means they view both groups as being disabled, full stop. I know you don’t view Deaf as being disabled, so how does that jibe with the term “vanilla deaf”?
Furthermore, what is wrong with plain old “Deaf”? “Deaf” can mean I don’t have disabilities, so is there a true need for the word vanilla to be piggybacked onto Deaf?

“Instead of being offended, because I know it’s not about me, I’m saying, “Wow! This is really some progress.” With this label, my test scores will not be clumped with my deaf peers who can barely read and write because they have more problems besides deaf. With this label, I can now tell my school’s Board of Education that “Vanilla Deaf” is not special education.”

The problem with that paragraph in your comment is this:
So many young Deaf children who start out with the label “vanilla Deaf” are often placed on a mainstream non-signing track. When these children struggle in academically because they weren’t able to acquire language through the “learn to listen and speak” oralist approach, several do end up in schools for the Deaf with ASL as a last resort for language acquisition. Then they cease being “vanilla deaf” and start being labelled something else, such as “deaf-plus”. This is why such labelling (i.e. vanilla deaf) is potentially dangerous.

Furthermore…in your response to Barb, “…the primary activity of vanilla deaf shouldn’t be signing but rather-communicating”. THAT is the problem. There is such a variety of standards on “communicating”. Communicating doesn’t mean one has an actual language, Ben.

Some educators view that if a Deaf child that starts out with the label of vanilla deaf but later shows to not benefit from AVT, then providing that child with any method of communication as long as it is NOT ASL is OK. Even if that method of communication involves only the use of PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) where the child points at a picture to show what he wants. That PECS system is more appropriate for severely mentally retarded and autistic children. If the only goal is to communicate, period, then if a child can use PECS, that goal is achieved. There is NO real need for ACTUAL language.

Whoa. I would have been better off putting this in a separate post! Phew!
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 4, 2009 at 12:12 am

Ben said: “Deaf is not an ethnic minority. It never was and never will be. (Note to other commenters, this is final–I will not debate on this).”

I couldn’t help it Ben as I need to make a comment about this to give you my perspective. Sorry Shel for going off the point but I will get back to yours soon! I am not here to change your mind but I just want to plant a seed of thought that a well known researcher, Dr. Marc Marschark (ironically who is hearing) actually wrote that Deaf is an ethnic group along with other authors such as Dr. Padden. Check out at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=m_8Kb53ioJgC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=is+deaf+an+ethnic+group&source=web&ots=ZwTyC7wiS2&sig=3NnOyN8azUuYE0QsjudgC0yIUgg.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I am just telling you what these professionals have declared based on their studies. Just don’t kill the messenger!

Now I will respond to your comment later as I got stuff to do now.
Comment by deafcdn on June 4, 2009 at 1:57 am

No problem, Barb. I look forward to your response to Ben’s comment. I will look up the link you provided this evening.

Shel
Comment by Joseph Pietro Riolo on June 4, 2009 at 2:54 am

I agree with Mr. Ben Vess that the reviewer was trying to remove the assumption (or myth) that teachers are expected to sign to deaf children who do not have any additional disabilities. It could be that oral or other methods could be more appropriate for some or few of them and the teachers need to be prepared for this possibility that may occur during their career.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Comment by Joseph Pietro Riolo on June 4, 2009 at 3:01 am

Can anyone provide the source where “Deaf Plus” was mentioned in Gallaudet’s vision plan? I could not find it at Gallaudet’s website for vision plan (http://vision2020.gallaudet.edu).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 4, 2009 at 3:52 am

Ben,

It has nothing to do with being personal for that article or that it is offensive for me, it has to do with suggesting that those who are “vanilla deaf” are NOT in the need to have signs and that is a dangerous statement. You and I both know that Deaf babies should be signed to and eventually sign to.

Shel is correct in her thinking. Those who are Deaf with no additional disabilities or vanilla Deaf are being suggested by Antia to a non-signing environment. Antia is false to say that “vanilla deaf” means that it is not necessary to sign. When you say that not all deaf people can sign, you are simply missing the point. I am talking about how this statement can be suggestive to influence parents to think that just because their Deaf child is “vanilla deaf”, using signs are not a priority.

It is not a matter of my beliefs as you call it that all Deaf babies are to be exposed to signs, it is a matter of multiple research facts pointing out and outweighing the benefits of bilingual environment that exhibits true language use and explicit use of communication over an oral environment.

Again, you are missing the point since I am not talking about deaf people making choices to use sign or not. It is about the audist behavior exhibited by Antia who are suggesting that Deaf babies and young children who are considered “vanilla deaf” that using signs should not be a primary activity for them. Activity? Really, what is she talking about? We are supposed to be talking about language here. We don’t say that English is an activity for hearing children, duh!

I don’t know where you are going off about me getting emotional. I am just talking rationale here and that describing an audist behavior doesn’t mean it makes me emotional. Thank you.
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 4, 2009 at 3:53 am

Ben,

It has nothing to do with being personal for that article or that it is offensive for me, it has to do with suggesting that those who are “vanilla deaf” are NOT in the need to have signs and that is a dangerous statement. You and I both know that Deaf babies should be signed to and eventually sign to.

Shel is correct in her thinking. Those who are Deaf with no additional disabilities or vanilla Deaf are being suggested by Antia to a non-signing environment. Antia is false to say that “vanilla deaf” means that it is not necessary to sign. When you say that not all deaf people can sign, you are simply missing the point. I am talking about how this statement can be suggestive to influence parents to think that just because their Deaf child is “vanilla deaf”, using signs are not a priority.

It is not a matter of my beliefs as you call it that all Deaf babies are to be exposed to signs, it is a matter of multiple research facts pointing out and outweighing the benefits of bilingual environment that exhibits true language use and explicit use of communication over an oral environment.

Again, you are missing the point since I am not talking about deaf people making choices to use sign or not. It is about the audist behavior exhibited by Antia who are suggesting that Deaf babies and young children who are considered “vanilla deaf” that using signs should not be a primary activity for them. Activity? Really, what is she talking about? We are supposed to be talking about language here. We don’t say that English is an activity for hearing children, duh!

I don’t know where you are going off about me getting emotional. I am just talking rationale here and that describing an audist behavior doesn’t mean it makes me emotional. Thank you.
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 4, 2009 at 4:31 am

One more thing, Ben,

Deaf students will never be placed out of special education label although they are “Vanilla Deaf”. They will always have IEPs even those who are mainstreamed. They are still DEAF as Accomodations are needed to be made for them such as time extension, use of writing system, CART, interpreters, etc. therefore their test results are still clumped with special education.

About not consulting with Deaf professionals, let me rephrase it. Not much is known about the term “Vanilla Deaf” as I have asked around in my workplace. They made funny faces when I told them the term. It is obvious that this term is not widely used since it is evident that a lack of reference is available. Heck, no where in that book used the term “Vanilla Deaf” as it is only used by Antia. The Deaf Education professionals rarely use this term because it is not popular and accepted. Antia represents the Department of Education and Deaf Education represents education so you get education + education whereas you are talking about science + religion so your analogy IMO is like comparing apples and oranges.

Ha, my get my arse out there? First, let me thank Shel for raising awareness by writing this blog or else I would not know it at all. Second, just let me process my thinking along with others so that I can better understand the term, Vanilla Deaf and the intention behind it.
Comment by Ben Vess on June 4, 2009 at 4:42 am

Barb,

You are correct in everything you’ve said.

I’m done.

-Ben
Comment by Barb DiGi on June 4, 2009 at 6:00 am

Ben,

Are you taking my comments personally? I am just simply sharing you from my point of view as I never said I am always right. It is based on my experience, both personal and professional, that I am contributing my comments to this blog. I am reflecting what you said which is the opposite and there is nothing wrong with that. I am sorry that you are not finding yourself to express your point of view any further as it was not the intention.
Comment by deafcdn on June 4, 2009 at 7:09 am

I do see the same things that Barb describes here. On IEP forms north of the 49th, Deaf is considered one of “exceptionalities” mentioned…communicative exceptionality, to be precise. The exceptionalities mentioned are physical, communicative, behaviour,learning to name a few. Each and every Deaf child, including the ones who are hard-of-hearing, in both schools for the deaf, and all schools under school boards.

I received the same puzzled, bewildered looks on my co-workers’ faces when I mentioned the term, too.

Here in Ontario (not sure about other provinces…haven’t had the chance to look that up yet), Deaf education isn’t even a department in the Ministry of Education. That is under the auspices of the Special Education department under the Ministry of Education.

So, it doesn’t matter if a child is labelled Deaf, vanilla Deaf, hard of hearing, etc, they still get IEPs and lumped with the disabled ANYWAY.

So, in order to stop clumping the Deaf with the Disabled, people would have to convince the Ministry of Education to take Deaf Education out under the control of Special Education dept, and assign it its own department. That won’t happen as long as we are seen as disabled (having a communicative exceptionality).

If Deaf education is considered a SEPARATE field from Special education in the government’s eyes, then we will have a better chance of changing the lumping together issue.
Comment by Ecnarb on June 4, 2009 at 11:09 am

Hi all,
I’m back and I read most of the comments here. The word “vanilla deaf” that I learned over the net. They used it in deaf education system where the professionals may have what it was called “New Eugenics Mentality”.

“Biological, psychological, and cultural development, and the condition of one’s health, may never become elements of discrimination.”
Pope Benedict XVI

Agree?

FYI, I’m not catholic, but he’s right
Brance

Shel: A Deaf Canadian's Thoughts

The Vanilla Deaf Label: Audist or Not? You Be the Judge!