Next week is the biennial National Association of the Deaf conference in Palm Springs, California. I was a NAD member for two years until my tight wallet at the time of the membership renewal had me picking to pay my utility bills over the NAD membership — I’ll definitely renew my membership soon!
One link on the NAD website caught my attention today — the candidates for election on the NAD Board at the upcoming conference. There are currently four officer positions open (president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer), as well as regional board positions in Regions I, II, III, IV.
After looking at each of the biographies and websites of the candidates, I am impressed at the quality of several of the candidates, but also disappointed.
First, we have a good group of Deaf leaders who are passionate for betterment of the Deaf community. I know seven of the eleven candidates, either through my Gallaudet years, the Deaf community, or by name. My only concern is diversity. The NAD Fulton III committee, created after the 2004 NAD conference in Kansas City, was supposed to address membership and representation. I don’t see that anywhere in the candidate pool.
There are only two people of color in the pool — one is Hispanic, and the other, from reading her website, appears to be Middle Eastern. I’m not even positive on either ethnic backgrounds, but it tells me that NAD membership still does not target the minority groups in the Deaf community. Where are the African American candidates? I can think of a few Deaf individuals who are African American and can and should run for a Board position.
One thing I will note is that three of the candidates are young — in their early 30’s or younger. That’s good to see young Deaf leaders getting involved, but I think we need more.
Also, there is only one person running for the president of NAD — Bobbie Beth Scoggins. I know her from her work with the USA Deaf Sports Federation, and believe she is a strong candidate for the position. However, where are the other candidates for the presidency? You are talking about the longest-running organization in the United States that serves Deaf and hard of hearing people, and only one person is running for the president?
Only one person is running for the vice president and treasurer positions.
There is one person running for the board seats for regions I, III, and IV.
Trudy Suggs, in her article on i711, talked about the “not me” syndrome, where someone will turn down the opportunity to represent their organization or even volunteer at something. Times are changing and things aren’t the same as the era where people mingled at Deaf clubs. Deaf people aren’t just interested in activism or improving the lives of their fellow comrades.
It’s time for Deaf and hard-of-hearing people to get off their laurels, get involved in the Deaf community through their state associations, Jr. NAD, and even NAD. Just a few weeks ago, the Maryland Association of the Deaf (MDAD) had their annual symposium at the Frederick public library (kudos to Julie Bourne and Matt Lockhart and others for the event). My wife and I attended for a short time, and we were dismayed to count on one hand (the hearing way) the number of young Deaf adults who attended. The majority of attendants were people in their forties and fifties. Not that I’m saying that’s bad — I welcome words of wisdom and insight from these people, but we as younger Deaf people, need to step up.
The Fulton III Committee’s recommendations state clear goals how to improve NAD by the year 2020 — and NAD needs strong leadership on its Board, as well as the membership of the community through NAD general membership and the state associations to ensure the success of the Fulton III goals.
It’s time to step up to bat and hit a triple to start the rally here. Who wants to start?
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
59 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I see. Must be involved in the Deaf commmunity but not the “d”eaf community? Another one of those “D”eafhood thing?
Just asking.
I think that with the stroke of one comment, mcconnell was able to hit the nail right on its head. For NAD to prosper, it will need to embrace the little d or at least, embrace and recognize the little d subset of our community. To do otherwise would do more harm than good.
I’ll have more to say on this subject soon.
Deaf people most likely to join NAD and deaf people tend to join AG Bell or Self Help for Hard of Hearing People. Would it be great if we can combine them together and build a strong coalition of D/deaf rights for America?
“Culture” thing may get into the way because most have to answer the “are you or not” question. This notion creates divisions.
I suggest people who wish to change the direction of the NAD, should run for it.
As it happens, I think there should be a lot more organizations representing wider interests of various deaf groups, like in the UK, working under the head of a more general flaghead group, call it “Federation of Deaf Americans” or something. It’s ridiculous to think that individual groups would have the same political interests all the time, but it’s great to have a variety which would come together for common causes.
er, “run for it” meaning “run for NAD office.” Not “run away.” Sometimes idioms still don’t QUITE pass muster…
And definitely not a 5 or 10K race? ;-) You’re right, idioms not *always* best to use, heh…
The little ‘d’ is not a subset. In fact, it is a large majority. 900,000 vs. the rest of the 34,000,000 deaf, hard of hearing, or whatever…
Putting that into perspective, that really does say a lot.
Excellent point!
Can you believe how powerful 900,000 Deaf people are? American Sign Language are becoming accepted at educational insitutions and laws are passed to receive communication accomodations at local, state, federal goverment agencies also public houses and events.
To me that is powerful.
very excellent point.
now imagine that 900,000 didn’t exclude the other 34 million… but found ways to constructively include them in their projects.
Although I believe the 900,000 number is the lcd here - technically ASL users comprise approx 2% ampop, which would translate to ~6 million. Most deaf children today are immigrants; much deafness is caught at birth, and the USA has a 97% infant implantation rate, if I remember correctly. (Australia is higher at 99%.) And of course not all ASL users wish to be or are identified as members of the Deaf community.
97% implantation rate? You got to be kidding me?
There seems to be an underlying question: Who is NAD’s audience? In a general sense, who are the NAD targeting? I cannot answer the question with accuracy. However, it pragmatically seems that NAD is targeting students from a deaf residential institutions and/or deaf students at Gallaudet University, NTID, or CSUN.
mcconnell touches this, as one could wonder if NAD is an exclusive organization limited to “D”eaf? This makes me wonder if “d”eaf or “D”eaf students in mainsteam secondary and higher education are not “part” of NAD’s vision?
If they are part of NAD’s vision, why are they not targeting them as well? I can assure you that majority “d”eaf or “D”eaf students at institutions other than one I mentioned above probably did not even know about conference next week. Let alone, the existence of NAD as “longest-running organization in the United States that serves Deaf and hard of hearing people”.
There is lot to say about NAD’s publicity which probably explains why there are not many youngsters involved with business of NAD.
I see a lot of RIT/NTID leaders are taking up the opportunity to lead the D/deaf nation. As NAD was founded by Gallaudet graduates and I am wondering has Gallaudet leaders focusing on something else besides NAD?
I am disaapointed to see many excellent D/deaf leaders in the USA is not running for executive positions at NAD. I am wondering what had happened?
Stephen,
Not to mention Mark Apodaca jumping ship. It’s uncharacteristic of him to be doing that unless he saw something ahead in NAD’s future that’ll cause them to looking for a scapegoat.
I would like to share the NAD’s mission statement …
Mission Statement
The mission of the National Association of the Deaf is to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States of America.
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....p;b=261467
NAD does not emphasize d/Deaf at all, neither do I! Besides, quite many of NAD’s past presidents were late deafened!
If you prefer to haggle over the issues of d/Deaf, it’s your choice but the members of NAD and all other organizations would not stop for you.
NAD has had done so MUCH for deaf and hard of hearing people.
Thank you
(getting off the soap box)
True. NAD has done many wonderful things. Yet, deep in their hearts believe that deafness is irreversible. I believe that many forms of deafness will be reversible someday. Probably much sooner rather than later with the way biotechnology has been advancing with stem cells.
Whose hearts are we talking about?
Who else? NAD.
McConnell wrote:
“Yet, deep in their [NAD members] hearts believe that deafness is irreversible.”
If what you claim is true, are you aware that some NAD members are CIers and many of them are wearing hearing aids?
Speaking on Deep Background, Patricia Raswant whispered:
McConnell wrote:
“Yet, deep in their [NAD members] hearts believe that deafness is irreversible.”
If what you claim is true, are you aware that some NAD members are CIers and many of them are wearing hearing aids?
—————–
As far as I know, cochlear implants and hearing aids do not reverse deafness. Was there some kind of invention made in the last 24 hours that I did not know about? Please edify me with your wisdom, Patricia!
Correct. It is not reversible today. But in the future, it will be.
Yes, Duck, I am aware of the people of NAD.
Flyingduck, McConnell claimed that in the future deafness would be reversible.
McConnell believes that the NAD members would be against the reversible of deafness. Well, his claim is moot because those who opted for cochlear implants and hearing aids most likely would go for microbiology in reversing their deafness.
Flyingduck, did I edify and clarify?
Actually, that’s incorrect, Patricia. For one to believe that deafness cannot be reversed does not mean the person would be, per se, against reversing deafness. The two don’t mesh. It just mean that the person does not believe it can be reversed and there wouldn’t be any arguments from the person about being against reversing deafness.
NAD made the statement “Deafness is irreversible” in their 2000 CI position paper. True, it’s irreversible now. However, they made no indication about the future possibilities on the prospect that some or all forms of deafness could be reversed someday. I can make all kinds of inference from their silence on that part when the day do come that deafness can be cured outright.
Let me clarify your two claims, McConnell…
1. In your belief that in the FUTURE the members of NAD would reject the potential that deafness is reversible.
2. You agree with the NAD’s statement that CI does not cure deafness.
Did I get your two claims?
1. No. NAD, to my knowledge so far, has not address the issue when the time comes that deafness would be cured. But their silence on that subject is interesting.
2. Correct.
If I remember correctly, NAD do accept last minute candidate to race for election unless they changed this year. That’s what happened 4 years ago. (Kennedy vs. Bridges)
That’s correct. Nominations can be made and accepted on site.
I understand where Mcconnell is coming from. There has been a new movement going on with the Deafhood book. A group of Deafhood people in California has already influenced California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California Association of the Deaf, and DCARA (www.dcara.org) to establish their new organization/school identity based on the Deafhood book. The group is mostly Deaf people from Deaf families with militant reputations who think they know what is the best for the rest of us. They are vocally against oralism and CIs. This group is causing resistance by Deaf people who do not feel accepted by this group. Several parents wont send their children to CSDF, many people stopped going to DCARA for services and events, and people are disappointed in CAD’s direction. In fact some Deaf leaders told me that they are not running for NAD offices because they are not confident about being Deaf enough or Deafcentric enough. This Deafhood movement has created confusion. There will be four Deafhood workshops at the NAD conference this summer, People are not sure how to feel about NAD with this Deafhood buzz going on. Yes, sure, sure, sure, it is about process. Process is a guise. I just talk with people outside of the Deafhood movement group in California. They are turned off by the new politics because of the treatment they received by the Deafhood leaders, and they are not interested going to NAD. This concerns me greatly. I suggest that we drop the Big D and little d labels. We all should be either Big D or just plain old fashioned little d to be on equal footing as wonderful individuals in the deaf community with diverse experience and views. Once we get past the political correctness crap and just focus on working together, respecting each other, and moving forward to support the purpose of National Association of the Deaf, that is to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States of America.
I am realizing that Deafhood is just a fad and plea for those who have leadership skills to reconsider attending NAD. If we do not go to NAD because of Deafhood crap, then NAD identity will become about Deafhood. We need to speak out because NAD’s purpose is about our civil rights.
I humbly change my name to just good old plain deaf fellow
Exactly. As I have repeatedly said in GallyNet-L is that Deaf people have gotten into trouble using the big “D” which has its own definition and, of course, became an exclusionary term away from the rest of the deaf crowd. Now “d”eaf means anybody who is deaf even those who are culturally Deaf. The word “d”eaf is inclusionary, while “D”eaf is exclusionary. I have no problem for those who are culturally Deaf. Just that I don’t participate in “Deaf culture”. I’m just a deaf/hh person who knows fluent sign language and can hear quite well and will interact with Deaf people when I can.
Not too long after the protest the protesters started with this “Unity for Gallaudet” thing, and soon afterwards we started seeing “Deafhood” getting thrown around for good measure. To me, that was a sign that “Unity for Galluadet” was in big trouble because there are many Deaf people who still do not accept other deaf people for who they are, how they were raised and the preferred mode of communication. It certainly didn’t help when Deaf people wanted to ban cell phones in any “deaf dominated places”, ban using voice for talking and institute an ASL-only mode of communication. That’s not unity. That’s dis-unity. That’s a sure fire, mask blowing sign that those people have not accepted “Deafhood” or other deaf people for who they are. Which is why I have said throughout the protest and now, “Unity for whom?”
I believe in unity for myself because I’ve practiced that for years and years and years, even while at Gallaudet and afterwards. It didn’t matter if the deaf/hh person before preferred to talk, signed in SEE2/SEE, Oral, or use ASL. And I certainly didn’t lose patience with a deaf/hh person who is learning how to sign either. But when I see a group of Deaf people espousing or wearing “unity” t-shirts when I know that some of their past actions, attitudes and Deaf militancy style against those who are deaf and different then that cast a big cloud of suspicion and doubts about their sincerity. Also, knowing the history of Gallaudet helps when it comes to Deaf students who wanted their own little Deaf mecca where every Deaf person would bow towards Gallaudet rather than a mecca for deaf and hh students to come and feel completely comfortable and accepted in that environment. Not always the case.
Why the workshops on “Deafhood” (a PC term I hate that should be out of the picture because it will scare other deaf people away)? What this should be about is on accepting other deaf people for who and what they are and their mode of communication preferrence? It shouldn’t be a concept at all. It is plain old common sense. It’s total acceptance. And yet Deaf people need to go to workshop to learn about this? Gallaudet University must be in bigger trouble than I thought when it comes to unity.
I don’t need “Deafhood” to explain my actions, my beliefs, my process on learning about myself and how I relate myself to other deaf, hh, and hearing people. If Deaf people are going to workshops on “Deafhood” to learn about this discovery process, self-identity and acceptance of others, then surely that’s a sign that Gallaudet University and other “deaf dominated places” are/were in a lot bigger trouble when it comes to Deaf people accepting deaf people.
Acceptance should’ve taken place a long, long time ago. The practice of non-acceptance of deaf people will take a long, long time to reverse that because Deaf people have been touting the word “D”eaf for so long, even those who claim to be for “Deafhood” still write in the context of “D”eaf (exclusionary) and not “d”eaf to include everybody (deaf/hh/Deaf). Here’s one example of what Chris Kaftan wrote:
“First, we have a good group of Deaf leaders who are passionate for betterment of the Deaf community. I know seven of the eleven candidates, either through my Gallaudet years, the Deaf community, or by name.”
Lot’s of “D”s but no “d” when it comes to the betterment of all deaf/hh/Deaf communities. Which is why on what I wrote in my first response to this blog article.
Yes, it’s a bigger problem than most Deaf people care to admit when it comes to acceptance. It is about everybody (deaf/hh/Deaf) and not just about Deaf leaders, Deaf community and Deaf people. Chris has it backward. We already know that the big “D” means “culturally deaf people.” Guess what? Not everybody who is deaf is a culturally deaf person or see themselves as such. That’s the majority population among deaf people. Better get in tune with the rest of the 30 million deaf/hh people while there are some 900,000 Deaf people who claim to say they support “Deafhood”.
Simple. It’s not “Deafhood”. It’s about total acceptance. Period.
Ya going to NAD, Capital D? Since you’re issuing this plea, put your money where your hands are.
It wouldn’t just be my hands, it’d be by my voice to speak as well, preferably so in any events.
Oh, btw, anonymous names do not do justice here.
And yet, I’ll be busy in the upcoming weeks with all these forest fires out west. All work and no play.
Thank you for your input, McConnell. My question was directed to Capital D, however. And when I made the comment about “hands,” I was referring to typing the plea, not signing.
Hello Curious and McConnell,
I am going to NAD to invest my time in supporting several of the candidates. I cannot run this time because my membership expired many, many years ago. This summer I am renewing my NAD membership, so I can run for an office in two years.
I saved money for this trip to NAD in PD. It is not easy task with a modest salary in California, but I believe it will be worth my time and money. Plus, I will put money where my hands are in 2008 after meeting NAD’s membership requirement for candidancy.
Now I have a question for you–Are you going to NAD this week? If you already have been a member for two years, would you consider running for an office. The more candidates we have, the merrier.
McConnell, you should consider running for an office, too, because you do have interesting perspectives to bring to the table.
Yes, I’m going to NAD. No, I haven’t been a member for more than a few months. :( I would consider it if I could.
Deafhood, as I understand, is a healing process for ALL of us. Deafhood is a also process for all of us to accept all of us.
You’re arguing for total acceptance. Instead of Deafhood, what do you propose the action of healing process for all of us to strive for total acceptance?
What else? Just plain acceptance. The feeling of being accepted for who they are. That’s the healing process. Meet their needs and understanding and vice versa. The only action needed is total acceptance. I reject the PC word “Deafhood” but accept the common sense approach on acceptance.
There were many, many deaf/hh students at Gallaudet who never felt totally accepted at a school full of Deaf students. Many of them left Gallaudet solely because of that non-acceptance and condescending atmosphere.
How would it be a healing process for Deaf people? Maybe it’s about coming terms with their own acts of bigotry instead that this “Deafhood” is all about? It’s almost as if it’s a guilt complex they are carrying around and are trying solve this on their own by presenting “Deafhood” as a feel good fad approach.
It’s pretty obvious that you haven’t read the book, but that’s okay, because it’s also obvious that a lot of the “pro-Deafhood” people haven’t read the book either which isn’t helping anyone. But it’s getting to the point where it’s just silly watching the debate on this issue. It’s not a PC term. Never was. Never will be.
Another way to look at the word is to look at the following words: Manhood, Sisterhood, Motherhood, Neighborhood, Falsehood. Are they PC terms? Absolutely not. Robin Hood? Well, that’s a different story (probably for a post under the Is Superman Gay? blog).
From dictionary.com
-hood
suff.
Condition; state; quality.
An instance of a specified state or quality.
A group sharing a specified state or quality.
From that point of view, Deafhood is something all deaf people share, regardless of hearing level, educational background, speaking ability, sexual orientation, or political affiliation (ok, the last two didn’t belong there). Mothers everywhere have this innate bond, just like us deaf people do. If I’m in Bulgaria, China, or Topeka, Kansas, and I see a deaf person signing, it’d generate a different response from me (well, I don’t think I’ll ever find myself in Topeka).
I’ve only started reading the book, so I’ve got a long way to go. It’s all about understanding myself, ourselves, and seeing where we can go.
From Gertz:
“The definition of deafhood is a very complex one. It requires self-analyzing, exploring, and understanding what Deaf means to us all.”
My point? Analysis paralysis. And again, the big “D”. And making this into an entirely complex issue. It shouldn’t be THAT complex.
Bottom line is acceptance. Respect. Understanding.
“Deafhood” IS a PC term.
politically correct
adj. (Abbr. PC)
Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change.
The word itself may sound innocuous to you but to other people it brings up an entire different set of feelings. That’s what I’m trying to convey here from MY POINT OF VIEW as a hard of hearing person. This goes for people with moderate to severe hearing loss who do not see themselves as deaf but hh.
If I see a hh person and he wears a hearing aid and is talking, I get drawn and I’ll talk to him. If I see a person signing, I get drawn to that person and introduce myself. If I see a person using CUED speech, I approach him.
It all begins with acceptance. Acceptance of self, and of the people you associate yourself with.
Maybe have a book called HHHood instead?
Nope, McConnell. That’s not the bottom line. It IS one portion of the bottom line, however. The other part of the bottom line is: ACCEPTANCE OF ONESELF AS DEAF, and not adhering to the deficiency model of deafness. In other words, society and many of us persist as seeing ourselves as defective because we “can’t hear” as well as a hearing person. Deafhood is both about acceptance and love of the SELF as well as that of OTHERS.
If you accept others for who and what they are, that means you also accept yourself for who you are and what you are as well. Kind of ridiculous to accept others but don’t accept yourself about your deafness. However, just because one accept his/her hearing loss or “deafness” doesn’t mean that he or she will throw away his/her hearing aid or cochlear implant. Neither does using a CI or hearing aid means that he or she do not accept him/herself.
I’m looking at the foundation here. It starts with acceptance in recognizing the commonalities and that would be hearing loss and communication gaps. Technology is the key in helping that deficiency model of deafness. It has been changing for the better for the past 5 years because of technology and communication. It will continue to improve in our favor and level the playing fields. Technology will make it easier for those who see falsely about the capabilities and skills of deaf and hard of hearing people. It continues to evolve as we speak.
Maybe NAD should be changed to NADHH. National Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The word “Deaf” (not in the sense of “D”eaf) scares a lot of non-culturally deaf hard of hearing people who do not sign and has a hearing loss equivalent as being mild or moderate. As compared to SHHH. Maybe the two should become one organization just to survive?
Why don’t we just merge all organizations of “impaired traits” with SHHH and call it Self Help for Impaired Traits? Hey, at least the acronym will be easy to remember.
So, you are saying that such hearing loss organizations shouldn’t merge for the sake of unity and greater understanding?
It was a joke. Sheesh.
Just checking…never can tell if it was just sarcasm or plain old joke.
Hmmm! Deafhood? D/d? hoh? etc…we are all human beings. It would be nice if we are all one BIG family. I am not sure why we need so many groups to represent the same thing.
Throughout the past couple hundred years, the oppressors have caused us to be militant in our beliefs and our ways. If you can look hard and see the behaviors of oppressors.
It does reek of audism in ways they do not realize. Someone has to speak out and remind them of our rights.
It is sad at times when people become selfish and it leads to more frictions. I have been in advocacy for the past 35 years and I have not seen a real improvement despite what we have today. I am talking about how much time and energy had been spent.
Most of us spent on 20% of deaf community…..we did not get the rest at 80% as per one lecturer said at D/d conference years ago.
Despite technological advances, we will still always be deaf!
I am new to this DeafDC Blong and I hope to learn many things from you and others.
Keep up the good work!
Paul J. Kiel
Lakeland, Florida
Well, technology will be the key that will help bridge the communication gap amongst ourselves and with hearing people. Just look at the last 5 years and see the changes that have helped deaf/hh people already.
Key? What key? In the short run, yes, but in the long, technology will just create a greater divide. Study your history.
Also speaking about reversing deafness in the future, it just shows you do not know your Biology. The human body is such that once something is set, it cannot be totally reversed. It can be modifed, improved upon but totally reversed as you are saying here is impossible!
Dan, let me ask you this question. 15 years ago did we have VideoPhone? Video Relay? Did we have the internet? Did we have Blackberry? Did we have Sidekick? Did we have internet-enabled cell phones? Instant Messaging like AIM or Yahoo? Email? Vlogs? Blogs?
In our body as according to our DNA design that give instructions on how our body is built and run. Depending on the area of development when we are in the womb, there is such a thing as an “on” and “off” switch that gives growth instruction. DNA is our blueprint. How come none of our organs, our limbs, our eyes, skin, or hearing cells continued to grow? There is a “switch” per the DNA that tells when to stop “growing” or stop with the, for example, fingers development.
For example, in the dentistry field scientists have been able to use a person’s (in this case a mouse) own stem cells to grow
The problem isn’t turning the switch on, it’s turning it off. There are protein signals or some biochemical signals that tells the development of an organ or in this case a tooth to stop growing. In essence there is an “off” switch that resides in our bodies when it comes to growing. Some signals are permanently in the “off” switch while others are left on such as the liver that has the ability to regenerate new liver. You can cut out 1/3 of your liver and it will grow back.
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/r.....tml?ID=597
We also have the bad side effects when certain parts or elements of our body gets “switched on” like cancer cells or tumors where there is a signal that is “switched on” making the tumor cells to grow indefinitely. There are cases where a tumor has grown weighing more than person himself. Or rapidly spreading cancer cells that multiplies without stopping.
These are the “on” and “off” switches in our body. Scientists have been learning how to manipulate those “switches” and control them.
As for reversing certain deafness, that too has shown to be extremely promising. Especially in the field of stem cells research. It is a relatively new field for the past several years. And has shown great, great promises already. We’ll see hearing loss reversed within our lifetime much sooner rather than later.
See here - http://www.stanfordalumni.org/.....s/ear.html
See here, great read! - http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....162455.htm
Lots of info on current stem cells discovery - http://www.sciencedaily.com/ne.....tem_cells/
The latest development on hearing loss restoration with stem cells - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5102486.stm
An easy to read article - http://www.hearinglossweb.com/.....20061045am
Illustrations with pictures and diagrams - http://depts.washington.edu/he.....ummary.php
Dan, is rather embarassing to see you talk that way when it plainly obvious that it is you who do not know your biology. Biotechnology is one my well known and favorite subject. Biotechnology has become one of the most promising field to be in. Especially in the field of regenerative tissues and cells.
Read up on the internet about biotechnology and nanotechnology. Truely fascinating stuff.
Capital D, have those deaf people tried to talk with the Deafhood people? These claims are inaccurate. I’m from the area, I work at CSD Fremont, and I’m friendly with people at DCARA and CAD. I’ve read the book. I’ve heard nothing about refusal to go to DCARA for services, and the number of unhappy deaf folk is smallish.
Many of the people who are accusing the group (by the way, there’s no group. It’s very informal) have never read the book, never asked questions, etc. They have made assumptions and spread those assumptions, just like many have nationwide. I don’t just jump on the bandwagon for *or* against anything. I take the time to research, discuss, and ask, and people should do that before commenting and judging. I can personally name a good number of mainstreamed, hoh, oral, or hearing family folk at CSD who had resistance but asked questions, listened, analyzed, and now support deafhood…. INCLUDING some people who feel rejected by culturally deaf people.
I can also name people who made assumptions and are talking nationwide… And describe how little time they spent in workshops and asking questions. One person showed up halfway through a workshop and left 20 minutes later, looking furious. She missed all the background info and a lot of dialogue. Now she’s spreading tales. Fair? Not.
So, guys, I’m sick and tired of this California stuff. I don’t wanna have any more dissing UNTIL the people who don’t agree read the book or ask questions and participate in a dialogue (which they are free to disagree with, naturally - but try it, dammit, instead of making assumptions). For those of you who presume to speak for Californians, please ask if they’ve done anything I suggested, before taking their comments at face value. And oh, by the by, please don’t speak for us. We, being the diverse people we are, can do that by ourselves. Thank you.
“Turfism” and “Cocooning Syndrome” and “Lack of Efforts for the Inclusive Society among Deaf and deaf and HOH into Political Power” are entirely responsible for the disfranchised deaf community at large for past 30 years.
Lack of Deaf Grassroot Activism and Emergence of Deaf Elitism kinda kill the inner desires for serving the deaf community at large. Why someone would bother to burden hirself with organizational duties and no pay (speaking of the NAD president and other organizational officials in general), then deal with backstabbings and meritless criticisms from the same constitutency whose elect people to the given office?
I notice that many people still have the misconception of “Deafhood” what it really meant. I wonder if any of you have read Paddy’s works, including his books. You would understand differently what some people distort the real meaning of “Deafhood” to suit their own personal agenda/motive.
I keep seeing the wide gap of deaf college-educated and non-college individuals in social and organizational circles for past 15 years.
Our society at large is a changing world with less time for civic activities, especially deaf organizations.
The time for the NAD to have the professional staffers with regional offices across the country on payrolls or actively work with the state commission of the deaf and hard of hearing.
Or have the odd-years of all the deaf national organizations get together to build the socioeconomic and political consenus for all deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
Why people should bother to be the member of the deaf national organization for the betterment of deaf community at large??? That is a classic case of classism among socioeconomic levels of deaf individuals.
Is the Youth Leadership Camp (YLC) really fail the production of future deaf leaders thru the creation of leadership aspiration and development? Or produce the deaf elitism among the YLC campers??? How effective the YLC really produce the current and future deaf leaders?
Why not the NAD actively invest in the YLC program to recruit the real diversity of deaf youngsters, ex. West Virginian?? NAD must make sure that the Jr. NAD chapters be actively run in all the schools of the deaf, mainstream schools and private schools.
I was the one who retrieved the Jr. NAD chapter in my own West Virginia School of the Deaf. I endlessly prodded the school faculty members to sponsor the Jr. NAD chapters for about five years. In my senior WVSD year, the Jr. NAD chapter finally brought to life. I was the student body president at that time.
The WVSD school officials and faculty members watered down the real purpose of student organizations to one-time monthly activity per month on the morning of monthly home visit. Of course, the WVSD school officials and faculty members and staff members repeatedly quelled the “student power”. Those same people smeared me with “too liberal” label around my neck to discourage the student participation in student organizations. I was very persistent in fighting for the real development of student leadership at the WV School of the Deaf without any help from the NAD or national deaf advocacy organizations.
The current deaf West Virginia leadership is really pathetic and horrific with lack of leadership preparation and development from the school days.
I greatly admire Bobbie Beth Scoggins for her leadership qualities of making sure that everybody deaf to be inclusive in the state of Kentucky. Her effort for the distribution of VRS devices almost reached all deaf Kentuckians.
The mentality of turfism and deaf elitism ought to be really changed for the best interest of deaf community at large in long run.
The issue of underemployment and educational inequality and societal prejudices among deaf community at large really need to be addressed repeatedly.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
If NAD was more serious about including all deaf people, it wouldn’t have taken such a slanted position during the Gallaudet protests. If you look at the open letters that the NAD issued, they are all implicitly on the protesters’ side. They never once criticized the protesters for not being clear about why they think Fernandes is unqualified; they never enjoined the protesters to tightly define their complaints so that a meaningful dialogue can ensue; etc. They did rightfully urge the board of trustees to resolve the unrest, but they should have urged both sides to resolve it, not just one.
I actually thought this web site was much more balanced in its analysis of the protest that anything coming out of the NAD.
How interesting! Many Deaf people felt differently about the NAD’s reaction to the ongoing Gallaudet protest. Some deaf people felt that the NAD was too lenient with IKJ and the Gallaudet BOTs. Others said “NAD done real nothing!”
The handful of deaf people said that “NAD really contradicted herself like sending out the open letter and have IKJ as the keynote leader”. In reality, many deaf people including Ridor, really do not know what really going on with the inner workings of the NAD.
NAD asked IKJ to be one of the few keynote speakers as part of courtesy to the Gallaudet University BEFORE the protest erupted - last January 2006.
Gallaudet University gave $15,000, instead of $10,000 because IKJ checked out with the NAD to find out how much the NTID gave bi-annual organizational donation to the NAD.
The bottom line is the NAD really is on the tightrope due to the tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization. NAD did try her own best in balancing the best interest of deaf community at large and the general public. NAD really did brillantly engaged in the “middle of road” approach for the real solution to the Gally protest.
Gallaudet University under the IKJ leadership violated the non-profit status as an educational facility many times anyway.
We really need more “middle of the road” approach within our country’s leadership circles anyway than resorting to the extreme actions or ideological squabbles. We really need more moderates within our country.
In the end, NAD will come out as a victorious party. Andy Lange is more like a realist. He frequently interact with Gally students and other faculty members from time to time.
That would be real nice of the NAD to telecast the entire conference for non-attendees deaf people watching from their homes or place of gathering on special cable channel. It will be not possibly televising the conference til 2008 as what I have been previously told.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Interesting. Just counted McConnell’s comments. 13 out of 43. I think we are all painfully aware of his perspective on this by now (including his views on GallyNet, in other posts here, ad nauseam).
Err..many of comments were in response to others or were made as clarifications. I take it that you are irked by my opinions rather than by my responses?
Actually, no, I’m not. What irks me is this apparent need to constantly inform us of your opinions, both in various comments found on this blog and on other forums of varying types. It’s a free country - I enjoy the spectrum of opinions found on this blog, so no, that’s not the issue. I did not intend this to become a personal attack, just a comment on how often we “hear” from you.
*waving a white flag*
hey, “a,” speak for yourself. I constantly admire how McConnell has lots of facts on tap to debunk the more outrageous claims floating around out there. He puts his money where his hands are, something that more of us could do. Keep them coming, McConnell. The number of times he posts is directly proportional to the number of times someone posts a really blatant untruth that can be easily exposed for the baloney it is.
The trend today is not in favor of the stuff you guys and gals have proposed herein. Deaf people in general are becoming LESS organized because that is the trend in the general culture, too. Technology is helping to individualize the world, not collectivize it. There are many more “individual” deaf people now than at any time in the past. The current NAD conference at Palm Desert has had a nice draw. But it was not simply because more deaf people are interested in the NAD. They are more interested in Palm Desert and some of the issues being raised — like the Gallaudet mess. What needs to be done is to do away with the “old” concept of the NAD and loosen it up somehow so that more people can be “independent” members, meaning they can be individuals and still support the ideals of the NAD without old-fashioned collectivism. The thing is … the NAD needs them more than vice-versa because of all this new and evolving hi-tech society we live in. There is less of a NEED to be joiners in the physical sense. Deaf people in the USA today have never been as independent as they are now and as they will continue to be from now on. The decline of state associations, schools for the deaf, and the NAD, too, are just a few examples of this “trend.” And it will continue from now on. If we do not recognize it for what it is, we will become DEAD as well as DEAF! The old order is not changing — it is already gone! Wake up!