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?
As I stated in Part 1 of the What is Audism? series, you cannot explain what audism is, without describing the effects of audism on Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals, and the Deaf community as a whole. Again, this information came from Malkowski’s presentation.
I will now give a few of the effects that Malkowski mentioned during his March 2010 presentation:
Audist beliefs result in intentional or unconscious audist behaviour, such as:
treating Deaf children with oral skills differently – more positively – than Deaf children with sign language skills (i.e. in the classroom, in extracurricular activities, sports and recreation.)
systemic discrimination
negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the abilities of Deaf and hard of hearing children, students, employees, social citizens.
dehumanization by medical and educational establishments (i.e. the focus on a deficit model or pathological view of hearing loss.
lifelong impact on children’s ability to acquire and understand English or ASL or both (Malkowski, 2010)
To illustrate the systemic discrimination, and negative stereotypes, misconceptions and myths regarding the Deaf/Hard of Hearing, I remind you readers of Amy Cohen Efron’s DVD, which began as a vlog: The Greatest Irony. In that DVD, she described the irony in allowing Hearing babies to learn ASL while Deaf babies are denied access to ASL, especially by those in the AVT profession. Malkowski mentions this irony as well in his presentation, saying that ASL is accepted, and viewed as beneficial for Canadian hearing children’s early development and yet viewed as detrimental to the development of Deaf children (Malkowski 2010).
The effects of this misconception in addition to the dehumanization of the Deaf by the medical and educational establishments are clearly described in Malkowski’s research article on audism in the January 2009 edition of The Canadian Hearing Report, page 28-30:
“it is still common practice, for example, for audiologists, speech-language pathologists, early intervention and early childhood education providers, educators of deaf children, boards and government ministries to discourage deaf children from learning and using their natural and accessible language – sign language. In fact, many parents of deaf children who are making decisions around their child’s education are still not given balanced information about the benefits of sign language. This restriction of the use of sign language. coupled with a fundamental belief that a deaf child should learn to use residual hearing or the hearing that is a result of a cochlear implant and learn to speak is the most blatant form of audism.
Sadly, when spoken language, both expressive and receptive, is not accessible, precious time is wasted. The child is labelled a spoken language “failure” and the window of opportunity to acquire language quickly closes. Unfortunately, these spoken language deficiencies can be identified as a learning disability. In some cases there is no cognitive disability; in others, learning disabilities are compounded by language deficiencies. In both instances, it is too late for the language deficit to be repaired and this can have enormous associated costs in terms of special education requirements, and long-term mental health issues, among others. A great number of professionals – audiologists, interpreters, educators, speech-language pathologists, and medical practitioners– have enormous amounts of power and influence.” (Malkowski, 2009)
Malkowski mentions that one of the consequences for this practice of withholding ASL from Deaf children in favour of oralism, and isolation in the public schools is that there are now a higher number of solitary Deaf adults without contact or connections to the Deaf community at large. This contributes to the long term mental issues mentioned in the quote above. (Malkowski, 2010)
For further examples of what audism is, and its effects on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing people, I strongly recommend that you view this DVD, Audism Unveiled, by Bahan, Bauman and Montenegro. This was shown during Mr. Malkowski’s presentation last week, and this will prove to be eyeopening for those who have never seen this movie before.
Simply put, audism is an attitude of prejudice and perception that it is better to be hearing than to be deaf, and that if one is Deaf, one must strive to fit into Hearing society as much as possible. It is clear that audist attitudes and behaviours by the majority group do have negative effects on the mental, physical, emotional and educational well-being of Deaf and Hard of hearing people as individuals and as a minority group. Thus, it is proven that audism as a term is valid, and must be addressed.