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.

 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!

This posting is in response to a commenter in my last posting, Resistance is Futile: You will be Assimilated, who stated that he did not see that much resistance from the Deaf community in relation to the cochlear implant, and that the cochlear implant industry did not use force whereas the Borg did.

I wasn’t referring solely to the cochlear implant in my last posting. In actuality, I was referring to the entire orchestrated attempts at a systemic level to assimilate Deaf children into the Hearing society, and to mold them into the ideal “Hearing” image or at least a facsimile thereof.

I agree with the other commenters that there IS resistance against the CI. I would qualify that sentence, and reiterate there is plenty of resistance, especially against the tactics employed by the oralist establishment.

Perhaps you aren’t working in a field that works directly with children or survivors of assimilationist attempts to get them to “listen and speak”? Many who are in the front lines working with these survivors will tell you horror stories of delayed language acquisition and related consequences due to the desire of the majority to get them to “listen and speak”.

Speaking for myself, I am against the IDEOLOGY behind the cochlear implant (and AVT) industry, which perpetuates the myth that Deaf children DO NOT need ASL because it hinders speech development. This is another attempt at linguistic genocide, and that is what gets my dander up.

Many parents want their children implanted “to give them the best in life that they can.” That is how many parents see the cochlear implant. Many do not understand the necessity for children to have VISIBLE access to language, and that is ASL.

Since the system is already implanting children OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the Deaf community, I used the term BORG to describe the oralist system. This establishment is a juggernaut… which steamrolls whether people object, get hurt or not.

As for the use of force:

“Borg uses force to assimilate other people (and destroy people that it considers obsolete) while the technology of cochlear implant does not use force itself on people.”

I beg to differ. Force comes in many different forms. One is obvious: Physical coercion and subjugation. There are more subtle and insidious forms, such as rejection, which can be emotional as well as physical. Indoctrination, and emotional/mental coercion, and especially fear, are other forms. These forms of force CAN be done with such finesse that people won’t see them coming until too late. Many AVT therapists have threatened to cross families off their clientele list if they signed with their Deaf children.

When implanted children do not show that they benefit from AVT programs, they get “weeded out”. This phrasing was coined by the mother of a certain blogger that no longer comes to DeafRead.com. These children are considered obsolete and swept under the rug while “successful” AVT children are showcased.

If those weeded-out children did not have access to ASL while attending AVT therapy, their optimal potential has been damaged if not outright destroyed in some cases. Language acquisition then becomes a race against time.

Now, I see cochlear implants as astronomically expensive and invasive hearing aids. However, there are quite a number of parents who get their children implanted, and STILL want their babies to acquire ASL. As long as the children DO actually grow up bilingual with a strong start for language acquisition…

My primary concern is that children have access to ASL, and are NOT hindered in their acquisition of visible, accessible language, and for me that means ASL, as well as another language, whatever that is.

As for your contention that we have not truly seen how the technology of cochlear implant will affect the Deaf Culture and ASL, the impact is ALREADY being felt in the front lines as I mentioned earlier. The cochlear implant is only ONE tool in the entire Oralist apparatus in its goal to eliminate ASL and make us forget that we are Deaf.

THAT is Borg assimilation in all its glory, with finesse added.

Postscript (Jan 11 at 7:15 p.m.):

REMINDER TO COMMENTERS:

You are all welcome to comment here, but I request that from now on, please address the topic at hand and refrain from attacking or labelling people personally when you disagree with a viewpoint that is being brought up.

Thank you.