Interesting.  I just viewed the three-part blog series “The Right to Be…Deaf” at Patti Durr’s People of the Eye.  This series reminded me of the v/blog posts I created last May on the subject of neutrality. The question raised in my two posts was whether the information being given to parents of newly-diagnosed Deaf babies and children was neutral or not.  Here are the titles which you can click to view (Neutrality: Does It Exist? and Got Neutrality? )

In Patti’s blog series, she raises the question on whether parents were given choices without undue pressure to go for a specific option.   Part II of Durr’s series describes what ensues at hospitals soon after babies are born (with infant hearing screenings).  That particular post brought a flashback of  my experience at an audiology clinic with my second eldest infant son.

Before I go into details about that experience, I must let you know that I am a Deaf mother of 5 Hearing boys.  Despite the fact that my babies were found to be hearing, I still encountered audism during one of my boys’ testings.  My eldest was born in a hospital.  Two weeks later, I brought him to an audiology clinic to find out if he was hearing or deaf.  My suspicion that he was Hearing was confirmed.

My third son, who was born at home rather than at a hospital, never took an official hearing screen test.   My husband and I decided to skip the infant hearing screen because it was so obvious that the baby was Hearing.  Our home-made hearing test came in the form of our two older sons, aged 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 or 3 years old.  The noise they produced kept startling the baby.  That cheap home-made hearing test sure saved the government oodles of dollars that time!

My youngest, the twins, were born in the hospital rather than in the home due to the fact that twin pregnancies are automatically considered high risk.   The morning after the boys were born, they each received an on-site hearing screening test.  The results were that they were hearing.  Technology have clearly improved to the point that there was no need for drugs to sedate them (unlike the situations described in the comments section of Patti’s Part III blog).

My experience with my second eldest son was different from that of my other boys.  He was born at home, so that meant I had to take him to the audiology clinic a couple or so weeks later.  It was eleven and a half years ago, but the memory is still fresh in my mind.  I had to nurse him to sleep so the ABR test could be performed.  Halfway through the test, I had to switch him to the other breast so his other ear could be tested.  While nursing him to sleep, I inadvertently fell asleep as well.  I must have been tired that day!

After a few minutes, I woke up just as the test was completed.  The audiologist was looking at her computer and machines when suddenly she seemed disturbed. I could perceive a look of alarm on her face. That caused me to think that something was up.  She looked back at us then at the screen and back with anxiety in her body language and on her face.   I looked down at my sleeping infant and noticed that one of the wires fell off his scalp.  I brought the audiologist’s attention to that fact.  She administered the test on that ear once more.  Once the results were in, there was an obvious look of relief on her face.

“He is hearing.”

Supposing the results were like this: One ear was Hearing, but the other ear was deaf.  She would likely still have that look of alarm on her face and tension in her body.  That would give me a clear message right there.  Supposing my boy were hard of hearing, what kind of message would her body and words impart?  I don’t know, but her alarm and body language were indelibly marked in my memory.  I will never forget that.

Patti Durr’s description of the type of pressures American parents face in hospitals, regardless of whether these parents were Deaf or Hearing.  When babies are diagnosed Deaf, audism run rampant in hospitals.  Buzz phrases like ” your baby failed the hearing test” are used and impart negative messages to the parents.   Pamphlets on cochlear implants are given out to parents soon after the Deaf babies are diagnosed.   Deaf parents of Deaf babies experience and react to audism in the approaches used by medical professionals in dealing with them. (See comments section here.)

The combination of  infant hearing screening tests, cochlear implant pamphlets and “neutral” websites cause me to question whether parents were given true choices.

Are parents given TRUE choices?

Remember: I am a Deaf parent.  I have witnessed the negative facial and body language of that audiologist.  I cannot help but conclude that if my child were diagnosed to hard of hearing, I would have received a negative message.   Of that, I have no doubt.

Supposing that I were a Hearing mother with a newly diagnosed Deaf baby, and saw that alarmed facial expression and body language, what would my reaction be?  I would have been taken aback, confused and upset .  To make matters worse, I would be regretfully told, “Your child has failed the hearing test.”  Shock, dismay and grief would follow that statement, especially when combined with the negative message given with that type of body language.

The audiologist would follow up with a reassuring “Don’t worry.  There are cochlear implants and speech therapy available to help your child become more like us.  The Infant Hearing Program will help you with this. “  Pamphlets are given to the beleaguered mother who is overwhelmed with what has to be done to rehabilitate her child.

Supposing that parent is told: “Don’t worry. I have a Deaf mentor available to support you.  Your Deaf child is fortunate to be able to develop two languages–English and ASL–and grow up in two cultures. This will be a wonderful experience for you”?  That would be great, but that has not happened.  To date, I have not heard of any audiologists or other medical professional say that, ever.  It’s usually ”Sorry, your baby failed the hearing screening test.”

Now, that’s BIAS for you! Usually, information about ASL is not shared (or at least mentioned briefly).  Pamphlets on CIs are available to be given out, with alacrity. ”

“and we get the news – it is delivered to us with concerned looks, wringing of hands, and glossy pamphlets, DVDs, and display models of what CAN be DONE to overcome what IS

yes, instead of another basket of goodies and words of congratulations on your wee things Deafhood, we are whacked on the head with ….. the A word folks.  And no it is not spelled with a “v” (ask the NAD they know how to spell it correctly)

we see the news and we sigh – just what we wanted “A healthy baby and we knew s/he was healthy all along” – healthy for us means Deaf or Hearing -  y nada mas importa

but wait despite our joy and relief – they “the specialists” are still frowning – they is VERY worried now

they start selling their wares – they start tooting the scope of their practice ”

(Durr. People of the Eye blog. March 5)

Is that giving out neutral information?  Can you say websites like this give out neutral and balanced information? Can you say that parents are given complete unbiased information with which to make their decisions? No, you cannot. (That particular website doesn’t even mention ASL. You have to make an effort to look for it in a link there somewhere.) There is CLEAR BIAS here in favour of making Deaf children hear rather than allow them to be Deaf bilinguals, exposed to ASL and ASL Deaf culture as well as English.

Back to my question…

Are parents of newly diagnosed babies given true choice in raising their Deaf children?  Are they being given the chance to make a  true choice without undue influence or pressure from audistic medical professionals and biased pamphlets and websites? Without subtle and subliminal messages that it is not a good thing for a child to be Deaf?

QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Have parents of  Deaf babies able to exercise TRUE choice in the first place?  Or is “True Choice” an illusion?

ADDENDUM: Here is another vlog (captioned) by Dr. Donald Grushkin for your viewing pleasure on the same issue.

Having watched ABC’s What Would You Do? (hosted by John Quinones) last night, my initial reaction was disbelief, then jubiliance.  “BUSTED!” was my first joyful thought when the segment on discrimination against Deaf people seeking employment at a coffee shop ended with the scene of the three seasoned Human Resources specialists advising that phony barista manager on the finer techniques of discrimination.

Can we say AUDISM here?  YES, we can!

Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is clear proof of discriminatory behaviour and strategies rooted in audism on national TV!  For the first time… EVER… ordinary Americans and Canadians learned how to get away with systemic discrimination behind the scenes.   From white-collar Hearing professionals, at that!  TSK TSK.

I’m celebrating now because the Deaf community has new ammunition with which to fight audism-based discriminatory practices.  More Deaf people now know what they MUST do…educate the public for one thing, and denounce these audist practices. They can pursue various channels to combat audism, particularly in the job market.

However, my celebratory mood is bitter-sweet for the reason stated by one of my commenters in FaceBook:

“It was sad to see more so much more support in the other skits with the immigration and thieves than the deaf. Unless they just didn’t show all the clips…

And the person who did “help” HELPED the manager!!”

This commenter echoed the anger expressed by many Deaf people because they have experienced barriers in obtaining gainful employment due to systemic barriers set into place due to audism.

THAT is precisely why more people, especially the Deaf, MUST speak out.  Remember:

“Evil flourishes when good men do (and say*) nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

Discrimination for ANY reason, including the status of hearing, MUST be denounced in the strongest terms possible.   I predict that in the future audistic practices will eventually be weeded out, but only if  they are denounced.  And, mark my words, audistic practices WILL be denounced.

How about joining us in this denunciation?

V/BLOGGER NOTE: (and say*) is my own insertion in Burke’s quote.

Here’s the excerpt in case you have trouble accessing the link:

The Department of Education will continue to provide a sound education and opportunities for networking within the larger community by supplying iPhones to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing students, their teachers and parents to create better access for communication. We are working in liaison with Canadian Hard of Hearing Association – NL (CHHA-NL) to keep abreast of the latest technology and advice for setting up classrooms that are conducive for learning.

King delivered on his promise to supply iPhones to the students, parents and teachers last October… sort of.   The recipients received iPhone 3G which does NOT have video capability.  Goes to show what he knows about Deaf children and their needs. ZIP. NADA. ZERO.

OH. OOPS. I digress. Back to the subject at hand…

I was asked to give my opinion on the iASL app as a tool for the classroom since I am a Deaf ASL-bilingual teacher.   I have an iPhone 3GS (which has video capability).  This is my opinion:

I downloaded and then put the  iASL app to the acid test… it failed miserably.

1. For English sentences to be translated into ASL, you have to type only  5 words at a time.

I wanted to type: The Persians defeated the Spartans at the Battle of Thermoplyae.  (This is because  I had taught a high school World History class at a Deaf school several years ago.)  I was limited to this:

Persians defeated Spartans at Thermoplyae.

The ASL TRANSLATION was in English words (gloss) but in ASL order (or close enough).  The text looked like this:
Spartans
Thermoplyae
Persians
ARREST
Then I clicked VIEW.  What happened next had me slapping myself in the forehead and groaning.
For Spartans, Thermoplyae and Persians… I got a black background with white text “S” then a woman appeared onscreen and produced S and fades to black, then the letter P appears and the woman appears and produces P.   and so on until EVERY letter was spelled.
No lexicalized fingerspelling.  It took forever, then finally, when we arrived at ARREST, she signed ARREST.
Unfortunately, that’s not the sign I’d have chosen.  I’d have used an entirely different ASL word to properly explain the defeat term. Also, there’s no nonmanual grammar signals/markers. No lexicalized fingerspelling was use.  It wasn’t possible with the type of technology available!

You may wish to view my ASL description of the Battle of Thermoplyae in my ASL vlog above (2:49-6:09).  (Remember that movie, The 300? That was based on the Battle of Thermoplyae!)  You will see me give an abridged version of the epic battle, and then show the book, Gates of Fire, which is one of my sources of information for that historical event.

2. iASL doesn’t have ASL words for the English words like province, Ontario, Newfoundland, etc, because iASL is an American innovation, and designed only to develop ASL signs that is standard, and ignores ASL regional differences.

MY RATING: I give the iASL app THUMBS DOWN for use in the classroom.

3. The use of iASL for networking within the larger (Hearing) community will only serve as a hindrance rather than an asset.

Can you imagine trying as a  high school student to gossip via iASL app with peers about someone cheating on his/her sweetheart, especially given the cumbersome translation process as demonstrated in the vlog?  Worse yet, that iPhone 3G doesn’t even have the video capacity to capture ASL comments of the Deaf student, let alone translate them into English text!  The iASL app doesn’t even have the capability to translate ASL into English text to facilitate a two-way conversation!  Wow! That’s a sure-fire way to destroy networking efforts among students.

The best place for opportunities for natural barrier-free social interactions with peers in ASL and development of strong social skills are actually in a Deaf school.  Oh yeah. That’s right. (*Smacking my forehead*) I forgot. The NL minister of education closed the ONLY remaining school for the Deaf in the Maritimes.

4. iASL app will NEVER replace QUALIFIED, LIVE, ASL (or LSQ) interpreters in parent/teacher meetings.

What about Deaf parents of mainstreamed Deaf/Hard of Hearing children who need to meet with monolingual Hearing teachers? Could they have used iASL app/iPhone technology to bypass the need for a real live ASL interpreter? Again, given what was demonstrated in this post, the answer would have to be a resounding  NO!

How could we forget LSQ?  There is NO app for LSQ.  So, Francophones and LSQ users are flat out of luck.  Sorry.

To use an over-used buzz word of today… EPIC FAIL!

My grade for the iASL app and iPhone 3G technology…BIG FAT F!

So much for ASL and technological support in the classroom and networking with the larger community as promised by the all-knowing Minister of Education King!

Had Minister King consulted with any of the Deaf educators at NSD or outside the province as well as Deaf technies rather than with CHHA-NL, he would have known all this before wasting thousands, or even millions,  of dollars on  iPhone technology that would NEVER ever do an adequate job of translating information, let alone capture ASL signing.  So much for keeping abreast with the latest technology.

Guess this proves that King is really a CFA to the Deaf community and Deaf Education. (CFA is a Maritime term ”Come From Away” applied to those who are newcomers or visitors to the Maritimes provinces and know NOTHING about the area.  There are times when Maritimers complain that CFAs tell them what is best for them while knowing nothing about them.) Sounds familiar, doesn’t it, Newfoundlanders and Labradorans?

I thank Mr. Wayne Sinclair for sending me this PDF copy of the New Era Document, complete with signatures.  To read the PDF copy of the document that was signed by the ICED 2010 Vancouver organizing committee, BC Deaf community, Canadian Association of the Deaf and the World Federation of the Deaf, please click on the link directly below.

The ICED 2010 New Era Document

I  also offer my gratitude to Dr. Joseph McLaughlin for his willingness to send me PDF copies of the press releases that were made by the ICED 2010 Vancouver organizing committee.

Press_Release_Opening_Ceremony

Press_Release__Closing_Ceremony ICED 2010 VANCOUVER

Opening & Closing ceremony remarks on New Era_Dr. McLaughlin

(Above is an ASL translation of this written blog post)

More than two months have passed since that fateful August day when the Newfoundland-Labrador Minister of Education dropped the bomb on an unsuspecting media, public and NL Deaf community.  The shockwaves of that bomb raced throughout Canada and USA stunning the Deaf community in the two countries.

The Newfoundland School for the Deaf is CLOSED.

The final nail has been hammered into the coffin.  That coffin has been unceremoniously buried in a surprise press release in St. John’s, Newfoundland.  May NSD rest in peace in its grave.

Or so the Minister of Education Darin King thought.

Do you see it? Do you feel it? Do you hear it? What’s that?  Screams?

No, silly. It’s the chilly October wind.

Are you sure?  You know… it’s nearing Halloween when the veil between the living and the dead thins, and things that go bump in the night are given free rein!

I’m positive! That’s all hooey, made up to frighten children!

Are you sure? Those are the screams of the soul of the Newfoundland School for the Deaf!

The soul of the Newfoundland School for the Deaf still LIVES!  IT is screaming… still, in this chilly October wind.   The soul is not just in the building that once housed it, but also in the Deaf community that is currently spread out not only in Newfoundland, but also across Canada and in the USA.

That soul is what you see, feel and hear in the letters, interviews and articles denouncing the closure of NSD by the following individuals and organizations within the Deaf community below:

Gary Malkowski, former Ontario MPP who is Deaf.

Charles Harkins, former NSD principal

Kristen Connors

Jennifer Sooley

Chad Greenham

Darryl Hackett

Linda Wall (Deaf descendant of a Deaf Newfoundlander)

David Kerr, Deaf Chair of DBC (Deaf Bilingual Coalition)

Chris Kenopic, Deaf CEO of Canadian Hearing Society

AVLIC (Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada)

NLAD (Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf)

CAD (Canadian Association of the Deaf)

SDA (Saskatchewan Deaf Association)

Save Newfoundland School for the Deaf in Facebook

That soul-scream also comes from parents and families of Deaf children displaced from NSD at its closure.

Angela Hibbs, mother of Deaf son displaced from NSD when it closed.

Irene Coleman

Other organizations and media outside the Deaf Community, and even political parties have heard and answered the screams to date.

CAEDHH (Canadian Association of Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing)

CBC.ca (They sent transcriptions of their radio interviews with parents and educators of the Deaf to be posted for Deaf people to read, which is more than I can say for the NL Ministry of Education.)

The Liberal Party of NL

The NDP party of NL

Scream though our soul may, it is not out of despair, hopelessness nor defeat.  These screams are of life, hope, and aye, righteous anger!  We, the Deaf and our allies, are still fighting.  Oh yeah, even though that coffin lies in that grave, with dirt ignomiously thrown upon it!

Though the Minister of Education desperately wants it left there, forgotten, we remember and question! We all bring our shovels and begin to dig… and oh, dig we shall!

A quiet death for NSD?  Not on your life!

****Note: I have been informed that some of my links aren’t working.  This is because some of those links lead to Facebook (Save Newfoundland School for the Deaf), and to access those links, you have to have a FB account.  I am currently trying to figure out a way to make those link accessible to those who are not FB users. ***

MYTH:  The term DISCRIMINATION is sufficient, so there is no need to use the term AUDISM.

A blogger indicated his refusal to recognize the term audism by deliberately misspelling the term, and avoiding the use of the term audism in other ways. This guy stated he preferred to use the term discrimination, which is actually a umbrella term for various -isms such as racism and sexism for instance. This is my response to his blog post.

Here we go again…

If discrimination is discrimination, then there’s no need for words like racism or sexism, or even heterosexism. hmmm? Let’s throw out racism and sexism too! Just call the above discrimination. That’s it.

Riiight.

Racism, sexism and heterosexism have been abused before as well (of that you can be sure) and yet I don’t see any of you going to ridiculous lengths to discredit those terms as you are with the word audism.

*shaking my head*

This is his response to my above comment.  My response to each “let’s have a special word for that” phrase is in bold RED letters. Some go with links for you to view.  You can also google each term as I give them.

—Shel, then you also agree that very every condition that people have where they were discriminated against should also have a special word made up to go with it, too.

There are ALREADY terms for each of act of discrimination.

For people who stutters and get discriminated, let’s have a special word for that.  ABLEISM

For people who cannot hear or hear very well and get discriminated, let’s have a special word for that. AUDISM AND ABLEISM (See CHS position paper on audism)

For people who are not pretty and get discriminated for it, let’s get a special word for that. LOOKISM  (Please view this link.)

People who are overweight and get discriminated for that, let’s get a special word for that. Again, LOOKISM

People who cannot walk get discriminated, let’s get a special word for that. ABLEISM

Each and every one of them ripe for abuse use of the word. It never ends.

The same is true of ALL new terminology that name controversial ideas and concepts.

What makes deaf/hh people so “special” and why should people have to accept that new special word? They don’t have to. That’s the point.

MY RESPONSE to that last question:

Deaf/HH people aren’t “special”.  Deaf and Hard of Hearing people are members of a minority group that experiences marginalization on the basis of their hearing ability, just like other minority groups who experience marginalization on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. As such, they deserve the empowerment with naming a form of discrimination,in the same way other minorities were empowered.  Oh, by the way, Canadians have legislation that protect people against the forms of discrimination that are named:

RACISM, SEXISM, HETEROSEXISM, ABLEISM and yes,  AUDISM.

It’s a man’s world, after all.  This has been said to women who dared challenge male-dominated bastions of business, government, and elsewhere..  Women were told to remember their place in society.  Today, women are in positions of power in different areas of society.

It’s a White man’s world.  Said to Aboriginals, African-American and other non-WASP upstarts who were reminded to stay in their place.  Civil Rights Movement happened in USA.   Canadian aboriginals got an apology from our Prime Minister.  We got First Nations people in government.  We have Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq (First Inuk from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut to obtain such an august position). Oh,  and let’s not forget Barack Obama, President of the USA.

It’s a Straight world.  Said to the Gay people who were once told they suffered from mental deviancy.  We got gay politicians in both USA and Canadian governments.

Once, members from each minority group had to “pass” in order to succeed.

For the African Americans, it was the “high yellow” folk who made it in the White man’s world.

For the Native Americans, they had to conform to white values (at the expense of their  own cultural values) to make it in the White Man’s world. .

Women once had to submerge their feminity to make it in the man’s world.

Gay people have had to remain in the closet to make it in the Straight world, though more and more are coming out.

NOW you tell us Deaf that it’s a Hearing world, and we have to conform, and lose our Deaf nature and be surgically altered so we can hear to make it?  It’d make our lives easier?

Has conforming to WASP man’s world make the lives of women, nonwhite folk, Gays easier ?   At what cost to their identities, souls?  Has history shown that it is better to adhere to the values imposed upon others by the group in power? Nope.

Quite the opposite, in fact.  ALL the aforementioned groups REBELLED.

Women’s suffrage movements were born in both USA and Canada. “Extremists” like Susan B. Anthony and Nellie McClung respectively led those movements.

Martin Luther King Jr. (arguably an extremist) led the Civil Rights Movement, along with the more “extremist” Malcolm X.

First Nations people also revolted. Lawsuits ensued.  MPP Elijah Harper  singlehandedly killed the Meech Lake Accord in Canada and damaged the image of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney with a single eagle’s feather. The First Nations People also won an apology from our Prime Minister.

The Gay people in Canada won legal protection against discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and  Ontario Human Rights Code.  Bill C-250 accorded Gays the same legal rights as straight people.

NOW you’re telling us, the Deaf, that it’s a Hearing world and we MUST conform? We must hear in order to make our lives better?

Right now, we are rebelling against that.  Where’s the proof of that rebellion?

1. Deaf President Now Movement in the USA, 1988.
2. Deaf Ontario Now movement 1988 led by Gary Malkowski, who went on to become the first Deaf (federal) MP (Member of Parliament) in Canada. He was one of the key people who got Ontario gov’t to recognize ASL as a language of instruction that may be taught in schools in Ontario (google Bill 4 that was passed in Ontario Provincial Parliament in July 2007) today.
3. Gallaudet Unity protests (2006)
4. Vancouver ICED 2010′s repudiation of the Milan 1880 Resolution and the authoring of the New Era Document by the BC Deaf community committee and ICED 2010 Committee… which had Deaf members!  The New Era Document calls upon all nations and educational systems to respect all sign languages of the world and to involve the Deaf in every level of decision making especially when it affects the Deaf.
5. Most recently: CDNIAS’ opposition of AB2072 as pushed by Mendoza in California the last few months.

And  we are still being told  to remain in our place and accept modifications because it’s a Hearing world lest our self-esteem suffer?

I’m taking an excerpt from one commenter’s long comment here:

“I felt it would be more damaging for her self esteem to grow up ASL only, than to have the implant and the ability to communicate verbally. I also felt that since the majority of the world is hearing, that things would be easier for her, as an adult if she also had the ability to hear.”

I’m focusing on the first sentence here.  (I will dissect the second sentence in the next post.)  Before I continue, I want to make clear that I know that commenter did not say the above with the intention of offending anyone.  The individual doesn’t realize just how politically incorrect her statements are.

Here’s my response to her… edited for this post since I spotted some sections that needed editing for further clarity:

No Deaf child has grown up with ASL only. That is a myth!

Each Deaf child, regardless of the decibel level as measured on audiograms, is required by law to learn English…at least in North America (both USA and Anglophone Canada).  ALL Deaf children have had to learn English through whatever strategies, methods, or modes foisted upon them by the educational system which is heavily dependent on the prescriptive model rather than the cultural model.

You see before you… a Deaf adult who grew up with “ASL only”.  Oops.  I meant bilingual.  Last I checked, my self esteem is pretty intact, thank you very much. I know of MANY Deaf children and adults who grew up BILINGUAL ( again, there’s no such a thing as ASL ONLY).  So far, self esteem has not been an issue.

My mother  (bless her sturdy soul!) told me that she had to buck the audist system… yes, audist… who repeatedly told her that I had to fit in with society. She could easily have caved in and gone the oral method, but she didn’t!  In fact, she told the professionals that THEY had to change to fit ME when I was small.  I remember her telling me when I was 20 years old that when she was at that old crossroads (oral VS manual)… “I decided to raise you normal and sign”.  THAT was a profound statement, which still resonates with me even now.

Another thing, when the CI prototype came up in the 80’s, Mom faced enormous pressure to implant me.  She was told by professionals that I was smart and therefore would benefit from the CI.  She resisted and told them that the decision was mine solely, and not hers, and that she’d support it whatever it may be.  I recall her asking me only ONCE when I was approximately 11 or so if I wanted a CI.  I had no idea what that was.  Once that was explained to me, I said (according to Mom), “Why? I am fine the way I am.  I don’t need to hear.”  That was the end of that.  Never again did she raise that subject.  I completely forgot about that conversation until last year when Mom came to visit me and told me.  It’s still a vague memory, though.

As for God being wrong… No. I agree that He doesn’t make mistakes.

I was born Deaf and Mom told me that God made me that way for a reason.  She saw that as a gift from God.

DEAF…A gift horse that Hearing society incessantly look in the mouth and curse. A gift horse that they try to modify into what they want. In that, one COULD argue that the CI industry, the audiologist and surgeons are all playing God and second-guessing Him.

Small wonder the world is so screwed up… what with tinkering with what God has wondrously and fearfully created in so many ways, INCLUDING the Deaf  people! All in the name of progress. Progress towards what?  The fully normal HUMAN ideal being? What’s that anyway? More importantly, according to whom?

See you in the next post.  I’m in a debunking mood!

Is this commenter correct? Does this website actually provide unbiased information from many various organizations?  Has it got neutrality?

 Let’s analyze this website:

1. Count the number of times the words “hearing” and “hear” have been used on the homepage alone.  Total: 11!

2. Count the number of times ASL as a term is used on that same homepage. Total: ZERO

Talk about subliminal messages!

Now, let’s use this checklist to dissect the contents further:

a) Is t bilingual? Check! (English with Spanish translation)

b) Is it trilingual? Mais non.  Nowhere on this website do I see ASL translation.  
c) It has audio for those who may have reading issues: Is it accessible for the Hearing? Check!
d) FOCUS: the ability to hear words and songs. Check!
e) FOCUS: the ability to see ASL words and poetry. Where? Zilch and nada!

I checked “My Baby has a hearing loss” and clicked on states as instructed. This is what I found:

 The number of hearing loss professional organizations like AGBADHH, NICDC, Hearing Association, Let them Hear Foundation, etc etc far outweigh the number of Deaf-centered, or at least ASL-friendly organizations.

 I also clicked on http://www.raisingdeafkids.org which is on the list for any of the states you click on: Go to Communication choices, then you will see:

- Auditory-Oral, (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Auditory-Verbal (Emphasis: Hearing/Speaking)
-Bilingual-Bicultural- ASL and English (Emphasis: Bilingual Language Development)
-Cued Speech (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Total Communication (signing and talking with voice simultaneously… Emphasis: still hear and speak)

Consider the evidence submitted above.  One cannot help but reach the following conclusion:

 There’s an overwhelming emphasis on hearing and speaking, and little focus on ASL.  Therefore, this website is NOT unbiased.  It’s in fact heavily biased in favour of the hear-and speak ideology.  It’s got NO neutrality.

 But it’s sure got audism.

Neutrality: the absence of a declared bias

In other words, neutrality means having no opinion and declining to take sides.  ”I’m neutral about this. I refuse to take an opinion. Here are the options, and each has equal viability.   I take no stand either way.”

Does this type of neutrality exist in reality? No.  It’s unheard of.  Really.  Each, and all, of us has a bias, a philosophy in life that we follow.   My own personal bias is simply this: ASL and English are of equal value.  To be Deaf is great.   I do not want to be hearing at all.  No thank you very much.   I like the way I am now.

Now, if you want to look at biases,  take the hearing loss professionals who claim to be neutral as an example.  These professionals are audiologists, speech pathologists, medical professionals who work with newly-diagnosed Deaf babies, early childhood educators.   These people say, “Oh yes, we provide all options neutrally, and lay them out for the parents to look at.”  (True, ASL is included, but in such a way that it is not  emphasized, and overwhelmed by the array of other options. ASL is offered, but usually as a last option. )

SEE, Cued Speech, AVT/CI, Signed English, etc… all those options are geared for the development of the English language with emphasis on the hearing and speaking component,.  Even Signed English places emphasis on the hearing and speaking as it includes voice, mouthing as well as signing.  So does Simultaneous Communication and total communication that are included in the wide array of options.   ASL, although seriously underemphasized, is offered on the table for the overwhelmed and bewildered parents to ponder.

Of course, the parents would go for the options that support the development of the English language solely.  They would go for what is familiar to them: hearing and speaking.  For further explanation on how the system is stacked in favour of the monolingual, hear-and-speak ideology, view Don G’s excellent vlog.  That vlog shows that neutrality is nonexistent when it comes to offering options to parents of Deaf children.

If you want actual evidence that the hearing loss professionals are NOT neutral, just take a look at the large number of Deaf children that end up in the mainstream setting with cochlear implants, and taught to speak.  Look at the smaller number of Deaf children that are enrolled in Deaf schools.   That, to me, indicates a definite bias on the part of the hearing loss professionals who influence parental choices that impact their Deaf children.

Further evidence of that bias can also be seen in the recent passage of AB-2072 in California.   Here is the link to this article that proves that neutrality DOESN’T exist on the part of the professionals behind the writing of AB-2072.

REMEMBER: There is no such thing as neutrality in real life!