A commenter in my previous blog referred me to a glossy website, Communicate With Your Child with the claim that this website provided unbiased information from many various organizations. She suggested that I click on “My baby has a hearing loss” section, which leads the viewer to various states that we could research. She stated “Neutrality is now in the works. It still exists.”
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.
- 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.
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 thisarticle 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!
Sigh… I wasn’t planning to blog on the AB2072 issue that was raised lately; however, I was a little disturbed by the lack of balance in this blogger’s post. This blogger and her commenters were all het up on the behalf of Hearing parents of Deaf children at the possibility of having the mythical ASL-only option foisted upon them. She mentioned two scenarios, and I quote:
(1.) The Deaf parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must have their deaf child undergo surgery for a cochlear implant at 6 months and employ only speech therapy in English for the child’s language development, no other options are allowed. How would the Deaf parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child? Of course, resentment and anger.
(2.) The hearing parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must implement ASL only to begin the child’s language development. How would the hearing parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child? Of course, resentment and anger.
Then she spent the entire rest of her post defending the Hearing parents’ right to NOT have ASL foisted upon them by the state against their wishes. Fair enough, I agree that the state should not infringe upon the rights of the parents.
Yet, I see NO one on that post, either on the blogger’s or the commenters’ part, stand up for the Deaf parents of Deaf children who had their rights forcibly infringed upon in the name of the hear-and-speak ideology. The blogger implies that Scenario 1 has not happened yet. I submit that this is inaccurate information. To wit:
I have not seen much if any outrage re: Scenario 1 on the part of these people, and yet Scenario 2 causes them to blame Deaf ASL activists for the possibility of Hearing parents’ rights to decide for their Deaf children being infringed upon. Why is this the case?
Into which category do we Deaf people fit? Race or Disability? Well, this vlog is a sequel to the first vlog (The Canadian Definition of Audism). In that vlog, the CHS (Canadian Hearing Society) is of the view that Deaf people are not only disabled, but also an ethnic (race) minority.
How might we use existing legislation to combat attitudinal barriers? We may do so upon racial and disability grounds. Before I explain how to do this, I must first explain what happened during Gary Malkowski’s presentation Breaking Attitudinal Barriers in Policy and Practice. He asked his audience, one of which I was, this question: Which category do you think Deaf people fit into? Race or Disability? Gary then qualified this by explaining that race no longer has to do with biological characteristics, such as skin colour. Race includes these characteristics: accent or manner of speech (or language), culture, history, beliefs and practices, traditions and social constructs”.
Silly question, I thought, with a tinge of arrogance. Race, of course, especially since we have all these characteristics of a race! I don’t accept disability as a label for us! Gary’s answer startled me. He said: We fit into both racial and disabled categories. He explained that since we claim disability tax, use ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program), and use ADP (Assistive Devices Plan) in which the government pays half of what it costs to obtain TTY, and other devices we need, we have accepted the label of disability for ourselves. So, that indeed means we are both a race and a disability group. So what do we do? How do we use legal means to combat attitudinal barriers? Two significant pieces of Human Rights legislations are as follows:
ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (AODA):
•Remove attitudinal barriers that discriminate against people with disabilities
•Eliminate systemic barriers in organization’s policies, practices or procedures that discriminate against people with disabilities
•Engage in public awareness activities designed to raise employer and service providers awareness of disability issues and to combat negative attitudes and stereotypes about persons with disabilities
Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines
•Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination
•Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate
•Policy and Guidelines on Accessible Education (this component will not be discussed here.)
(Malkowski, 2010)
Although we can use AODA to help us break down attitudinal and discriminatory barriers, OHRC is a significant piece of legislation. It needs to be made clear that racism and audism are both attitudes. The former is the ideology that one racial group is inherently superior to other racial groups. The latter is another ideology that to be hearing is superior to those who are deaf; have hearing loss. However abhorrent these attitudes are, we cannot take racists and audists to a human rights tribunal just on the basis of these attitudes. We cannot prove anything.
But, when these attitudes and ideologies manifests themselves openly in language and behaviours that are discriminatory against, for instance the Deaf, out of unfounded concern for safety. This then poses barriers. The use of discriminatory language in policy for instance, then becomes grounds for complaint to the Human Rights Commission.
This indeed happened in BC (British Columbia), where the Ministry of Transportation imposed a policy against Deaf people driving 18-wheelers due to safety concerns. So, of course this prevented Deaf truckers from getting trucking jobs there.
The Ministry of Transportation got hauled before the Human Rights tribunal. The lawyers for the discriminated deaf drivers asked the government for the premise they came up with for their discriminatory policy. The Ministry of Transportation pointed to the medical association in BC, who recommended that Deaf people not be allowed to drive large trucks for safety reasons. When challenged on this, the medical association revealed they based this recommendation on the number of elderly people who lost their hearing and got into vehicular accidents.
Needless to say, none of the Deaf complainants were elderly. Their lawyer called in an insurance company and asked for their statistics. The company answered that statistically speaking , deaf drivers had better than average driving records due to the fact that driving is a visual skill, and that many Hearing people tended to be distracted by music or using the cellphone. As a result, the discriminatory policy was scrapped. That is how we can use the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial legislation to combat discriminatory policies and practices that are rooted in racial and or audist attitudes. (Malkowski, 2010)
Here’s a scenario: Your employer refuses to provide you with an interpreter based on his perception that he would experience financial undue hardship as a result of providing you. This unwillingness “to use or put accommodations in place because of cost seems almost reasonable until faced with the Duty to Accommodate” (Malkowski. Vibe’s The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine, Spring/Summer 2003) Malkowski revealed during his presentation that the Ontario government has financial assistance available to support small businesses in meeting their duty to accommodate. Should your employer refuse to provide an interpreter for you, he would have failed in his duty to accommodate, and that would be grounds for you to bring your complaint to the Human Rights Commission using the OHRC Policy and Guidelines Disability and the Duty to Accommodate.
Remember, as a racial group, we Deaf people may may use the OHRC Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination to break down attitudinal barriers. As a disabled group, we may use the Duty to Accommodate component of the OHRC if we are denied accommodations that we require.
Readers, this is my rebuttal to a comment made by the author of A Weeping ASL Deaf User on theCochlear Implant Online blog.
Dear OpenMinded Deaf Observer,
This is in response to your comment (#59)
I’m sorry for your pain of feeling “subhuman” in your family of hearing people.
I am a Child Of Hearing Parents like you. However, you and I differ in our perspectives of the world. My parents decided to not go the oral route with me, but raise me normally (my mother’s words, not mine) with sign language from 6 months old, and “bathe” me in language through the visible, accessible ASL surrounded by Deaf adults, and the strong supportive Deaf community where I hail from.
I have never grown up feeling like a black sheep in my Hearing family. True, not many people in my extended family signed, but that did not mean I did not grow up bilingual. I was surrounded by BOOKS, and by relatives including my grandparents and many uncles, aunts, and cousins who were more than happy to chat with me through writing, or fingerspelling or signing. Throughout my childhood, I got to see a variety of written English, from primary levels up to Ph.D level, so my English skills flourished.
Never once did I feel subhuman. In fact, I grew up feeling loved, and involved in family games and activities. True, I wasn’t able to participate in conversations fully, but that didn’t really bother me as I preferred to READ. I never felt that I HAD to fit into my family or that I HAD to use my speech. I was ACCEPTED for the unique Deaf individual I am by my family. True, I was occasionally curious about how things sounded, but I never had the burning desire to HEAR. How could I miss something that I never had in the first place? Silence is golden especially when you have 40+ cousins in your grandparents’ house!
As a Deaf Canadian, I support the bilingual approach for Deaf Children. True, more children are implanted these days, but that does not mean they shouldn’t have the advantage of ASL as well as spoken English.
As for technology: TTY or Videophone? I’ll take both!! I use TTY for conversing with Hearing people through relay service. I don’t mind that. Videophone are great for connecting me with other Deaf people across Canada, and yes, USA. It sure is easy on the gas budget and the phone bill! DVD vs VHS? I’ll take both! VHS is good especially since you don’t have to search for that tiny subtitle button on your remote. DVD is great since you press MENU button and skip the previews, and find that favourite scene. Small gas-saving cars vs horse? Neither. Small cars don’t fit my large brood of children… 5 kids. Horses? Sorry. I always lose arguments with gravity. “Disliking non-walking people to use wheelchair who want to see the real world as you prefer them to look at pictures of the real world and disallow them to explore the real world.” HUH?? That doesn’t make sense to me. I HAVE used a wheelchair 24 hours just to see what it was like for my best friend who is wheel-chair-bound. It didn’t stop me from seeing the real world, nor did it stop her from seeing the real world. It helped me better see the world from her perspective. Those of you who have Deaf relatives or friends, try those white out noise earplugs… you’d be surprised at what it’s like to walk in your kids or Deaf friends’ shoes. If you are trying to tell me I’m not seeing the real world because I don’t use CI, I most definitely object. A person’s perspective of the real world differs from that of another. You cannot tell me that the world I live in, which is full of ASL and Deaf culture is any less real than that of the hearing world. That is definitely hogwash, and doesn’t wash with me.*
To borrow and change YOUR words: “What do you see in these analogies? POSITIVE RESPONSES!
Moi, selfish for wanting to give the GIFT of ASL to CI babies? PUHLEEZ! It is a gift for a child to be bilingual. I’m not opposed to Deaf babies being exposed to both English AND ASL. My problem is that when Deaf children DON’T benefit from the CI or AVT therapy, and I know of quite a few, they end up getting ASL AFTER their window of opportunity for language acquisition has long closed. THEN, it’s too late for them to become fully fluent in ANY one language, be it spoken or signed.
“The REAL WORLD is run by people with spoken language.” Hmmmm. Define “REAL WORLD”. It’s all in the perspective, dear. My REAL WORLD is my family, the communities in which I live, both Deaf and Hearing, my country, which is officially bilingual, by the way, and obviously the Internet
Just because Deaf children have CI doesn’t always mean they have better choices than we do. It’s all values. We all make value judgements as to what constitutes better choices. I KNOW I have excellent choices in my life. I exercise my choices as a Deaf ASL individual. THAT is a gift I will ALWAYS thank my parents for!
Shelley
* I have since re-read my post and revised. This revision is in a different colour since I have given this more thought after trying to figure out OMDO’s logic.
