Comments on: The Vanilla Deaf Label: Audist or Not? You Be the Judge! http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/ Shelley Potma's Coffee-soaked Philosophies Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:27:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ecnarb http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-219 Ecnarb Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:39:33 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-219 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 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

]]> By: deafcdn http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-218 deafcdn Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:39:00 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-218 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. 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.

]]> By: Barb DiGi http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Barb DiGi Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:30:19 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-217 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. 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.

]]> By: Ben Vess http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-216 Ben Vess Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:12:45 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-216 Barb, You are correct in everything you've said. I'm done. -Ben Barb,

You are correct in everything you’ve said.

I’m done.

-Ben

]]> By: Barb DiGi http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-215 Barb DiGi Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:01:58 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-215 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. 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.

]]> By: Barb DiGi http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Barb DiGi Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:23:41 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-214 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. 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.

]]> By: Barb DiGi http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Barb DiGi Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:22:25 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-213 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. 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.

]]> By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Joseph Pietro Riolo Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:31:28 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-212 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. 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.

]]> By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Joseph Pietro Riolo Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:24:25 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-211 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. 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.

]]> By: deafcdn http://www.deafcanadian.com/2009/06/01/the-vanilla-deaf-label-audist-or-not-you-be-the-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-210 deafcdn Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:27:51 +0000 http://sheldeafcanadiansthoughts.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-210 No problem, Barb. I look forward to your response to Ben's comment. ;-) I will look up the link you provided this evening. Shel No problem, Barb. I look forward to your response to Ben’s comment. ;-) I will look up the link you provided this evening.

Shel

]]>