English version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

HELLO, everyone! I haven’t made a vlog in a long time, but today is special because it’s Christmas. It’s a time for families to gather together, feast and share stories of Christmases past, and of course, celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Today, I just watched several vloggers (and bloggers) wishing each other a Merry Christmas. I wish to participate, and say this:

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL! I hope you have a wonderful day.

Oh, by the way…

I’m so disappointed that we have no snow here (especially on Christmas Day)! You Americans have an overabundance of snow. Please send some snow here!

Again, Merry Christmas!

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.