This is a response to Teri’s ASL vlog at FaceBook discussing her view on ramifications of walk-outs on DVTV and DeafRead. Issues raised here are the ramifications, collectivism vs individualist business model and how the Hearing majority would view us.

APPROXIMATE ENGLISH  TRANSLATION OF THE VLOG:

Hello Teri Sentelle , I wish to respond to your vlog.  There are three basic points I want to debate.

THE FIRST POINT: You mentioned us, the walk-out vloggers.  You stated:  We were weak for walking out of DVTV.  We gave up.  We hurt the Deaf community.

Hmmm.  Your point of view is interesting.  My response?  No, not necessarily.   Tayler keeps emphasizing that his DeafRead and DVTV are newspapers.  Yeah, newspapers… OK, if that’s the definition he wishes to to apply to his aggregators… well, sure. That’s fine by me.

If you don’t like a newspaper, do you keep subscribing, or do you stop subscribing to the newspaper?  Usually, you stop subscribing.  (Oh, also,  if you subscribe, you don’t have to read every article in the newspaper.)  Now, supposing that we stopped subscribing, does that mean we gave up? Does that mean we are weak?  Not necessarily.  We can go look for another newspaper available out there.  If there’s no other newspaper available, we go ahead and create our own.

At present, we are at Youtube.com.   Youtube.com has a lot of issues, I agree.  Some of the vlogs created out there…Hearing ones… are appalling.  Some other vlogs…I cringe at.  I don’t go to those vlogs.  I just go to one section: Deaf vloggers section.  We subscribe to each other, so we are connected.  We can find each other.   Some of the vlogs are found at FaceBook.   Hmm.  Some vlogs are scattered here and there, yeah.

You suggested that we create a new aggregator.  Yes, that’s what we are now doing, but with the goal of allowing a variety of topics to be submitted, and not limited to Deaf-related ones.  That was one issue you had with DeafRead, and I agree with you on that.  Putting Deaf-related topics on the front, and relegating other topics to the Extra, hidden behind the front page?  I don’t necessarily agree with that either, but it’s HIS (Tayler’s) newspaper.

Is DeafRead the only place for us? No! I question the premise that because it’s the only place available, we must stay there.  Now, I want to make a clarification here.  I still have my website, my blog there at DeafRead because I value the Deaf community as well as the parents, especially the parents!  That is why I’m still there.   DVTV, well, that’s a different issue.  I’ve already explained the reasons for my walking out of DVTV in my other vlog.

SECOND POINT: You asked us to return and fix DVTV and DeafRead as a community. Hmmm.  You made a valid point.  However, there is the issue of collectivist vs. individual ownership business model.  The two clash with each other.  The appeal for a return of communal teamwork to reform DR/DVTV is one that fits the Deaf cultural model.  By contrast, the business model is oh, so American… Hearing…model… AMERICAN. Seriously.  And I’m not talking about the Japanese model, which I will discuss later.

The American model is top-down, with the leader at the top.  That leader makes the final decisions that filters down to the people below him, who abides by those decisions, whether they like it or not.  On the other hand, with the collective model, people make decisions together.  Take the Aboriginals (Native Americans) for example.  They usually make decisions on an unanimous basis, which often take time.

As for the Japanese model (which I mentioned earlier),  the Honda company is successful because it doesn’t exactly follow the top-down leadership model.  They incorporate feedbacks from people at the bottom who work at their company, and make improvements accordingly.

The problem with the DeafRead business model is that the leader receives feedback, but doesn’t always listen.  This is a classic example of the clash between individual ownership and the collective model.

Oh and one more thing.  Minorities are often collectivist-minded.  Thef Black community had their Civil Rights movement.    Malcolm X had a different viewpoint than MLK.  Malcolm advocated violence, while MLK was all about peaceful approaches.  The two leaders were so different, and yet they had the same goal… a collective one, too.

THIRD POINT: The low opinion that the Hearing group might have about us as a result of viewing our infighting. That they might consider us in need of rehabilitation.

Let’s look at the Black community again.   “OH! The White people are watching us!  We gotta behave!” ???   There are movies that exhibit Black on Black violence.  There are White people who stereotype Blacks as being violent, awful, etc.   Harlan Lane wrote in the Mask of Benevolence comparing the views people had on the African tribal people, and the views on Deaf people.  The views were the same!  So, must we worry about what the Hearing community thinks of us?  We are just as flawed as they are! Should we be on our best behaviour because THEY are watching us, lest they attempt to rehabilitate us?   Should we live in fear?

Let me summarize my points:

By walking out, we are not necessarily harming the Deaf community. That’s a matter of perspective. You are entitled to your perspective, Teri, but we don’t share the same view as you.   We walked out based on our principles.  That brings us to the second point: collectivism clashes with the business model, which is related to our reasons for walking out.  Thirdly, and I reiterate: should we make decisions based on concerns of how the majority views us? Or, should we make decisions based on what is best for the Deaf community?

We may not all share the same views… (shrugs).  That’s what makes life interesting!

FYI:  All comments are moderated, so your patience is appreciated.  Thank you.

Below is the English version, although not an actual precise translation, of my ASL rebuttal of the allegation that Deafhood is a tool for discriminatory profiling against fellow members of the Deaf community.

DEAFHOOD. What is it? It IS the Deaf experience… that’s it. However, this concept needs some elaborating upon. You might have noticed the clash between two camps…those who agree with the term Deafhood, which is defined as the Deaf experience, and those who view Deafhood as a worthless and discriminatory concept. I will discuss the latter view later on, but for now, we shall examine whether Deafhood is discriminatory against those who are not culturally ASL Deaf members of Deaf families.

Let’s take a look at those (of us) who agree with the term, Deafhood:

• I’m from a Hearing family, but grew up in a Deaf school.
• Ella is a member of a Deaf family, and an alumnus of a Deaf school.
• Don G grew up oral (in a mainstreamed setting) and later discovered ASL.
• Ridor is from a Deaf family and attended a Deaf school.
• InsaneMisha? She was raised oral, but now uses ASL.
• DeafChip was the only Deaf member in a Hearing family and attended a Deaf school.
• The DeafJeff: Jeff had an oral upbringing and later on started using ASL
• Mike Schmidt is from a Deaf family, but he is hard-of hearing, and progressively losing more of his hearing.
• Barb DiGi, like Mike, is hard of hearing and from a Deaf family.
• Patti Durr isn’t from a Deaf family, nor did she grow up in a Deaf school. She is hard of hearing.
• And many others like Carl, Aidan and others whose backgrounds with which you are familiar.

We are all from diverse backgrounds, yet we share the Deaf experience, which includes the struggle against audism and the second-class citizenship treatment.

Even Barry, Kelsey (HonBrit), Russell and others of like minds do go through the Deaf experience. They actually have struggles against audism, whether they deny it or not. Regardless, they do go through Deafhood.

To further assist in understanding Deafhood, I’d like to refer to Star’s vlog, which explains womanhood. In that vlog, she says all women go through that experience as mothers, daughters etc. Some women enjoy being women, while others don’t. Some would rather be men due to the enviable “status” of men. Experiences vary. Some women have positive experiences while others have negative experiences being women.

Likewise, some Deaf people may have positive experiences being Deaf, while others have negative ones. The experiences may vary, but we, the Deaf , ALL share the same general experience… the Deaf experience. In a nutshell, it’s Deafhood. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I’ll tell you what Deafhood is NOT. It’s NOT discriminatory profiling against those that are not culturally Deaf, ASL using, members of Deaf families. In other words, the argument that the Deafhood term discriminates against oral, the deafened, and those who are non-signers is implausible.

Examine those who walked out of DVTV, the very same ones who agree with the use of Deafhood term to describe the Deaf experience (Ella, Don G, Mike S, and all others that I just told you about in this post). What are our backgrounds? Then examine this individual’s allegation about Deafhood being the tool for discriminatory profiling against fellow members of the Deaf community. You will find that this profiling allegation is now rendered null and void.

That’s MY view on Deafhood. To reiterate, this term means the Deaf Experience… with a heavy emphasis on POSSIBILITY THINKING!

To view comments by people of different backgrounds under my youtube vlog, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgjcYjH8UtI

This response to DeafChip’s vlog discusses the concept of the collective being better than the individual, and how independent thinking individuals can bring strength to the collective. There is commentary on assimilationist attitudes and how assimilationists attempt to pigeonhole a group of people who disagrees with the majority view as not being independent thinkers. The question is brought up as to who are truly independent thinkers… the assimilationists or those who refuse to accept the majority viewpoint.

This vlog discusses the rampant audism as well as homophobia, christianophobia, and racism at DVTV using an analogy of a diseased tree whose roots killed ALL the grass in my old neighbour’s backyard.

Most people from both communities are born to parents in the majority group (hearing and straight). Parents have dreams of what their ideal child would look like. The ideal child would be hearing and straight, who would grow up to be educated, musically-inclined, and articulate in a dominant spoken language, and walk down the church aisle in a traditional heterosexual wedding and produce children of the same. In other words: normal as defined by the majority in medical and societal terms.

When that dream is shattered upon the discovery that the child is either gay or Deaf, parent reactions vary from mild acceptance to outright grief and denial. It is the latter that seems to be the most common reaction. Self-blame and fear of rejection by family, friends, and religious/social groups, especially those with non-western cultural backgrounds are often intertwined with the grief and denial. For those parents who grieve, there are stages before acceptance occurs. For the purposes of comparison, the grief and denial stages will be discussed here.

In the case of the GLBT, this often meant there is hope that homosexuality is just a phase to be grown out of. Sometimes parents go to church or temples and pray for a miracle to occur so that their child would be straight again. There is the perception that homosexuality is a reversible condition, and that it is just an issue of morality that could be resolved. Once this condition is reversed, the child would fit into hetero-centric society better. To read further on what the parents experience, scroll down the article to this question: What Do the Parents of Gay Men/Lesbian/Bisexuals experience.

Parents of Deaf children go through grief and denial, too. Jamie Berke posted an article discussing parental reactions to the discovery of their child’s hearing loss. A website on “hearing-challenged sector” posted a post on family reactions. It’s worth reading, just so you get a sense of what parents of Deaf children experience when they learn their children’s diagnoses. In this article, one mother stated:

“I found it hard to believe, then I thought she’d be a deaf child but she’ll be able to hear later and just go deaf when she was old-like people often do. Even now, when I know she is profoundly deaf and she will always be, there is a little voice somewhere in my head saying perhaps she will hear again. None of my friends or family believed she was deaf.”

It is this hope that their children would hear that impels parents to search for treatments to “treat hearing loss and deafness”. For examples of treatments and procedures, check out the Stanford Wellsphere website . Confusing options are explored, with the CI and AVT-only option currently being the most popular choice. Before the advent of CI technology, Deaf children were often taken to church in the hopes that they would be miraculously healed through prayers. Sometimes they were taken to foreign countries like China to undergo alternative medical approaches such as acupuncture to try and heal the “broken ears”. It is often the parental dream that the Deaf child would one day be able to hear sounds and music, and speak articulately because this ability would help their child fit into audio-centric society.

It should be noted that although there are parallels between the reactions of parents towards their discovery of their children’s respective conditions, there is one important distinction between the two groups. Deaf children often don’t get to see their parents’ initial reactions because they were often infants or toddlers at the time of discovery whereas Gay children tend to be much older when their parents discover their orientation. Deaf adults could only infer as to the intensity of their parents’ initial reaction, but Gay adults often bear the scars of witnessing their parents’ initial reaction.

(BLOGGER’S NOTE: There was some difficulty in posting this particular part of my  series to DeafRead, so I had to delete this post and re-publish out of sequence.)

After viewing the last 5 posts, we cannot say that the Deaf and Gay communities have nothing in common.  In fact, as members of oppressed minorities, they share so much in common.   Those who deny this would have to be ignorant, or determinedly oblivious, in light of such enormous evidence!

Let’s review the evidence in a nutshell:

a)   Parental reactions to the initial discovery of the child’s deafness or homosexuality are quite similar.  These negative reactions are reinforced by society’s views.

b)   Both Gay and Deaf people have been systematically marginalized and oppressed through the use of negative medical labels, therapy and technology designed to assimilate them.

c)   Both Deaf and Gay people have to overcome barriers in education, politics and employment/corporate spheres.

d)   Eugenics is becoming an issue once more in this century for the Deaf community, and may soon be an issue for the LGBT community.

All the above parallels between the two communities prove that Suter was correct when she said:

“…We must fight the Third Reich mentality that says the greatest goal is the perfection of the human race.”

Some of you might be offended and outraged by Suter’s reference to the Third Reich mentality.  Some of you may even cry Godwin’s Law and attempt to destroy her credibility along with mine.

The best explanation for Godwin’s Law (which states that As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches) is that when an online debate becomes longer and hotter, someone will call someone else a Nazi, or label a position as Nazism.  When that happens, the debate becomes useless.

Godwin’s point:  “Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate… overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.” (Wikipedia)

In other words: Don’t cry wolf.  Remember that story of the boy who cried wolf?  After the first two false alarms, the villagers refused to believe him as he cried out for help when the wolf actually showed up.  That wolf ate him.  This principle applies here.

We are NOT crying wolf.   In my view, The Third Reich mentality applies here since we are dealing with the perception of society that to be deaf and gay, respectively, is to be flawed.

We must ask ourselves this question:

Have we truly progressed much since World War II, where the Deaf, disabled and homosexual people were sent to concentration camps along with the Jews and murdered for not conforming to the eugenicist Aryan master race ideal?

If your answer is “yes”, sit back and reconsider the parallels in the first paragraph of this post, and consider my following words:

True, no one gets sent to concentration camps and murdered because of their “deficiencies” today.   However, the Deaf continue to receive the disability label and are therefore considered a burden on society.  An entire establishment is created to systematically suppress, if not crush, ASL as a language and culture in the quest to rehabilitate Deaf children.

A great number of Deaf children are raised to become “listening and speaking” adults without ASL or Deaf role models.  They are assimilated into the majority society using cochlear implant technology and AVT, regardless of cost in terms of actual language and literacy development when technology and therapy fail to benefit.  It must be noted that a minority of North American parents buck this trend and ensure that their children receive both ASL and English languages and cultures, regardless of whether technology is used or not.

Eugenics is becoming an issue as we have seen in the U.K.  When Deaf adults and children do not fit the societal ideal of the perfect hearing, able-bodied human being, they are treated as second-class citizens.

The Gay community continues to struggle for rights in the USA, despite having tossed out the mental disorder label.  There are places in North America where homosexuality is still unofficially labeled as deviant.  Therapy continues to be offered with the goal of helping Gay people conform to the heterosexual ideal.  Therefore, members of the Gay community continue to be treated like second-class citizens simply because they still do not fit the societal ideal (master race).

I reiterate that because both groups do not fit society’s ideal that consists of able-bodied, hearing, heterosexual human beings, they get labeled as disabled, mental and moral misfits and/or burdens on society.  They are given labels by professionals in the medical, education and political systems to mark them for rehabilitation.

However, there is a way we can combat the negative labeling given by the majority, as Suter suggests:

“… There is also a paradox to labels. They can also be a language of empowerment. For years, professionals tried to label deaf people as hearing-impaired. Almost every major piece of disability legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, incorporated the term hearing impaired. It was thought to be a more sensitive, more neutral term than the word deaf.

Unfortunately, to the deaf community, it wasn’t considered to be a culturally sensitive term. They rebelled. As a community, they claimed ownership to the definition they preferred — deaf. They weren’t about to let outsiders, even well-meaning professionals, define what they would be called. The deaf community saw power in labels. They were determined to be the ones defining who they were. And they’ve won.”

Gradually, rehabilitation professionals have given way to their lobbying efforts. Now the word preferred by the people it represents is being used. The moral is if you have to be labeled — you have the right to choose the label you want.”

The Deaf may have won the right to label themselves as DEAF, and the LGBT community may have destroyed their medical label, but the fight against being treated like second-class citizens is not yet over.  The Third Reich mentality inherent in society at large looms like a Goliath over both communities.

The Gay community’s successful removal of the oppressive mental disorder label against them teaches us an important lesson.

We, the Deaf, are David.  We must put that stone in our sling. Twirl that sling and throw that stone directly into Goliath’s head.  Then, the Third Reich mentality WILL fall.   (That fall may take a long time.  But, remember: the higher they are, the harder they will fall.)

QUESTION:  What is the best stone to use in our sling?

ANSWER: the destruction of the medical/disability label.

Once we remove that medical label, we can make changes in the way society views us.  We must educate the public and politicians on ASL and Deaf culture.  We must emphasize the importance of bilingualism for Deaf children in education, especially in early childhood.

We can lobby for Deaf children to be removed from the umbrella of Special Education, and placed in the cultural and linguistic category under the umbrella of multiculturalism.  Only then will Deaf children be given FULL access through bona fide languages (ASL and English, for example).

Only then can the Deaf community truly begin their cultural and linguistic renaissance.  An ASL phoenix would finally rise from the ashes of attempted linguistic and cultural genocide that result from audism spawned more than 128 years ago.

This is something GLBT and Deaf people have in common with one major difference that should be noted.  There is such a thing as the Deaf gene. Deafness (defined as the state of being Deaf) is hereditary in some families that can span several generations.  Right now, the conventional wisdom is that homosexuality is not hereditary.  Third or fourth generation Gay families are unheard of, to date.  In fact, there is a debate raging on whether the gay gene actually exists.

As discussed in Part I, most of the people in the LGBT and Deaf  communities are born to heterosexual and hearing parents. There is one difference between the two groups though.  There are well documented cases of the hereditary Deaf gene spanning several generations in families, which consist of Deaf parents, Deaf grandparents, Deaf aunts, uncles and cousins, with a few hearing relatives thrown in.  In these families, deafness often is not viewed as an aberration.

As for the gay gene, there is much debate on whether it even exists.  There is no official documentation on whether there are third or fourth generations of homosexuals, to my knowledge.  (Unofficially speaking, I know a Deaf man who comes from a large Deaf family of six children.  Three of these children are gay, including this Deaf man.   His father’s uncle had 12 children, three of them gay.)  At present, we have gay parents either adopting children or conceiving children through artificial insemination.

This leads one to wonder about whether eugenics would go into play for the gay community as it has for the Deaf community. We have all watched the debate raging in the United Kingdom over the proposed bill regulating embryonic selection…in short, the mandatory selection of hearing embryos over embryos found to have the Deaf gene…at the cost of the latter embryo’s life. Different views have been written on the subject in blogs like Mishka Zena, Digital Toast, and The Ouch!

Supposing that the gay gene has indeed been proven to exist beyond a doubt, and a gay couple may wish to select an embryo that possesses that particular gene.  Would there be such a hue and cry about this as there was in the controversy surrounding the Lichys?

Remember, audism is at play in the UK situation.  What makes one think that homophobia and heterosexism would not be a factor in this potentially controversial scenario?

Given the discriminatory practices in medicine, education, corporate and political spheres of society, the question of whether to remain closeted and pass in society or to come out begs exploration.

We know that there are a good number of Deaf people who reject the medical view and favour the linguistic and cultural view.  Granted, there are also a number of Deaf people who continue to accept and even support the medical model of Deafness.  This polar division is quite evident at www.DeafRead.com and www.DeafVideo.TV if people have viewed the types of blogs and vlogs posted there.  DeafRead and DVTV are just a microcosm of what is out in the world.

We also know that there are Deaf people who debates with themselves whether it is better to “come out” like the Deaf adults who grew up oral and then reject that background and embrace ASL and the cultural view. There’s also the strong inclination in some Deaf people to “remain in the closet” and pass in mainstream society. View www.TheCochlearImplantOnline.com .  Those who view deafness as a pathology encourage passing in society.  This can be seen at www.DeafVillage.com, and to some degree, DeafRead.

In addition to the opposing camps in the Deaf community, we also see in both websites a group of moderate Deaf people.  These moderates espouse “diversity” and criticize “Deaf extremists” for their refusal to accept communicative tools that both help Deaf children pass in society and deny the validity of ASL as a language and culture.   Again, a reflection of what is happening in the world.

As for the gay community, is there the same kind of internal debate about whether to come out or remain in the closet?  To this, I would have to answer yes, although I am no expert on the gay community.  Nor can I claim to speak for the gay people.

I can respond to this question based on my experience with two close girlfriends more than ten years ago who informed me that they were lovers.  I was the first heterosexual friend they told.  I witnessed their struggle in the process of coming out, and their fear of being rejected on the basis of their orientation.  To this day, these women remain my friends.  You can also see the struggle between coming out and staying closeted in different situations in the various links I provided in Part II: The Impact of Medical Labels.

Another question is asked:  Are there a large number of Gays that still accept the medical view?

I can only provide part of the answer, based on deductive thinking.  Gay activists obviously reject the medical view as evidenced in the activism of 1973 that saw the removal of the mental disorder label.  Judging from the annual Gay Pride Rainbow Parade, there are definitely a large number of Gay people that reject the medical view on an international scale.

While investigating the answer to this question, I discovered a few links that show there are those who still view homosexuality as a mental illness in need of treatment. Organizations like Exodus International, a restorative psychology group and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, which advocates for the ex-gay community, are set up for people who wish to change their sexual orientation from “exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality.”)

The majority of the gay community does not endorse these organizations nor do they endorse the medical view of homosexuality.  In fact, these organizations are considered by the gays to be operated by extreme right-wing people.

Then we have moderate gay right-wingers who call themselves Gay Republicans.  They set up a website called Gay Patriots.  They have a reputation for criticizing gay men that do not hide who they are, and encouraging people to not attend gay prides.

To display one’s identity in conflict with societal expectations, or to pass in society?  That is the question! Clearly, there is an intense internal debate that rage in the Gay community as it does in the Deaf community on this question. Both communities do contain groups or camps that fit in a continuum from  “left-wingers” to “right-wingers” with the “moderates” smack-dab in the middle.

We have seen the GLBT community’s success in removing the pathological label and associative stigma from the American Psychiatric Association list of mental disorders and witnessed the rise of political, corporate and celebrity power among the gay people.

Today, we are seeing the controversial inclusion of alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality in curriculum in schools.   This is a unique phenomenon, especially since the focus is heavily on multiculturalism in North America.

When one thinks of multiculturalism, the first thing to come to mind would be conventional cultures of people such as the First Nations People, French, Jews, Mexicans, and Asians and so on forth. These ethnic groups meet the conventional requirement of what it means to be cultural.  Culture typically requires a language or religion element.

In light of this requirement, the LGBT community would not be able to claim the status of a culture, as the gay people are not a linguistic or a religious group, unlike the Jews or the Navajo, for example. Yet, the LGBT community was able to get the one thing that binds this community together: sex orientation into the required mainstream curriculum of educational systems in North America.

By contrast, the Deaf, which is a cultural and linguistic minority, meet the conventional requirement of a culture.  ASL is indeed the language of the Deaf.  Yet, under the audist disability model, ASL is reduced to the status of a communication tool, on a par with cued speech, total communication, and Morse code.  ASL is now reduced to merely an option.

ASL is denied to Deaf children whose IEPs typically state that they must use oral, cochlear implants, AVT, Cued Speech, Signed Exact English and other communicative methods from Kindergarten on through secondary levels.  (Although rare, there are a few children whose IEPs do state the need for ASL.)  Most IEPs often state these children must be mainstreamed in public schools in accordance to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The reason for mainstreaming Deaf children is that educators and the public view public schools as the least restrictive environment (LRE) possible for the Deaf children.

Unfortunately, mainstreamed settings are actually more restrictive due to reduced access to linguistic, social and academic aspects of the educational experience due to the need to learn through interpreters or rely on hearing and speech, which may not always be “100% effective” for the Deaf child.  Opinions have been given in a document by several Deaf and professionals who work with the Deaf on why mainstreamed settings are the most restrictive environment for Deaf children.

What is even more disabling is the fact that while there are now a great number of gay teachers who serve as role models in many schools in North America, Deaf children have a great dearth of Deaf role models in the public educational system. Deaf teachers are seldom if ever hired in the public schools unless there are self-contained classrooms that basically function like one-room schoolhouses that serve Deaf children of all grades. Those Deaf teachers are often told to NOT use ASL with Deaf students, but rather adopt one of the artificial communicative signing systems approved by the school board, i.e. Signed English, or Signed Exact English.

The irony here is that in some North American schools, ASL is provided as a second language course option along with Spanish, for example, to hearing high school students.   In Alberta, ASL is taught to grade 4 hearing students as a second language.  Yet as was previously stated, Deaf children are denied ASL as a first language, which would have given them the most access to curricular expectations in every subject in the education system!

Only in a few schools that are bilingual-bicultural is ASL offered as the language of instruction as well as the language of study.  This means ASL curriculum is available in these schools for Deaf children with the express purpose of enhancing the linguistic acquisition and skills of children in both ASL and English.  These schools are where you would find the most number of Deaf teachers and role models.

In short, Deaf children in Maryland public schools, for example, learn about the GLBT community and their lifestyle in schools, but ASL and Deaf/ASL culture is only optional at best and excluded or denigrated at worst.  What is more, ASL is considered the very last resort for Deaf children if they should fail from the mainstream setting and all other offered options are exhausted.  When ASL is finally considered and offered to a Deaf child, it is often too late.  By then, the child has approached or gone past the window of opportunity for optimal language acquisition, with the result that this child would most likely be semi-lingual and semi-literate.

This has not always been the case for Deaf children.  Before 1880, schools for the deaf flourished.  There were Deaf role models for children galore, and classes were taught using sign language.  There is an excellent article, Women With Disabilities: How To Become A Boat Rocker In Life, by Sue Suter, former U.S. Commissioner Of Rehabilitation, and President of World Institute On Disabilities Services.  She goes on to explain the lessons she learned from the Deaf community, particularly that “history is a vast warning system.”  Here is an excerpt from her presentation at a New Zealand conference.

“Years ago, almost 50 percent of all teachers for the deaf in the United States were deaf, themselves. More than teachers, they were imparters of a graceful language of signs that were rooted in the deaf community, they were role models for entire generations of young deaf students.

Then, in 1880, the renaissance came to an abrupt end. At an international conference of rehabilitation professionals — much like this one — the school of thought called oralism won the day. American Sign Language was discouraged. Speech acquisition was made paramount, so many schools no longer used deaf teachers; they were now considered bad role models of communication. And perhaps the most blatant wrong committed at the Milan Conference of 1880 was that not a single deaf teacher was allowed to vote on the changes.

It was not so long ago that stories filtered from our own Illinois School for the Deaf about a young deaf girl who asked a hearing dorm counselor if she was going to die soon. She was nearing graduation, and she had only seen a few deaf adults. What happened to the others? This is an extreme example. But it points out the vital importance of role models.” (Suter. 1993)

This just drives home the point that the GLBT community has achieved so much where the Deaf have lost, and are trying to regain: namely, role models everywhere in the educational system, as well as language and culture.

BLOGGER’S NOTE: Before viewing this blog, go to Deaf and Gay Parallels Part I: Parents of Deaf and Gay Children first.

The mental health and medical professions have contributed much to the devaluation and marginalization of gay and deaf people respectively with one difference: the Gay community is way ahead of the Deaf community in removing the stigma against homosexuality and breaking through barriers in employment as well as corporate and political arenas.

Up until twenty-three years ago, both deafness and homosexuality have been viewed as disorders.  Homosexual people were viewed as having a mental disorder.  They were expected to act, and be heterosexual.  For anyone to come out as homosexual meant they risked getting labeled as deviant, both morally and psychologically.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association board of directors removed homosexuality from the APA list of mental disorders called Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).   However, this decision turned out to be controversial, and a new category was added in 1980 to the DSM: ego-dystonic homosexuality. Controversy continued to rage over this new label.  It wasn’t until 1986 that homosexuality was eventually removed from the DSM altogether.  For a more complete history, read Homosexuality and Mental Health.    Another article discusses a political agenda to oppose homosexuality and oppress through the use of the mental disorder label. (Unfortunately, to view the entire article, you would have to purchase it.)  Just a couple weeks ago, an Ottawa article came out on the issue of sexual reorientation therapy and APA’s reaction towards the issue. (Pun unintended.)

When homosexuality was delisted the first time in 1973 as a mental disorder, this was actually the beginning, and not the end, of the long struggle to remove the stigma against homosexuality.  A heavy price was paid for this de-stigmatization, literally in blood and tears.

Today, as a result of the removal of the medical label, the gay community enjoy enormous political clout, at least in Canada more so than in the U.S.A.  In Canada, we have at least two openly gay politicians: Scott Brison, a current Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party, and George Smitherman, currently Ontario’s Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, as well as Deputy Premier of Ontario.  This is mostly due to the fact that their rights are enshrined (and protected) in the Canada Bill of Rights.

In the USA, judging from the media headlines in the past couple of years, politicians who have been outed to the public often lose their positions.  Many states do not appear to have provisions in their respective constitutions to protect gay people from discrimination.   Some states have attempted to exclude gays and lesbians from anti-discrimination laws and policies.  Colorado is one example.  There is a map of the USA showing states that have protection for gays against workplace discrimination.

At first glance, one might be inclined to think that there are no openly gay politicians in state or federal governments.  Upon further digging, one will discover a small number of openly gay (or GLBT or LGBT) politicians in the U.S.A, but they are not quite well known to mainstream society, with the possible exception of Barney Frank (D-MA).  He is well-known, popular and has the support of his voters.

In entertainment, where people used to remain closeted to attain movie star status, gay celebrities now wield more political clout in America. Ellen DeGeneres is touted as the most powerful gay celebrity on TV.  Close behind are Rosie O’Donnell and Jodie Foster. These women are said to use their star power to support suicide prevention for gay youth hotline. This is in direct contrast with the past.  People used to have to remain closeted in order to get ahead in show business.

Advances are made by the GLBT community in the corporate sphere as well. It looks like the glass ceiling is being broken through here, but there is still the issue of having to “pass” as a member of the majority group, as we have seen in US politics. For more information on the challenges of dismantling corporate barriers, read the article, Gay in Corporate America.

The Deaf, on the other hand, are still saddled with the stigmatizing label of disability. This medical perspective of the Deaf has coloured societal attitudes towards Deaf people for more than 100 years, to this very day.   Deaf children from birth, or from the age of identification, are assigned this status of “having hearing loss”, irrespective of the degree of loss…even if it’s only a few decibels. Thus, because of this “disability”, it then becomes the mission of the medical, audiological, speech and educational professionals to rehabilitate Deaf children so they can become “functioning members in society.”

To this end, Deaf children are placed under the auspices of Special Education in the Department of Education in the USA, and in the Ministry of Education in each of the ten provincial governments of Canada.  As we all know, Special Education has been set up for children of all kinds of disabilities.  IEPs (Individualized Educational Plans) have been set up for each and every Deaf child, in every possible educational setting.  The label “Communicative Disorder” or “Communicative Exceptionality” follows the Deaf child from Kindergarten through Grade 12 in Ontario.  There are other labels used in the U.S.A. View this link below as an example.

These labels are designed to get resources to help the Deaf children learn to “listen and speak”.  One example of such resources is titled Language Is Discovery, written by speech-language pathologists.   Resources are provided by rehabilitative professionals (audiologists and speech pathologists) in tandem with audist organizations like Canada’s VOICE and the U.S-based AGBell.

These organizations actively advocate the use of the cochlear implant and auditory-verbal therapy (AVT).  All of this occurs in support of Alexander Graham Bell’s 1884 objective, which was: “we should try ourselves to forget that they are deaf. We should try to teach them to forget that they are deaf.”  (Ladd, Paddy. (2003) Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood.)  This quote is also used in an article by DeLand in the Volta Review 1992 9:418.    More information on this can be found in Patti Durr’s People of the Eye blog.

The audist medical view excludes the possibility that the Deaf community would be viewed as a cultural and linguistic minority.  In fact, the pathologization of cultural deafness “results in the suppression of the oppressed group’s language and culture”.  The language in question is ASL.  Harlan Lane discusses this in depth in his book, The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community.

On the political and corporate front, the Deaf community in North America has made some strides.  Thanks to the Deaf President Now protest of 1988, we now have Deaf Presidents of Gallaudet University (I. King Jordan, then Dr. Robert Davila).

In Canada, we have Gary Malkowski, who was a NDP Member of Provincial Parliament in Ontario from 1990 to 1995, the first Deaf politician, ever.  In the U.S.A., the late Marcella M. Meyer was the first Deaf delegate to a California Democratic Party convention.  At present, I know of no Deaf politician in the USA, either at state or federal level.

In the corporate arena, we have John Yeh, whose ascent to CEO status did not come easy.  He now owns a multi-million firm. To read about the dismantling of barriers he had to do to get to where he is, this article.

What I found interesting is that I was hard pressed to find Deaf people, either celebrity, corporate or political, with the same clout as Ellen DeGeneres, or Scott Brison today.  Although we have Marlee Matlin, who is a well-known actor in both the Deaf community and mainstream America, she still has nowhere near as much influence as DeGeneres. The Deaf community has a long way to go before they can break the glass ceiling as successfully as the GLBT community has.