This morning, while cleaning out my inbox and taking care of other mundane matters, I ran across a news blurb, advertising a contest here in Los Angeles tomorrow. My first thought after reading the article was, “Hmm… I wonder if any deaf contestants will be participating?”

The contest? A battle between participants to see who can text message the fastest. I figure since we deaf have rapidly adapted as “thumb warriors” the past few years, there’s gotta be quite a few who are quick on the draw when it comes to conversations (I’m no slouch myself, but I doubt I have the fastest fingers in the West…).

The catch? U can’t use txt shortcuts, lol. Txt shortcuts not allowed, bec it’s 2 ez to abbrev everything u type. Kind of an interesting rule, imho. FWIW, it’s a cool idea.

So– anyone deaf participating in this? If I didn’t already have things to do tomorrow, I’d take a shot at it. Perhaps if it becomes an annual event, someone can do this next year?

CUL!

The following is a definition of paternalism, taken from WordReference.com: “…the attitude (of a person or a government) that subordinates should be controlled in a fatherly way for their own good.”

This, however, is one of the definitions of maternalism, taken from the same source: “the quality of having or showing the tenderness and warmth and affection of or befitting a mother; “the girl’s motherliness made her invaluable in caring for the children.”

A quick Google search of the above terms soon reveals that the former definition is almost uniformly negative, and the latter positive. Paternalism—a word linked to masculinity—is often associated with dominance and control of a subordinate group; an authoritarian style of administration that does not adequately heed the wishes, desires, or cultural values of that subordinate group. Maternalism—a term linked to femininity—is on the other hand often associated with warmth, tenderness, caring — “motherly” qualities. Peace. Disarment. The termination of conflict.

Why should the differences between these definitions interest us?

For one thing they draw our attention to an overall and historic imbalance of political power between men and women in the United States. Says Haig A. Bosmajian, author of The Language of Oppression (who was in turn quoting Aileen Hernandez, former president of the National Organization for Women):

But just in case we as women manage to escape the brainwashing that assigns us to ‘our place’ in the order of things, the language continues to get the message across.

There is a ‘housewife’ but no ‘househusband’; there’s a ‘housemother’ but no ‘housefather’; there’s a ‘kitchenmaid’ but no ‘kitchenman’; unmarried women cross the threshold from ‘bachelor girl’ to ‘spinster’ but unmarried men remain ‘bachelors’ forever (pp. 91-92).

Furthermore, Bosmajian went on to state that:

One of the many anachronisms of the law is the legal placement of the woman on a pedestal by prohibiting her to foul herself with a “man’s work” and by protecting her from the obscene language of the “man’s world.” Through the language of the law sexism has been institutionalized by legally portraying the woman as on the one hand the powerful evil temptress and on the other hand as the pure, weak, untarnished mother up on a pedestal. But the pedestal, upon closer examination, is a kind of prison… (p. 103).

Thus it should come as no real surprise that definitions for “maternal” are generally pure and untarnished… they merely reflect historic male dominance in American society.

However, it has been argued by several scholars (such as Harlan Lane, for example) that paternalism has long been a destructive influence on Deaf Culture and Deaf Education. And while this is most likely true—the definitions of the terms we’ve just analyzed above lead us to a question with uncomfortable implications:

Are there currently more female educators working in the field of Deaf Education than male educators?

Other questions will soon arise, but let’s take a moment to examine this one. It is difficult to make an informed statement concerning the entire field of Deaf Education without current statistics. However, we can make educated guesses about specific institutions. Gallaudet University, for example, probably employs more female faculty than it currently does male faculty. This is not an accusation of discrimination in any sense of the term—it is entirely possible that the imbalance in the numbers represents a comparatively smaller number of men who entered Deaf Education in ensuing years.

Even so, if more women than men begin working in a given educational institution for deaf people, yet paternalism remains an active influence within that institution, problems begin to arise with the terminology being used to label and describe the problem. Suppose for the sake of the argument that over the past sixty years, the male to female ratio among teachers for the deaf underwent a dramatic change, from 2:1 to 1:4. Further suppose that the trend reflected the increasing numbers of women entering the workforce after the 1950s.

If the language of sexism did not change along with these trends, what would eventually happen if paternalism did indeed remain an active influence? One possible answer: the oppression of deaf people and ASL (which was—according to the hypothetical example above—becoming increasingly female-driven) would have nonetheless continued to have been attributed to male influence (via the term “paternalism”). This is because sexist language by its very nature cuts both ways—it continues to define men as a dominant power and women as submissive, even when increasing numbers of women in a given field inevitably change the power dynamics of that field. In fact, if one subscribes to Bosmjian’s claims, the counter-argument that this could never become the case is in and of itself sexist, because it continues to place women on pedestals, effectively rendering them unaccountable (or in other words pure and untarnished) in a field they now dominate.

Of course, the weakness of this argument is that what may be true within a given field may not be true of American society as a whole. Thus men overall may continue to hold more political and socio-economic power than women even as specific professional fields become increasingly female-dominated. However, this does not negate the impact that sexist language has upon female accountability. According to present sexist definitions, women are incapable of being held accountable for audist oppression. Unless such accountability is placed upon them using masculine terminology, it can’t be done. It is not linguistically possible, for example, to ascribe audist oppression in an institution where the ratio of female to male educators is 4:1 to “maternalism” instead of “paternalism.” As shown by the definitions above, simply replacing the latter term with the former destroys the intended definition by effectively replacing its negative connotations with positive ones. To accuse a woman of oppression by saying she subscribes to maternal practices is to accuse her of oppressing a subordinate populace through an excess of warmth, affection, and tolerance. Such an accusation is so contradictory, it borders on the ridiculous.

This is what is meant by “the Pedestal Effect.” Language that was once used to turn women into untouchable, holy “mothers” can now potentially (and unjustly) protect the overall gender from accountability—especially within the field of Deaf Education—for a unique type of oppression that has historically, and through sexist linguistic default, been assigned only to males. Bear in mind that the other extreme of sexist classification for females, that in which women are characterized as evil temptresses, is not being suggested here as a stand-in for accountability. Accountability is not about demonization. But accountability demands through its very definition that we specify which gender is truly and currently driving oppression. If both genders are responsible, we should select a gender-neutral term that reflects this shared responsibility, and cease our miscategorization of blame under the heading of “paternalism.” If this option turns out to be unfeasible, then perhaps we should alter our definition of “maternalism” to reflect current, and changed, political realities within the field of Deaf Education.

Right now, I just have a cell phone. I call my parents every now and then (actually I only talk to my mom on the phone, I can’t understand my dad!), and sometimes I talk with my younger sister. But otherwise, I stick with texting. I like texting. In fact, I love texting. But my contract is expiring with my parents, so I need to find another “game plan.”

It’s hard. First of all, there’s all these services. Verizon. Sprint. Cingular. T Mobile. Did I miss anyone else?

Sprint has some pretty cool phones. So does Cingular. I just think T-Mobile has a lot of bulky stuff. I want something slim. Verizon has never been on top of its game, until recently. A co-worker told me about a new phone, and I looked at it and was drooled over it. So I went into the Verizon store and it was perfect. It’s the phone I’ve dreamed about.

I want something slim. Something that looks good, can fit in my purse without me shoving it in there, especially when I go out on the weekends. Or even something I can slip in my back pocket for those times I go to a concert. And I want something that’s got a QWERTY keyboard. Is that too much to ask? I got lucky because Verizon actually came up with a phone that has all of that.

Now comes the tough part, the minutes, the texting, the data plan. It’s overwhelming. I’ve looked at all the plans. T-Mobile is definitely suitable for deaf people, you can get a data plan without any minutes. Sounds perfect? I think so, but there’s no phone that I think fits me. I don’t really like the Sidekick because it’s not something I would use all the time. I’m just not a Sidekick girl.

Sprint, Cingular, and Verizon can’t set you up without a voice plan. I hate that concept. So, I’m in a battle.

I’d like to stay with Verizon. I could call my family any time and it wouldn’t cost me a thing. It’s about $10-$20 for texting (that includes instant messenging). But their lowest voice plan starts at $40. Oy.

Cingular has this plan where it’s got rollover minutes. I would still pay $40 some for their lowest voice plan, and my minutes would just keep racking up. They have messaging plans which range from $5 to $40. Not too bad. And there’s a good variety of options there.

Sprint starts at $40 as well. But they have a lot of add ons. The texting ranges from 5 to 15, 15 is unlimited. Pretty good deal. Considering both Verizon and Cingular only offer unlimited within your network, and Sprint says you can send unlimited text messages to anyone. Then if you want the nights and weekend minutes to start earlier, you pay either 5 or 10 dollars.

It’s quite overwhelming. Until last week, I wasn’t even sure who I was going to go with. I just wanted one of these companies to give me a decent deal. They all pretty much have the same deals. Most of them have great prices for sending and receiving SMS messages (texting), but the voice plans.

Once I saw the phone. I wanted it. So I even discussed with my roommate/good friend as to whether or not I should join her plan since she’s got Verizon. We figured it was $10 for an additional line, plus whatever texting plan I wanted. So it might end up being about $30. That didn’t happen, I called Verizon to find out more details. Apparently, the lowest cost for a “family share plan” is 70 dollars, with 700 minutes. I just don’t want to incur any more costs on her. I wanted something that’d work for both of us. Even after discussing with my coworkers, they say just go for your own plan even if you don’t use the minutes.

I was just wondering, do these companies just benefit from keeping their voice plans to $40 and up? Are there people out there that would like to see plans that have lower minutes at lower costs? In addition to those pay as you go plans, why not have a plan where you can have “emergency minutes?”

It’s interesting because nearly all my co-workers text their friends. They say they don’t use all of their minutes. So why not come up with voice plans that have less minutes. People like options. I know I do. I love my options. Yet, I feel limited with all these options. At least I know what phone I want (and that took me two months of research). I just have to let go of the fact that my monthly bill is going from $20 a month to some $50. Oh boy.

If you’re like me, you’ve wondered about how outsiders interpreted the Gallaudet protests. Well, we just may have our answer now. Charlotte Allen, in her “Identity Politics Gone Wild” article for The Weekly Standard, provides a very detailed analysis of the Gallaudet protests. Much of what was said frankly makes me cringe, some appears to be blatantly false, and a few points warrant discussion. Keep in mind that Weekly Standard is read by over 60,000, which may seem like a tiny number to you but is nevertheless more than twenty times the number of people directly affected by the protests (and that’s only my own personal estimate).

Some phrases, in particular, really leapt off the screen:

militant campus radicalism
presumed martyrs
poisonous atmosphere
a culture fostered by radical students and faculty
campaign of vituperation
mixture of anger, self-pity, and clannish exclusiveness
only oppressed minority with its own hereditary aristocracy
“cultural genocide” tossed around indiscriminately
palpable and blistering antagonism
bizarre, obsolete, and self-marginalizing campus culture

For your convenience, I have attempted to summarize the author’s main points. Don’t take my interpretation at face value; I was simply taking notes. For a more thorough understanding of what Charlotte Allen was trying to say, read her article! We should take advantage of this DeafDC.com forum to dissect some of her points.

Flashback to the turmoil of 1960s… campus shutdown … near-loss of accreditation … extremely low graduation and employment rates … more choices in higher education … medical technology leads to better education … peculiar campus culture … lower enrollment rates at Gallaudet … other university presidents also forced out … through use of violence … Fernandes unanimously selected by board of trustees… aim of strike was simply to get rid of her … Davila now temporarily at helm to restore order … Fernandes not deaf enough despite numerous deaf ties … also not nice enough … scolded students for their wrongdoings … Jordan violated protocol by promoting Fernandes without faculty approval … Fernandes didn’t say hi nor smile enough … just like other administrative figures at other colleges … Fernandes, despite her outstanding qualifications on paper, still not given a chance to prove herself … Composition of protestors extended beyond campus to include alumni and even National Association of the Deaf (NAD)… Fernandes burned in effigy … Gallaudet University Faculty, Staff, Students and Alumni (FSSA) issued demands … Fernandes and Jordan ridiculed publicly by various sources … including blogs and at least a flyer … Not a single feminist organization supported Fernandes … Jordan crashed from high soar … but did his 1988 selection as President set a bad precedent of allowing students more power over trustees? …. Jordan was enormously successful at fundraising … and even compared to Martin Luther King Jr… but all of that came to a screeching halt during the protests … Jordan was now criticized for not being deaf enough either … did the Deaf community partake in a façade by pretending that Jordan was deaf enough? … radical identity politics really at hand … compared again (for the umpeeth time) with black identity and civic issues …. deaf activists play themselves out to be victims … but at the same time ask for help given to disabled … politically impermissible for deaf people to wish for hearing … Prevalent usage of ASL disputed … ASL not originally intended for educational settings, SEE was … but socializing led to dominance of ASL over SEE … Schooling once severely limited … William Stokoe proved ASL was a bona fide language … but so drastically different from English that its actual advantages for the classroom seem dubious … despite long-time use of ASL, literacy rates still at appalling low among deaf people … ASL hard to master, so other systems such as home signs or cueing used by parents and educators … ASL now proves how True Deaf one is … leading to further oppression among the oppressed … “Incestuous” part played by protestors … due to low degree of separation … Ron-Brendan Stern, Rosalyn-Jeff&Suzy Rosen named as two prime examples … NAD mentioned as well … Ridor described ASL abilities of BOT members … Brenda Brueggemann gave speech orally … she resigned along with Senator John McCain who was disturbed by his conscience … deaf diss those who can write well … Marlee Matlin and Heather Whitestone viewed as betrayers of deaf community … ‘distressingly shrill’ anti-cochlear rhetoric … even some turn against their hearing parents … for having chosen the wrong options … such as speech therapy … ASL hotly debated as ‘legitimate language for instruction’ … boo to oralism … Audism = Deaf version of racism … Total Communication = students and professors using whatever mode of communication they want … Not all deaf can master ASL … increasing number of Gallaudet students with cochlear implants … Pidgin Signed English = Compromise … Fernandes confirmed via e-mail that she believes in ‘rightful place at Gallaudet’ for all … Sim-Com = audism, oralism, disrespect for ASL … Fernandes took heat of bottled-up anger from deaf radicals … who want bilingual education despite its perhaps-prohibitive expenses and shunning of other modes used … Ryan Commerson declared Gallaudet to be Grand Audist … through FSSA, called for resignation of non-proficient ASL-users from Gallaudet board … also known for his previous tie-ups with administrative bodies over ASL-only policy … “No-voice” policy already put to unofficial use on campus which leads to positive encouragement … or intimidation … Many outside Gallaudet are turning to mainstreaming opportunities … leading to close-downs of deaf institutions … technological advances also leading to more choices … new generations not wanting to be associated with “campus culture” at Gallaudet … Gallaudet is losing deaf students … only 13 percent of eligible students bother going to Gallaudet, and Fernandes confirmed via e-mail that only 28 percent actually graduate … Fernandes given credit for expanding internship program to improve job placements … tightening academic standards, setting up an honors program and aggressively recruiting … yet numbers continue to decline… Davila making bunch of promises, but many remain skeptical about Gallaudet’s future … Slutzky, known for comparing ASL to Ebonics, thinks Gallaudet will become history … Gallaudet has turned against itself.

Most people know I’m a regular concert goer. I’ve been to about 10 or 12 concerts in the last year and a half. All of them have been in the MD/DC/VA area and I usually don’t have a problem with getting interpreters for the show.

There was a concert that had three bands which I really wanted to see, even though I’ve seen all of them in concert before. This one was different, they were all playing on the same night. The only problem? They weren’t coming to the MD/DC/VA area. So I looked around a little more and saw that they had a couple shows in PA. It was just a matter of picking Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. I picked Philadelphia, an easy two hour drive and a cool city. Perfect for taking a break from work for a couple days, no?

When I called on December 4th, 2006 (yes I still have the receipt), about three months in advance. I spent about 30 minutes on the phone trying to figure out where the seats would be. I tried to explain that I was deaf and I also had limited vision, so it’d be easier if everything was in the same sight line. They said they couldn’t tell me where the seats were because it depended on how the stage was set up. It made sense, but usually they have a general idea of where the seats would be. Once I got the tickets, I called a month before the show and confirmed that they had booked the interpreters. It was taken care of.

Seems easy enough? Apparently that didn’t happen.

Problem 1: There were two interpreters, for four hours. and one’s usually backing up the other. I’m accustomed to events in the MD/DC/VA having three interpreters at a big venue. It just seemed like a lot for the two of them to handle.

Problem 2: The interpreters were not informed of the two “opening” bands, since the headliner was only on the ticket. I knew about all three bands playing since day one. If it were me, i would’ve gone online and checked to see if any other bands were playing with the headliner. But that’s just me. So the interpreters didn’t have the lyrics for the first two bands, and couldn’t really interpret as well as if they had the lyrics with them.

Problem 3: Our seats were right next to the entrance for VIPs, so they kept going in and out, which just obstructed my view of the interpreters since they were standing on the general admissions floor. I was frustrated, the interpreters kept telling people to move, even my friend thought it was annoying.

In between shows, I asked the interpreters if they usually put the interpreted section in the section where we were seated. One happened to be the go-to guy for interpreting concerts, and he told me that he’s never seen us placed in this section before.

We also had a run in with one of the security guy, but that’s a long story in and of itself.

A few days later, I gave the accessible seating at Wachovia Center to find out what happened and to give them some feedback. I asked to speak to the person in charge of putting people where they need to be. I spoke with two different people. One person said the main band (headliner) was responsible for where we were placed. That made no sense.

The other person (who said she was the person responsible for all people that request accessible seating) had a longer statement.

This is where we usually put the interpreted section, so the interpreters are not obstructing the view of other concert goers.

That is totally understandable, I couldn’t debate with that. I explained to her that when I ordered tickets, I wanted to find out what section we’d be seated in because I had limited vision. That way I would have the opportunity to know where the interpreted seats were located. I probably would’ve picked the high-visibility seats and avoided seats that would have been obstructed, like the VIP entrance. And I wanted to find out why the interpreters were not informed about the two other bands. She simply said that the band that’s on the ticket is interpreted and the opening acts usually change (I thought that was a load of crap she just gave me, sorry but true). She also told me to email the public relations department. What good will that do? I thought she was responsible for the accessible seating.

I explained that I probably would not be attending a concert at Wachovia Center any time in the near future due to the poor service that we were given. However, I would like them to be more aware of where they place the interpreted section in the future because of the surroundings. I know a concert is not the easiest place to figure out where to place people without having obstructing the view of other concert goers.

In my personal opinion, I don’t take being able to request interpreters for any concert I go to for granted. I genuinely appreciate having this privilege. But this was the worst experience I had at a concert, I felt like we were little mice to be scoffed at. Did I not pay money to see all three bands? Quite naturally, I expected all of the shows to be interpreted (after all they are paying them to be there for those four hours).

I’ve noticed whenever I go to a venue like Merriweather, the service is impeccable, as well as 9:30 club. Anything bigger, yuck, I just don’t seem to enjoy the show as much. Maybe it’s got to do with the fact that Merriweather and 9:30 club are run by the “little people.” I love those people. Corporations say they care about the “little people…” I might have a few words for them. And I work for one of them.

I attended one of the preview sessions for “Through Deaf Eyes,” which meant that I, along with a number of other people nationwide, saw about half of the entire program before it was broadcast nationally yesterday. Afterwards, I saw someone use the phrase, “Through Hearing Eyes” to describe the film.

Now that I’ve watched the program in its entirety, I’m not sure it should be called “Through Deaf Eyes” or “Through Hearing Eyes;” perhaps “Through Deaf Filmmakers’ Eyes”? “Through Deaf Educators’ Eyes”? “Through Critical Deaf Bloggers/Vloggers’ Eyes”? Given the rapidity of vlogs/blogs/commenters in the blogosphere, this last one is probably true, today and in the next few days.

But I digress.

Overall, I thought it was an enjoyable film, although flawed. I won’t do a blow-by-blow account (although given the notes I took during the show, I probably could give a fairly verbatim outline of the program!); for one thing, most of you who are reading this either have seen it, or will see it, or are in it (extra points to whoever spots ME in there!), or want to be in it, or might be in the sequel (after all, at the very end, just as the credits started, a message flashed on the screen that was comprehended only by those who have taperecorders masquerading as eyes, to the effect that the program didn’t cover the recent protests of 2006. The film was most likely already in post-production by the time any rumblings emerged that all might not be serene at 800 Florida Avenue NE. So look down the road a few years from now for “Through Protester’s Eyes: The Sequel”).

How “Through Deaf Eyes” is interpreted will depend largely on the individual audience; for most of us here at DeafDC, we are deaf, and whether we are culturally deaf or not, the program didn’t really impart anything new overall– most, if not all of us, have lived the experiences presented in the film. For our hearing friends, relatives, or anyone out there tuning in to some or all of the two-hour presentation probably learned something new about the deaf experience, even if it was just a glimpse.

In the end, that’s all this show was, really: a glimpse. The makers of this show had an unenviable task, to cram more than 200 years of historical, cultural, linguistic, medical, social, and psychological information into a relatively concise, informative, and most of all, entertaining package for consumption. This wasn’t a Ken Burns series, spread over several nights with major funding from the MacArthur Foundation, and shiny, glossy PR pieces in magazines, newspapers and on television programs for months beforehand– this was a show that was largely marketed to and heavily advertised within the deaf community itself. Thus it’s my feeling that most likely a good number of us walked away with a sense of, “Ok, that was great… but…”

It’s that “but” that I think will cause the most buzz so far. I’m already seeing it happen on a couple of blogs, where the reaction ranges from “what a nice show, they did a great job!” to “too much emphasis on non-culturally deaf people! Clarke School, blah blah blah, cochlear implants, blah blah blah…” But you know what? That’s part of the problem here. The program wasn’t long enough to do justice to any one segment of our community; it wasn’t long enough to fully explore the complexities of deaf history; and it certainly isn’t intended to satisfy everyone. I think quite a few people involved with the making of this program (and I sense quite a few people in the audience wanted it this way) tried to encompass every element of deafness and deaf history, and to have the film be everything to everyone. There was no one position staked out, there was no clarity when it came to educational viewpoints or communication methods. In one sense, this was a flaw; within such a limited time, editing, narrative, and continuity are all-important, and I felt the film didn’t live up to this goal. But on the other hand, the film did try to show the broad range of deaf experience, and I think it did, whether it was featuring David James, the deHahns, or the Garretsons. From the oral deaf to the signing deaf to the mainstreamed deaf, the program portrayed the community as a diverse one, which it is. I thought this was good, because it showed that deaf people, whether within the deaf community itself or within society at large, are normal, that they have a range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives.

Now that I’ve had some time to reflect, I’d say the major flaw of the film for me was the fact that the people chosen to speak were a mixture of academics, from Carolyn McCaskill to Ben Bahan to Brian Greenwald; a number of showbiz folks, from Marlee Matlin to CJ Jones to Bernard Bragg; and a representative sprinkling of past and present educators, from James Tucker to Robert Panara to Kevin Nolan. The rare exceptions to this were Robert Weitbrecht (a physicist) and John Taylor (an engineer). To the casual viewer, it would seem the deaf community is populated by academics, educators, and artistic types, from actors to filmmakers. Following this logic, every deaf person I meet from now on is going to be employed in academia, education or the entertainment industry. But of course, that’s not true. The one moment where we glimpse a number of deaf people not in highly educated or trained occupations is when the film takes us to a church for the deaf, and we are introduced to a couple parishioners.

There was also a heavy emphasis on short clips, outtakes, and films made by deaf filmmakers. I wasn’t sure at times if I was watching a program on deaf history and culture, or a film festival composed entirely of submissions from deaf directors and cinematographers. I suppose in the wake of last night’s showing, it’s probably a good time to be an owner of Mosdeux, or a similar film company. I think the producers of “Through Deaf Eyes’ should be commended for recognizing and showcasing deaf film, but I probably would have pared the number of offerings a bit, and showed one or two films, not four, five, or six.

While these and other shortcomings were present, I thought overall “Through Deaf Eyes” accomplished quite a bit. The one objective I thought succeeded for both deaf and hearing audiences alike was the demonstration, whether through the historical/cultural narratives of Douglas Baynton, John VanCleve, and John Schuchman, or the anecdotes of the Gannons and Garretsons, that you cannot separate deaf history from American history. The overarching themes of religion, nativism, civil rights, and education are all parts of the American story. I think too often people see American history and don’t know anything about Deaf history, or they know quite a bit about Deaf history, but fail to see the connections to the bigger picture. Whether it’s AG Bell and his involvement with education, eugenics, and the 19th century backlash against immigration (which probably will come as a big surprise for hearing viewers who only know Bell as the father of the telephone), or Lindbergh taking people on “deaf rides,” or the segregation and linguistic differences between blacks and whites (whether the language is English or ASL), Deaf history is American history, and vice versa.

The other interesting aspect of last night’s show was the fact that in the history of our community, we have always had to work harder to try to achieve parity with the hearing world. This determination for equal access has led, I think, to deafness actually at times drawing parallel to, or ahead of the curve, in the realm of technology. While we had to bear the injustices of the barrier created by telephones, the modification of the old Western Union teletypes and development of the TTY presaged (in my opinion) the cultural shift of the last ten years; once it was only deaf people typing to each other over distances and using abbreviated terms. Now it’s everyone using e-mail, IM, and texting. Closed-captions were developed as a means to provide access for deaf audiences, and where films are concerned, segregated deaf audiences within certain dates and times of the weeks, all for the opportunity to watch the latest blockbuster. But if you walk into the average bar nowadays, chances are at least one TV will have the captions on, and hearing people will use it, to be able to comprehend and follow the programs despite the noisy environment of their local watering hole. Even with videophones, hearing people are now using programs such as Skype; it won’t be long now, I think, before everyone’s using a videophone or its equivalent.
Whether we speak English, ASL, PSE, Spanish, French, Greek, Cantonese, Hmong, Swahili, Bantu, Quechua, or another language, in the end, it’s all about being a human being. Daniel Fava’s parents, as well as Patrick deHahn’s parents, acknowledge as much– regardless of technology, language, and other factors, Fava and deHahn will always be deaf, and that is who they are. To try to change that is to change them as people. What’s far more important is the sum of who they are, and their abilities, not whether they can hear or not. To me, that was the best message from “Through Deaf Eyes.”
As CJ Jones sums it up at the close of the program, it’s knowledge that counts, not whether you can hear or speak. His statement brought to my mind the well-known statement by Victor Hugo to Ferdinand Berthier: “What matters deafness of the ear, when the mind hears. The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind.”

American Sign Language is a fuggly language.

Yes, you read me right.

It is not beautiful. It is not poetical. It is not transdescental. It does not sweep its acolytes into waves of ectasy.

Let me illustrate for you (using painterly strokes of the beautiful language otherwise known as English) my case:

Last December, I’m sitting in some hotel conference room at the Modern Language Association Conference listening, via ASL terp, to a quite enlightening panel on Disability Studies and Contingent Labor. Enlightening, yes, but exciting, no. So the entire time I’m listening, I’m also having this internal monologue about realizing how vastly different from Disability studies Deaf studies really is, and I really have almost no common academic ground with these people.

Anyway, the Q and A session begins, and a woman stands up and launches into this impassionated speech about how society is invested in “pair bonding” and sees every person as part of a couple; if you’re single, you’re, unfortunately, only half. She is intelligent and using words I don’t know; I’m sufficiently impressed with her.

Until she pauses and enthuses, “Oh, I just want to take a moment and really thank the sign language interpreters — they’re so wonderful! I’ve been watching what they do and they’re really skilled and what they do is beautiful and I couldn’t do it, so let’s all clap for the interpreters!”

The entire room, full of disability scholars, bursts into applause. I don’t. She goes back to her little commentary, and I ignore the rest of it, rolling my eyes along with the terps, who tell me later that this happens to them all the time.

Ugh. Gag me with a spoon.

Yes, let’s give the terps all the credit they’re due; they have a tough job, but they do it to earn a paycheck. They are not saints, nor are they miracle workers. They are not missionaries sent to communicate with the unreachable masses. They are skilled professionals serving in a field always looking for qualified recruits.

The exoticness of an unknown language is not an unknown thing. It is, after all, what turned Gerard Depardieu into a reluctant sex symbol once he started acting in English-speaking movies. Though, to me, he looks like a funny guy with a big nose who needs a haircut, I keep running across comments from American women that translate into swoons upon hearing him open his mouth.

Similarly, people who say ASL is broken English are guilty of interpreting ASL through their limited framework of English knowledge, just the same way we’re guilty of class/ethnic misunderstanding when we say Spanish has truncated grammar just because speakers may put the adjective after the noun.

But I say “ugh” not because people who call ASL beautiful are guilty of misunderstanding the overall elan of the language; but because when they say “ASL is such a beautiful language,” I cannot help but ascribe to them some (often condescending) variant of the following description:

Can’t learn it for whatever reason, so peppers us ASL-speakers with compliments so we know they mean well.

So of course I’m a bit sensitive when I read that Michael Chorost started his recent presentation at Gallaudet in the following manner:

“Open, in sign: ‘My name is Mike Chorost. Thank you for inviting me to Gallaudet.’

I wish I could continue in sign, because it’s such a beautiful language. My thanks to the interpreters and captioners for enabling everyone here to understand me.”

Stop giving ASL such a Narcissus complex. Next thing you know, it’ll have an eating disorder and die, and we’ll all blame the the world we live in for pressuring it into an unrealistic ideal of beauty.

Yes, sure, ASL is beautiful when rendered so by our community’s equivalent of Robert Frost or Nikki Giovanni. It is also butt-ugly when rendered so by our community’s equivalent of Howard Stern or Sacha Baron Cohen.

ASL is used when instructing a two-year-old in proper toilet paper application, differentiating between post-colonialism and anti-colonialism, and when asking directions or about weekend plans. Simply put, to the daily user, ASL is not an artistic endeavor: it is simply language — ours.

This morning, Michael Chorost, the author of Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human, gave a presentation at Gallaudet University suggesting that the deaf community is undergoing a slow decline because within 30-40 years there will be a reduction in “large-scale causes of profound deafness”. He thinks that Gallaudet, known for its strong values in open communication and community ties, can remedy this problem by taking the lead in finding new and innovative ways to communicate. Michael’s presentation examined more than the current state of affairs at Gallaudet or even the short-term future. He looked farther into the future.

Michael described how the deaf community is already changing with the presence of more students with Cochlear Implants on Gallaudet campus. Even the National Association of the Deaf, who once used “cultural genocide” to describe the initial onset of Cochlear Implant usage, has since softened its position. Such changes in attitudes and positions by deaf leaders have sparked productive dialogue on various issues in the deaf and hard of hearing community, according to Michael.

Cochlear Implants are on the rise. Michael cited a study in Australia that found 45% of deaf babies are implanted and believes that a majority of deaf babies born to hearing parents in the United States are receiving implants. He thinks that most of those implanted with CIs in the U.S. come from white, affluent families and “live entirely in the hearing world.” On the other hand, minorities would make up a large part of the “signing deaf,” thus making the signing community even smaller, more diverse, and especially economically disadvantaged. This could divide the deaf community into “haves” and “have nots.”

He proposed a different course for the future of Gallaudet, one which will focus on new ways for everyone to hear using technology, rather than focusing solely on deafness. He envisions hearing people interested in manipulating their hearing through Cochlear Implant-like devices in the future, so they can tune out sounds such as a person’s snoring or a jackhammer in the vicinity. “Imagine, 30 years from now, a cochlear implant for biologically hearing people. It would be seen as an enormous benefit by the hearing world,” Michael marveled.

In any case, he had a proposition for Gallaudet University and the deaf community: “Who better than the deaf community to actively seize the lead in developing communications technologies that interact directly with the nervous system? And to experiment with new social forms to explore their uses? We already have one foot — more than one foot — in that world.” Michael presumes that the deaf community is already at the cutting edge of neurotechnology through CIs, so they can take the lead in this field.

“At the moment, Gallaudet thinks of itself as a liberal arts university for the deaf…I believe that perspective will eventually lead to its decline. But if Gallaudet thought about itself as a place where community is explored, rather than just signing deaf community, it could build a unique niche among American universities that would ensure that it lasts all but forever.” He offered a comparable instance of this type of occurrence: Harvard University was founded in 1636 to train clergymen but has since evolved to become the prestigious, secular University it is today.

Finally, Michael offers his vision of Gallaudet in 50 years:

It could be a campus populated by people with unaltered, altered, and enhanced bodies of all kinds, with the common goal of exploring new ways of experiencing the world, new ways of communicating with each other, and new ways of sustaining communities that meet the primal human needs of being understood, being accepted, and being valued. Only a small percentage of the students would be unable to hear, and that would be either by choice or by some as yet untreatable condition. ASL might have a similar status on campus as Latin does at Catholic universities today: a source of connection to the community’s heritage, but not necessarily the sole language of daily use. The campus language might well be a rich combination of spoken English and ASL signs.

Note: The transcript of Michael Chorost’s presentation was posted on his website prior to the presentation.

This morning I was thrilled to learned about a website called Project readOn, a website managed by Rhino Moon Captioning, that will caption videos and podcasts from anywhere on the Internet. We’ve all seen debates on how we can make the web more accessible through advocacy but in the meantime, the deaf community falls behind further and further each day as thousands of new videos are added to the Internet.

While major corporations and major network televisions have no excuse for not captioning corporate web videos or online television shows such as “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” on their websites, there are millions of videos on the Internet where regular people either do not have the time or resources to caption their videos. That’s where Project readOn comes in. They’re willing to caption any video that you submit to them, for free! In light of the recent debates on captioning in the deaf blogosphere, I also wonder if this company can also caption ASL vlogs.

I’m impressed by the professional appearance of the website, and the captions are relatively easy to use. When you click on a web video, you will be taken to the website where the video is located and a pop-up will appear above the video with the captions on it. There are some timing issues that they need to resolve, sometimes the captions will begin before the video starts or an advertisement will disrupt the timing of the captions. They will soon add captions for multiple languages which will definitely expand their customer base.

At present, they only offer a limited amount of choices for viewing. The web videos that are currently captioned by Project readOn range from politics, (such as banned President Bush interview with a news station, an interview with President Clinton, and an interview with Barak Obama), to commercials (including the Super Bowl Blockbuster advertisement with the Guinea Pig “clicking” on the mouse and several Bud Light commercials), clips from TV programs (Saturday Night Live), celebrity gossip (an interview with Jennifer Aniston about her exes), cartoons (Aqua Teen Hunger Force, the same cartoon that shut down Boston a few months ago due to LED displays placed around the city), football (an interview with Tiki Barber about life after football), and even a popular YouTube video about a guy describing how his identity was stolen by a person in France just to woo a girl he met online.

This is the Project readOn mission statement:

Our mission is to be at the forefront of the online video revolution by empowering people in the deaf and hard of hearing, and foreign language communities. Gain access to the content that YOU want to enjoy whenever and wherever YOU want. We have three key tenets to our mission. One, Empowerment: We believe that the captioning model today is essentially broken because the consumers of the product have no meaningful involvement in the process. We believe the community should choose what they want captioned, not the other way around. Today people who want captions have to lobby and petition to get captions on the content that they want to enjoy. With Project readOn that model is completely reversed. Now you have the power to not only advocate but to decide exactly what you want captioned and get it! Two, Community: We are real people doing real work watching, transcribing, and captioning online video content at the highest quality levels. We don’t require users to pay to view our caption player. Our website is designed for you to interact, think about, request, discuss and most importantly view the content you want to see captioned. We rely on your generous support in the form of sponsorships to be able to pay for our ability to do this. It’s that simple. Three, Technology: We have developed a caption player that takes full advantage of browser technology and sits completely outside of the content itself instead of the traditional format of laying captions over content. This allows us to be completely universal in our application of captions. We can caption anything anywhere on the internet without touching it and without encoding or player issues. This powerful solution also protects the creative integrity of the content itself, never blocking out the viewable space. Please let us know about your experience here and give us the feedback we need in order to provide you with the content that most interests you. At this point we are wide open. This service is for you and will be driven by your needs. Tell us what interests you and we will head that direction.

If you’re like me, your frustration grew exponentially over the last several years as you fruitlessly searched for online videos that were captioned. Not many companies or individuals were willing to step up to the plate and provide a widely needed service – but now that we have one with Project readOn, we all need to show our our unified support for this marvelous initiative. It is also rare to see a captioning company give back to the deaf and hard of hearing community, so I am grateful to Rhino Moon Captioning for making this service possible. I hope that they live up to our expectations.

My main concern is that the Project readOn may be understaffed to handle the tremendous amount of requests that will likely pour in during the next few months (from people like me). For this reason, I strongly urge all captioners, or people with the ability and willingness to caption web videos, who want to help our community gain equal access to web videos to contact Project readOn and offer their assistance (although I do not know if this company will accept help).

And the rest of us can submit our favorite videos or videos that we feel should be captioned to expand on the variety of Project readOn’s current offerings. Additionally, if you can, blog about Project readOn or tell your friends about it!

By Hilary Franklin

Suicide.

One death every 16 minutes in the U.S.
Swallowing a bottle of pills.
Mixing drugs with alcohol.
Driving a car into a tree.

One attempt approximately every minute.
Hanging yourself from the ceiling.
Putting a gun to your head.
Cutting wrists with razors.

More Americans have depression than coronary heart disease, cancer, and AIDS combined.

Since I was a teenager, I have been confronted with suicide every so often. When I was in middle school, I learned that a friend had attempted suicide — not once, but several times — already. In high school, we were thrown for a loop after learning that the father of two students hung himself. During my freshman year of college, I participated in a depression/suicide intervention. For those reasons, as well as others, suicide has been a topic of interest for me. With suicide in the news recently, I’ve been contemplating this issue again.

By now, the news of an apparent suicide of a deaf man has spread throughout the deaf community. It was picked up by deaf bloggers who spread the word further. I’m going to refrain from speaking about that tragedy because it is and should remain personal and private, and not the focus of this blog.

Suicide in general is an extremely difficult topic to talk about, and there is very little public education regarding depression and suicide risks. It seems people only talk about it when it’s in the news. Rather than talk about the personal tragedies of people who have completed suicide and what their families must be dealing with, I’m going to provide information about suicide and suicide risks.

I’ve been lucky — I have not personally lost anyone close to me to suicide. Looking at the national statistics, that’s actually amazing. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institute of Mental Health report that suicide is the third leading cause of death among people ages 15–24. In 2004, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the U.S. Every year, more than 30,000 people in the U.S. die from suicide. And, for every death, there are approximately 8 to 25 attempts. You do the math.

Depression and Stigma

In this era of mass media, instant communication, email alerts, and v/blogging, personal and private tragedies are now “mainstream” news. Even with depression and suicide making national headlines (and the cover of the 2/26/2007 issue of Newsweek), discussing the topic of mental health is still taboo in American culture. No one likes talking about the idea of killing oneself.

Though more well-known figures are coming out as people who deal with depression and/or bipolar disorder (broadcaster Jane Pauley, actor Stephen Fry, former Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, etc.), that conversation has yet to make it into our daily lives. Congressional acts have required mental health parity (requiring insurance companies to cover mental health costs at the same rate as “general” health care), making mental health maintenance more affordable; however, many people still don’t seek the help they need.

The stigma of depression and mental disorders/illnesses has a lot to do with it. For so long, depression was seen as a weakness, a failing, rather than a physical health problem that should be treated appropriately with therapy and/or medication. Recent television commercials have promoted the perspective of depression as hurting people physically, not just mentally and emotionally. And it’s true — depression can suppress the immune system, induce lethargy, and leave people feeling, well…sick and tired.

Often, though, it’s not until people are sick and tired of being sick and tired that they finally do something. And that can take weeks or even months. Imagine waking up exhausted, having no energy to get out of bed, to take a shower, much less fix yourself breakfast. It just seems easier to call in sick, lay on the couch, watch TV, and order pizza.

Understanding Suicide and Preventing Suicide

One of the best books about suicide is Night Falls Fast, by Kay Redfield Jamison. Jamison is a professor of clinical psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and has bipolar disorder. While her book is not ground-breaking, it’s interesting, one of the easiest to read, and intersperses true stories with statistics, facts, and information about the chemical makeup of depression. She also tries to decipher what leads people to attempt suicide. It also covers how completed suicides affect families and friends.

In terms of the act of killing oneself, suicidal behavior is actually rarely predictable. While some suicides are planned out in advance, many are actually impulsive acts. The best thing you can do is ask someone you’re worried about. “Are you feeling suicidal?” If the answer is yes, don’t leave that person alone. Be a friend. Be aware of the major risk factors that can lead to suicidal thoughts and acts. Keep in mind this is a short list, and not comprehensive.

Some risk factors (NIMH):

• Depression, other mental disorders, and substance abuse
• Prior suicide attempt
• Family history of mental disorder(s) or substance abuse
• Family history of suicide
• Family violence, including abuse (physical and/or sexual)
• The availability of firearms in the home
• The availability of large quantities of medication that can lead to a lethal overdose
• Stressful life events, in combination with other risk factors, such as mental disorders
• Feelings of low self-worth (low self-esteem)

If you or someone you know admits to being suicidal or attempts suicide, the best thing to do is get professional help immediately. There is no reason for guilt or shame. The more we talk about mental health, the more we can do to help eradicate the stigma that depression and other mental illnesses are signs of failings or weaknesses. It takes a lot of courage to seek help instead of “going at it alone.”

Depression and Suicide Prevention – Accessible to the Deaf Community?

Despite the power of mass media, there are still very few national/state organizations and associations that are devoted to suicide prevention, and even fewer that take into consideration the needs of the deaf community. Neither the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention nor the National Institute of Mental Health have TTY numbers or information pertaining to the communication needs of deaf individuals. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline has a toll-free 800 number, but no TTY number.

However, is it sufficient to simply provide a TTY number? I know I don’t use TTYs anymore – I use text relay via instant messenger both on the computer and on my Sidekick™. It might be awkward having a suicide intervention conversation via relay, though. Can you imagine the lag time?

Then there’s the issue of videophones: It would be great if suicide hotlines had videophones for direct access, but would the idea of a face-to-face encounter prevent people from calling in? It’s one thing to talk to an anonymous voice on the other end of the line; it’s another to look at someone in the face and say “I’m thinking about killing myself.”

How can we, as a deaf community, promote mental health without worrying about identities being revealed? Mental health counselors are required to maintain confidentiality, but the information-sharing (aka “gossiping”) nature of our small community might play a factor in whether someone goes to a deaf therapist versus a hearing therapist. And then there’s the communication issue and making the decision whether to work with a hearing therapist directly or have an interpreter present.

A Google search for “suicide prevention” and “deafness” turned up very little information. An MSSD website was essentially a page of some Internet resources. A couple of research articles here and there. Some state organizations (both government and community) provided TTY numbers, but no other means of access. After searching online, I turned to friends in the field of psychology and social work for help in finding local services and programs that serve our community (special thanks go to a certain third-year graduate student in clinical psychology!).

• The Mental Health Center at Gallaudet is open to the public, not just to Gallaudet students, staff and faculty.
• In Frederick and Bethesda, MD, the Alternative Solutions Center is also geared toward the deaf and hard-of-hearing population.

While these two centers serve the needs of the deaf and hard of hearing constituency here in the greater DC metro area, the most current comprehensive, national resource for finding providers of mental health services seems to be the 2003 references on Gallaudet’s InfotoGo website and the Deaf Mental Health and Substance Abuse Resources at the Rochester Institute of Technology Online Library.
What now?

Self-education is the best tool in your toolbox. Preventing suicides isn’t just about removing harmful objects. It’s about promoting mental health, understanding what triggers you have, how to eliminate causes of those triggers, etc. Every person is different — people attempt suicide for different reasons. No two people have identical triggers for depression, mood swings, and suicidal thoughts. It can be something as simple as lack of self-worth and fear of failure or something as complicated having chemical triggers for mood swings.

Be yourself. Know who you are and how to be healthy — not just physically, but mentally. One or two bad days does not a depression make; if those one or two bad days stretch out to a couple weeks, it’s time to talk to someone.

A note to anyone out there who’s struggling: If you don’t have a psychiatrist or therapist, find one. If you don’t like your doctor, find another one. If you don’t like your therapist, find another one. If you don’t like your medication(s), talk to your doctor. Don’t give up. There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Recommended Resources

• National Association for the Mentally Ill
• National Institute of Mental Health
• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
• Mental Help.net
• Psych Education
• Suicide Awareness Voices of Education

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255)

Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
—Phil Donahue

Hilary Franklin is a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill and fervently hopes her beloved Tar Heels will reclaim the championship. By day she teaches ASL and Cued Speech; by night, she dreams. And writes. And watches television. She is also open about her status as a person who deals with manic depression.