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.

1.

“I can’t hire you beause you’re deaf.”
“It isn’t a safe environment for someone with a hearing loss”
“I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your hearing loss.”
“ASL is a “fun language”, less important than English.”
“I can’t rent this apartment to you because you’re deaf.”
“Deaf people must learn English (forget ASL) because when they grow up they will have to function in the hearing society and need it to find jobs, find happiness and have a full and useful life.”

(Malkowski. The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine. Spring/Summer 2003 and Malkowski.Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice. 2010)

2.

“I can’t hire you because you’re black.”
“It isn’t a safe environment for a woman”
“I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your Jewishness.”
“Spanish is a “fun language”, less important than English.”
“I can’t rent this apartment to you because you’re Iraqi.”
“ Immigrant people must learn English (forget Spanish) because when they grow up they will have to function in the [American] society and need it to find jobs, find happiness and have a full and useful life.”

Which set of statements would get people outraged, and upon what grounds? The second set, of course, because they are either blatantly racist, or sexist.  The outrage would spill over into the media, in government buildings, in human rights tribunals.  Many in the majority group would side with women, racial groups on this, and justifiably so.

Yet, the silence is resounding when it comes to the first set of statements.  They are blatantly audist.  How many people would speak up? Admittedly, my choice of words in the first and second sentences of this paragraph could be construed as audist .  This just goes to show just how pervasive this type of language is in this society.  To wit: I obtained Mike Schmidt’s permission to use his vlog from Facebook.  This vlog will show exactly how pervasive the negative perception of the Deaf is, and how the term deaf has such negative connotations:

In his vlog, Mike called for a change in the use of language when it comes to the term deaf, and I agree that it is necessary to challenge the audist language as applies to us Deaf and Hard of Hearing people.  The language as shown in text in Mike’s vlog are actually deaf slurs, in the same vein as racial slurs.  This language reflects the attitudinal bias, which is audist in nature.  Audism is so similar to racism in attitude, and is reflected in discriminatory language and behaviours that uncannily resembles those of racial discriminatory language and behaviours.

During his March 10, 2010 presentation, Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice, Malkowski calls on us Canadians to challenge the attitudes and discrimination using both the following pieces of legislation:

• Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines: Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrinination

• Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act,

both significant Human Rights legislation pieces in Canada, made stronger by the fact that Canada just became the 82nd country to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York.

THE EFFECTS OF AUDISM:

As I stated in Part 1 of  the What is Audism? series, you cannot explain what audism is, without describing the effects of audism on Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals, and the Deaf community as a whole. Again, this information came from Malkowski’s presentation.

I will now give a few of the effects that Malkowski mentioned during his March 2010 presentation:

Audist beliefs result in intentional or unconscious audist behaviour, such as:

• treating Deaf children with oral skills differently – more positively – than Deaf children with sign language skills (i.e. in the classroom, in extracurricular activities, sports and recreation.)
• systemic discrimination
• negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the abilities of Deaf and hard of hearing children, students, employees, social citizens.
• dehumanization by medical and educational establishments (i.e. the focus on a deficit model or pathological view of hearing loss.
• lifelong impact on children’s ability to acquire and understand English or ASL or both  (Malkowski, 2010)

To illustrate the systemic discrimination, and negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the Deaf/Hard of Hearing, I remind you readers of Amy Cohen Efron’s DVD, which began as a vlog: The Greatest Irony.   In that DVD, she described the irony in allowing Hearing babies to learn ASL while Deaf babies are denied access to ASL, especially by those in the AVT profession.  Malkowski mentions this irony as well in his presentation, saying that ASL is accepted, and viewed as beneficial for Canadian hearing children’s early development and yet viewed as detrimental to the development of Deaf children (Malkowski 2010).

The effects of this misconception in addition to the dehumanization of the Deaf by the medical and educational establishments are clearly described in Malkowski’s research article on audism in the January 2009 edition of The Canadian Hearing Report, page 28-30:

“it is still common practice, for example, for audiologists, speech-language pathologists, early intervention and early childhood education providers, educators of deaf children, boards and government ministries to discourage deaf children from learning and using their natural and accessible language – sign language. In fact, many parents of deaf children who are making decisions around their child’s education are still not given balanced information about the benefits of sign language. This restriction of the use of sign language. coupled with a fundamental belief that a deaf child should learn to use residual hearing or the hearing that is a result of a cochlear implant and learn to speak is the most blatant form of audism.

Sadly, when spoken language, both expressive and receptive, is not accessible, precious time is wasted. The child is labelled a spoken language “failure” and the window of opportunity to acquire language quickly closes. Unfortunately, these spoken language deficiencies can be identified as a learning disability. In some cases there is no cognitive disability; in others, learning disabilities are compounded by language deficiencies. In both instances, it is too late for the language deficit to be repaired and this can have enormous associated costs in terms of special education requirements, and long-term mental health issues, among others. A great number of professionals – audiologists, interpreters, educators, speech-language pathologists, and medical practitioners– have enormous amounts of power and influence.” (Malkowski, 2009)

Malkowski mentions that one of the consequences for  this practice of withholding ASL from Deaf children in favour of oralism, and isolation in the public schools is that there are now a higher number of solitary Deaf adults without contact or connections to the Deaf community at large.  This contributes to the long term mental issues mentioned in the quote above. (Malkowski, 2010)

For further examples of what audism is, and its effects on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing people, I strongly recommend that you view this DVD, Audism Unveiled, by Bahan, Bauman and Montenegro. This was shown during Mr. Malkowski’s presentation last week, and this will prove to be eyeopening for those who have never seen this movie before.

Simply put, audism is an attitude of prejudice and perception that it is better to be hearing than to be deaf, and that if one is Deaf, one must strive to fit into Hearing society as much as possible.  It is clear that audist attitudes and behaviours by the majority group do have negative effects on the mental, physical, emotional and educational well-being of Deaf and Hard of hearing people as individuals and as a minority group.  Thus, it is proven that audism as a term is valid, and must be addressed.

What is audism? How is it a valid term? These questions were posed to me by one of my commenters in response to my last v/blog post. I had planned to do part 2 of that post, but these questions made me realize the importance of delving deeper into what audism is, despite having given the CHS definition for it. So, a detour has to be taken to explore audism and its effects.

The information I am about to impart is derived from an excellent presentation given at a CHS workshop for the Deaf community in my area last week. The topic was Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice. The presenter was Gary Malkowski, Special Advisor to the President, Public Affairs of the Canadian Hearing Society.  He has a strong  political background, and experience in combating audism. I learned much from his presentation, and wish to share this knowledge with you.

Audism is:

• Prejudice or discrimination based on the ability to hear; lowering one’s estimation of, or devaluing, persons who are Deaf or have hearing loss; perception that the norms and behaviour of hearing people are somehow better than those of persons who are Deaf or have hearing loss.
• Attitudinal barriers in the expectations and behaviours of employers, educators and services providers regarding the capabilities and employability of Deaf persons and people with hearing loss.

Audism can be intentional or unconscious; regardless, there must be raised awareness to identify and remove audist attitudes and behaviours.  Audism can be masked in a concern for safety, most often a concern that is unfounded.

Audism can result when:

• There is a lack of awareness of accommodations
• There is a perceived financial undue hardship in providing accommodations
• Unfounded “safety” concerns pose barriers (i.e. barriers to employment.)

(Malkowski, March 2010)

To give examples of the above, I have to cite The Canadian Hearing Report article, Audism, by Malkowski, published January 2009, p. 28-30. Malkowski explains that:

“Discriminatory practices rooted in audism that create unfair limits and barriers to employment for people who are culturally Deaf or have a hearing loss are often presented as concerns for safety (It isn’t a safe environment for someone with hearing loss), being unaware of accommodations (I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your hearing loss; how will you communicate with your team?” or perceived undue financial hardship in providing accommodations.

In reality, employees with a hearing loss have an above average safety record. Few jobs require “hearing” to function safely: driving is a visual skill; many noisy environments require hearing protection that limits all employees’ hearing and emphasis is placed on being visually aware. In terms of accommodation, information about available technology including TTYs, telephone visual signalling or amplifiers, as well as other accessibility services including interpreting, captioning, and relay services, are readily available and the employees themselves are the best resources as to what they will need in order to effectively and successfully meet the requirements of their position.” (Malkowski 2009 )

I am certain that the below examples of audist beliefs that Malkowski gave in his presentation would sound familiar to many of you who read this post:

“I do not have time to learn sign language.” “Why do I need to learn sign language; an interpreter is good enough.”  (Service provider who employs, works with, teaches and provides services to Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals.)

“ASL is a “fun language”, less important than English.” (Special Educator)

“…children with cochlear implants who achieve the ability to hear and use speech…do not need sign language anymore because they have the possibility of speech…” ( Media reporters and medical professionals)

“We do not need an ASL proficiency policy for employees involved in sign language programs for achieving and maintaining the sign language proficiency expectations for teaching positions.” (Educator of Deaf and  Hard of Hearing students). (Malkowski, 2010)

(FYI: CHS has an ASL proficiency policy, which most other places do not have. You may check the job posting section of their website. Scroll down to Qualifications section for proof that this policy exists.)

One cannot answer what audism is, without mentioning the effects of audism on Deaf and Hard of Hearing persons. The effects of audism will be discussed in part 2 of this blog series, as this is turning out to be one long post, in both English and ASL versions.

(TO BE CONTINUED in What is Audism? Part II: The Effects of Audism…)

There are naysayers who claim that audism is not a valid term because it doesn’t even exist in the dictionary, and it doesn’t exist, period.  It has been said that audism is too vague to enforce, and overused as a term.  Overused as a term?  Indeed? Not from where I am standing.  Hearing people (including co-workers, friends and relatives) tell me they had never heard of the term before, and at first confused it with the term autism.  Once the term audism was explained to them, they immediately accepted it.

The fact that audism is not in the dictionary has not stopped websites or organizations from developing policies to combat it.  To wit, websites like ASLRocks and DeafCube.com have adopted anti-audism policies. Organizations that have been set up in service to the Deaf communities, especially Canadian ones, have begun to do the same. The Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) in Ontario has an excellent definition for audism. Below is an excerpt I have copied and pasted here from page 2 of the CHS position paper on discrimination and audism which has ASL translation for each paragraph. (You will need to click on the link provided above to take you to the website itself.  Beside each paragraph you will find an ASL button.  Click on it for the ASL translation.)

Audism (Ô diz m) n. 1. The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. 2. A system of advantage based on hearing ability 3. A metaphysical orientation that links human identity with speech.

The CHS then goes on to explain how the organization developed its definition.

The first is the initial seed planted by Tom Humphries (1975). The second is adapted from Wellman’s (1992) discussion of institutionalized audism. The third definition was presented at the Deaf Studies VI conference by Bahan and Bauman (2000).

The CHS delves further into what audism is, and the basis for it:

Audism is a form of discrimination based on a person’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears, including the conveyance of beliefs that a hearing person or a deaf person who behaves in a manner more similar to a hearing person, in appearance, communication and language use, and/or function, is more intelligent, qualified, well-developed, and successful than another individual who may be more culturally deaf and/or have a preference for the use of a sign language or a communication mode dissimilar to that used by hearing people.

Like all forms of discrimination, audism is grounded in misconception and misunderstanding: “…often disguised in sentiments of concern for safety, unawareness of accommodations or perceived undue financial hardship in providing accommodations.” (Malkowski, 2003) “…the belief that life without hearing is futile and miserable…and that … deaf people should struggle to be as much like hearing people as possible.” (Pelja, 1997).

This paper also states the rationale for CHS’s position on audism.  To support the CHS position, they point to these seven significant Canadian pieces of legislation:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
2. Canadian Human Rights Act (1985),
3. Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Disability and The Duty To Accommodate: Your Rights and Responsibilities 2007.
4. Ontario Rights Commission’s Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination (2005)
5. Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate (2000)
6. Ontario Human Rights Code (1990)
7. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2005)

(For more information on each piece of legislation above, please go to the CHS website. )

Based on the choice of legal decisions to buttress this organization’s position on audism, it is clear that the CHS is of the view that Deaf people are not only disabled, but also an ethnic (race) minority, with their own language, culture, history and social construct, and because of this, we, the Deaf people, face attitudinal barriers in the form of ableism and racism.  I will expand on this in another post, but the point here is that audism is indeed a valid term, with a clear definition, and requires an anti-audism policy that is enforceable on both racial and disability grounds.