In today’s society where we are increasingly reliant on technology to remain connected with the hearing world, we as deaf individuals find ourselves more aware (or even less aware, as I see with my high school students) of things that happen around us. We need to identify the true meaning behind being part of the deaf community. Here, I just used the word “deaf” to identify people of hearing loss — not people of the Deaf community. When exactly is the right time to use “deaf” or “Deaf,” and what kind of deaf individuals are allowed into the Deaf community?
In my recent posting, I shared my views on the future of NAD, along with my approval of the current pool of candidates for Board positions, as well as my disappointment of the lack of diversity in the pool of candidates.
I had read the Fulton III recommendations for NAD’s future and noticed the repeated requests to include diversity in the membership and found that lacking in with the candidates.
To my surprise, I had received more than 50 comments on that blog — but most of them did not address the true intend of the post. I have decided to throw a new hat into the ring here and discuss how D/deaf individuals should be involved and what exactly construes being deaf.
With the NAD conference kicking off today and several interesting e-mails from President I. King Jordan this afternoon (one with new guidelines for expressive activities and assemblies), the timing’s perfect to discuss this. The recent Gallaudet protests have opened the floodgates (no pun intended to the East Coast’s recent downpours) on the membership of the deaf community and deafhood.
What exactly is deafhood? Paddy Ladd (2003) has defined deafhood as “a process by which Deaf individuals come to actualize their Deaf identity, positing that these individuals construct that identity to their heightened forms by various factors such as nation, era, and class.”
In my recent post, The Sage defined -hood as “A group sharing a specified state or quality.” Genie Gertz shares her perspectives on the difference in definition of deafhood and deafness. To sum her ASL vlog, she views deafhood as “a process, not a state, which focuses on people’s existential stances. Their existences strongly tie to normality, collectivism, and recognition of the shared beliefs and values.”
So, again, what exactly is the meaning of deafhood? It depends on who you ask.
Deaf bloggers have been radical in pressuring the need for Deafhood in the wake of the protests, and I fear, to the wrong way. If Ladd’s definition is to be taken literal, a Deaf person’s identity can only come to light when they accept their deafness and acknowledge the fact they are members of a larger, collective group.
Here, again, I note that I’m emphasizing the need for a collective group of people who have a common quality. Everyone’s deaf. They are ASL signers. They are oral. They are cued speech users. They are late deafened. They are digital hearing-aid users. They are cochlear implant users. They are bone deaf. They are hard of hearing. They are 2, 3, 4 generation deaf. They are CODAs. They are from a mainstream background. They are from residential schools. They are from Gallaudet. They are from hearing colleges. They work in the Deaf world. They work in the hearing world. They are married to a hearing person. They are married to a deaf person.
The list goes on and on. I believe every one who is deaf has a right to be recognized as members of deafhood. Just like Tom Humphries’ definition of audism did not really emerge until the late 1990s, we are seeing the use of a new word emerge, and its definition come under fire — as well as who should be considered members of deafhood.
This is a good time as any to open dialogue on who, how, where, and why “deafhood” should be used.
© 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.
Gally just dropped a ‘bomb’ seemingly on the eve of NAD’s conference.
—————————
June 28, 2006
Memorandum
TO: The Campus Community
FROM: I. King Jordan
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Expressive Activities and Assemblies
Following is a document that presents guidelines for expressive activities and assemblies which was developed at my request by the Crisis Management Team. The document begins with a review of information currently included in the Student Handbook and the Administration and Operations Manual, describes a plan to establish a committee to develop a policy addressing expression on campus and lists guidelines we will have in place until a policy is approved by the Board.
At the beginning of the fall semester, I will be in touch again with more information about the committee.
Gallaudet University Guidelines for
Expressive Activities and Assemblies
Introduction
Gallaudet University, as a private university, recognizes and supports its community’s desire and efforts in the exchange of ideas, assembly, and speech-making on campus. As stated in the Gallaudet Vision Statement, the University, in valuing freedom of expression, views our entire community as a forum for the exchange of ideas and scholarly debate; respect for all will be a hallmark of everything we do. This is further reinforced in the Gallaudet Credo Statement, which says that every person should be treated with civility and that our community is strengthened by the broad diversity of its members
Nonetheless, during both semesters in the 2005-2006 academic year, some members of the University community did, on occasion, exceed the boundaries of appropriate expression by engaging in behavior that infringed on the rights of the University to conduct normal business and/or on the rights of other members of the community. The University has an obligation to maintain conditions under which our primary educational purpose may go forward freely without disruption. The Gallaudet University Code of Conduct defines disruption of University academic or non-academic activities as an action that “disrupts the normal operations of the University and infringes on the rights of other members of the University community, leading or inciting others to disrupt scheduled and/or normal activities within any campus building or area, and intentional obstruction that unreasonably interferes with freedom of movement, either pedestrian or vehicular, on campus†(2005-06 Student Handbook, page 11). In addition, the Administration and Operations (A&O) Manual Policy 1.01 (Standards of Conduct) states that “the expression of dissent and attempt to produce change may not be carried out in ways that injure individuals, damage institutional facilities or property, impede the functioning of programs and services, or evidence a complete disregard for authority and direction.†(A&O Policy, 1.01)
It is therefore desirable to remind members of our community of the manner in which they may engage in such expression at Gallaudet and ensure that expressive activity is conducted on the grounds of the University in a way that demonstrates civility and respect for others, respect for University property, and respect for the right of the University to continue its normal operations, including classes and business activities.
It is in the University community’s best interest to develop a University policy addressing expression on campus that reaffirms the University’s and the community’s values related to freedom of expression. The policy will govern activities related to the use of facilities, the manner of expression that is permitted, and the manner that is prohibited. Similar policies with “time, manner and/or place†regulations exist at many institutions of higher education. A committee consisting of appropriate representatives will be established at the beginning of the fall semester and will be charged with the development of this policy.
The following guidelines are being established on an interim basis to ensure the orderly functioning of the University and its members until the new policy is in place and approved. They do not repeat or replace existing policies or guidelines related to the scheduling of events, use of University facilities, or appropriate behavior as described in the Student Code of Conduct and Administrations and Operations Manual; rather, the interim guidelines augment and clarify existing policies to preserve important values and interests of the University community.
Gallaudet University Guidelines for Expressive Activities and Assemblies
1) All demonstrations, marches, rallies or peaceful assemblies on campus must be registered[*]* with the appropriate unit responsible for the location requested (Registrar’s Office, Campus Activities, Business Services, etc.) at least 2 business days in advance of the activity. This helps ensure that the organization has appropriate resources for its activity. In addition, advance notice ensures that there are no conflicts with other events at the same location, ensures that the sponsor of the activity will accept all responsibilities pertaining to sponsoring and supervising the event, and ensures that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the use of scheduled facilities complies with all applicable policies and regulations. It also ensures that public area activities do not impede pedestrian or vehicular ingress to or egress from campus, and it ensures that the size and nature of the event are appropriate for the location.
2) Structures created for the purpose of free expression, other than those created by the University itself, may not remain on University property for an extended period of time. Temporary or symbolic structures, such as booths, tents, canopies, or similar objects or enclosures, may be placed on University property and may remain temporarily on campus, but they must be taken down and removed daily by a specific time, and the area removed of all debris and trash. The administration’s actions toward the structures will be guided by attention to the following, or similar, kinds of campus community interests that structures could infringe upon:
* Protecting health and safety;
* Preventing damage or risk of damage to University property;
* Preserving unimpeded mobility on pathways and streets, entrance to and departure from buildings, and unimpeded mobility within buildings;
* Providing for competing uses of campus grounds;
* Avoiding interference with other University activities;
* Reasonably limiting costs to the University of increased Department of Public Safety protection, potential University liability, insurance coverage, and cleanup and repair after an event.
Limits on the duration, size, and location of structures or symbolic structures may also be based legitimately upon the desire to preserve campus aesthetic values.
3) The sponsoring organization/department must obtain a Structure Scheduling Form from Business Services and obtain approval prior to the erection of such structures. The sponsoring organization/department will be required to sign the agreement on the form pertaining to all responsibilities associated with the temporary structure, including the removal of such structure, and acceptance of responsibility for any injuries to persons or property caused by the temporary structure. The University reserves the right to deny a request to establish a structure and to request the removal of temporary structures that may be an unreasonable safety hazard or inflict unreasonable damage to landscaping.
4) Overnight camping is not allowed on University property. The use of any part of the campus for living accommodation purposes such as overnight sleeping (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), making a fire, or carrying on cooking activities is prohibited. The use of any tents, motor vehicles or other structures for sleeping is also prohibited.
5) Signs, posters, banners, and other materials may not be affixed to the interior or exterior of any University structure without permission from the appropriate facilities person or person with authority to grant such permission. Unauthorized postings, etc. will be removed and discarded by the University.
6) In furtherance of the educational, research, service, and other legitimate functions of the University, no part of the campus is generally available for organized activities after 11 p.m. and before 7 a.m. except for official University activities or organization activities with prior authorization.
7) During the calendar year noise or amplified music must be maintained at acceptable levels to avoid interference with classes or other University activities. In compliance with D.C. ordinances, noise must be kept at reasonable levels after 11 p.m. This allows for the usual and customary campus events to take place and at the same time supports the academic mission of the University, the University’s intent to be a good neighbor with the surrounding D.C. community, and it observes applicable D.C. ordinances related to noise.
The University will take action through appropriate internal and/or external procedures against violators of these guidelines as well as other existing University policies and regulations. Actions taken may include the denial of approval of future requests for permission to use University property by the sponsoring organization/department. Any sponsoring organization or individual may be subject to all applicable sanctions for violations of these guidelines or other policies, rules, or regulations of the University.
[*] It is understood that spontaneous demonstrations, meetings, and assemblies sometimes may occur. Any planned or spontaneous demonstrations, meetings, or assemblies may be conducted in appropriate areas of the campus with the understanding that they are conducted in a lawful and orderly manner; do not restrict vehicular or pedestrian traffic; do not interfere with classes, other scheduled meetings, events, and ceremonies or with other educational processes of the University; and are conducted with specific authorization when held in University buildings, residential areas, or other areas available by reservation only. The event must have an identified contact person responsible for the activity, and the organizer must be a member of the University community (faculty, staff, or student). The University will recommend an alternative location, date, and/or time if conflicts are present.
NO we don’t ! most deaf are fed up with D,d thing, and with the disgraceful behaviour of cultural activists at Gallaudet too. So you’re saying big D(eaf), are a special case and others aren’t, that’s a vote loser the world over, as one of the ‘undeclass’ of (d)eaf people, you are going to find millions of us taking this ideal to task.
Since (d)eaf use sign attend deaf education, and collect together too, how are you going to plug your idea ? at OUR expense ? Along with Audism we are fighting back at these silly terms which are NOT Helping us, but dividing us. I suggest you drop the idea and stick to uniting deaf and HI people, not divide them. Always you talk in regards to mainstream attitudes, but many, and increasing attacks come at US from cultural deaf, this sanitised and false approach by sign activism is getting really contentious, we are not going to allow signing activists to write everyone else off, or label us either.
MM
WoW! Well sad!
Chris, have you read ‘Deafhood’ by Paddy Ladd?
Another loony fringe member but this time from the UK, these are the UK people who organised a seminar about the deaf experience, and then banned little d deaf from contributing, labelling them ‘medical model’ deaf people..
MM
I love the idea of deafhood. I don’t like how many people are making it to be something it’s not. Genie Gertz’s video is dead on - it’s about discovering yourself as a deaf person. It’s so remarkably similar to the process of accepting yourself as a gay person (gayhood?) that I have very little difficulty understanding it.
The D/deaf debate is so over. I don’t really understand why people keep bringing it up. It’s like every time one person brings up D/deaf, five other people chime in that it’s NOT about that anymore. I’m sick and tired of us trying to figure out who is deaf and what isn’t. Why are some people out there still holding out on this discussion? Maybe it’s time for some self-restraint–let’s make a conscious effort to declare this issue over and put it behind us.
Can we all just move on into happy, glorious deafhood where we all acknowledge we are part of this huge, vibrant community, solely determined by having a hearing loss? That is what you describe, Chris, and I believe it’s already here. It’s already happened, but the D/deaf people continue to be blind to it.
That’s what the gay community is all about - you like men, fine. You’re gay. There’s no Gay vs. gay debate going on. You’ve got bears, twinks, down lows, queens, whatever. But they’re all gay.
It’s the same concept here. We’ve got oral, ASL, deaf family, coda, etc, but we’re all freakin’ DEAF. GET IT?
Whoo. /end rant. Thanks for bringing it up, Chris.
On the other hand, if you watched Mind of Mencia last night you know that every cultural group has its hierarchy and they’re all fighting within… so I take it as proof that we’re really a cultural group. Black people, women, Asians, men, gay people, lesbians, punks, all fight about what it means to be themselves. In fact, it’s probably the single most compelling reason to believe in Deafhood - disabled people talk about what it means to live in society, but I’ve yet to see them argue about a -hood other than personhood.
Those in any minority group who continue to divide themselves is what I call a horizontal oppression. The oppression all begins with the majority who have imposed on the minority for their lack of assimiliation.
I think it is more frightening for a minority group to stand up to the majority than to go against their own people. Backlash is an ugly experience to have to deal with the opposing culture that is in the majority.
While I do not justify the horizontal oppression, I can understand why they materialized. I believe if we resist ourselves from acting horizontally oppressive and work together to achieve deafhood, the majority culture loses in the long run.
Katherine, unless I misunderstand you, I believe the proper term for horizontal oppression is internalized oppression. There are numerous workshops avaialble out there to help many ethnics deal with their internalized oppression.
Patricia, I’ll be surprised if horizontal oppression is unheard of
as I have read about it in deaf-related books a long time ago. Maybe internalized oppression is a familiar term. Or, I am really getting old! I’ll have to check one of my books :)
This is what I understood eventhough
I could be mistaken, internalized oppression is within oneself whereas horizontal oppression is oppression between two people or against the
other within the same minority group.
All of that is a result of experiences with oppression faced by many. Thanks for allowing me to re-examine what I had originally understood it as.
Katherine, I thank you for bringing up horizontal oppression because I was not aware of it. I look up the definition for horizontal oppression and did I learn! For me, this link clarifies external, interal and horizontal oppressions, here goes …
…….copy and paste in full……..
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=oppression
Oppression: When one person or group is actively doing things to cause another group or person, usually a minor, to have fewer freedoms, and to suffer more.
Those that perform oppression do not understand the concept of tolerance, acceptance, or diversity, and surely do not Celebrate Diversity.
Oppression can be classified into (3) three distinct categories, which include: (1) external, (2) internal, and (3) horizontal oppressions.
(1) External oppression occurrs when an individual, group, or force with privilege and/or power harms an individual or group without those privileges. The most viewed example of this would occur when a man rapes a woman.
(2) Internalized oppression occurrs when an oppressed person believes and acts upon the negative message being brought upon them.
(3) Horizontal oppression would be the opposite of internalized oppression in the sense that the oppressed lash out against the oppressor usually due to anger and sense of powerlessness.
Internalized and horizontal oppressions are both really a subcategory of external oppression and branch off it. This is because the external oppressor leads the oppressed to react in an internalized or horizontal form of oppression toward another individual or group.
………………………….
Patricia, thanks for doing this and saving my time. I enjoyed your posts and agree with them.
I have been reading your and Noelle’s dialogue, I thought this newly created website will address some valuable issues that everyone may benefit
from:
http://www.deaf-culture-online.com
Katherine, I appreciate the link you share with us. Many thanks.
Comments:
-As for “Deafhood”…I don’t really grasp the concept yet because there are too many interprations all over the place.
-If you asked me what a ‘Deaf’ person is…I’d say someone who has deaf friends IF they are able to have deaf friends…to put it as simply as possible. Most of us accept the fact that we are a minority operating in a larger world (hearing world) and many of us have hearing friends, family, and etc…but what sets us apart is whether we have deaf friends or not, in my opinion. For example, I went to Arizona State in the early 90’s and there were 15-20 deaf students there…but I only considered 5-6 of us as “Deaf” because the rest grew up in the hearing world..knew how to talk…just needed a notetaker for classes…these people never talked to us (Deaf folks)…they simply saw their handicap as mere “hearing loss”. I have had some friends who were hearin, but later became deaf…they had both hearing and deaf friends. I think anyone who has deaf friends is offically a part of the deaf community…
-Isn’t it ironic that I. King Jordan enacted those protest rules when the 88′ protests landed him the presidency gig….but then again I understand that the University needs to function on a day to day basis…but this is not a good political move…it’ll just anger the masses if you ask me…
To be eligble for benefit, coverage, fund if you are… You may enroll in if you are… You must meet these requirements…
Generic is defined as “relating or description of an entire group or class; general.” Is “deafhood” or/and “deaf and hard of hearing” an acceptable generic? What’s the decibel requirement?
I suggest you read the original text to understand the definition of the term as seen by the man who wrote it.
Jordan is a ******* hypocrite who doesn’t have the balls to respond to the concerns of the people he was supposed to represent. He’s a sell-out Uncle Tom with no respect for the very community that set him and his skanky ass on the throne from which he issues these fatuous dictates.
P.S. Chris, I agree with you totally. Like it says on my blog, “The Deaf Nation has many tribes.” No reason for us to argue over decibels.
In other news, why is s k a n k y a swear word on this site?
Sorry, we’re still fine-tuning our profanity filter. Thanks for catching that!
Raswant — I plan to read it as soon as I can get a copy. I’m curious as to what Ladd views deafhood to be.
CK, it’s good to know you’re going to read ‘Deafhood’ as soon you have the copy. I read it two years ago and re-read this past winter holiday. Some people have indicated that it’s a little hard to read it through but for me, it’s akin to nourishment for my moral mind, which is quite refreshing.
The thing is that I don’t feel like I fit the deaf identity that so many Deaf people seem to have defined in their concept of Deafhood. I have a cochlear implant, and I speak orally. I’m much more comfortable speaking orally than I am in finger-spelling. It just feels weird to me to fingerspell. I’m used to speaking, to letting the words run out in a torrent on any subject I feel passionate about, that it’s strange to shift to signing. Does knowing ASL really have to be a part of one’s “deaf” identity?
The things that really keep me connected to the deaf community, whatever that is, are cochlear implants, captioning, accessibility, and that shared understanding of what it is to be different.
Noelle, what is your honest perspective of ASL and deaf people who cannot hear or speak well?
After being pressured by the “militant Deaf” subset of the deaf community to learn ASL, I really don’t like it. However, I respect it as a language and means of communication for those that cannot speak or hear well.
Noelle,
Could you please elaborate what you mean by “deaf militant” subset of the deaf community? Do you consider all deaf ASL teachers as deaf militants?
Do you honestly consider those who cannot speak or hear well and use ASL as your equals?
The Deaf militants are those who consider oral deaf people with cochlear implants (like me) to be “borgs,” to be “audists” or whatever the new derogatory term is. I’ve run into a few of them, and they don’t consider me to be a part of the deaf community mainly because I work in the hearing world, have hearing friends, and so on. I do not consider ASL teachers to be Deaf militants unless they insist the parents of deaf children should not have the right to decide their children’s education. My mother was constantly told by those in the deaf community that she had no right to implant me when I was seven years old, and that I shouldn’t have spoken orally. They didn’t respect her decision as a parent simply because she was hearing. I believe my mother made the right decision because I wouldn’t be where I am today because of her efforts as a parent of a deaf child.
There are many deaf professionals that use ASL. Why would I consider them as being lesser than I am?
Noelle,
I have a hearing family, I have a few hearing friends, and I work in the hearing world.
I have nothing against hearing people. As for you, to be frank, if you do not have any deaf friends then I do not consider you a part of the deaf community or ‘deafhood’. However, since you are posting on deafdc.com and seem to have met other deaf people before…I call you Deaf.
My thinking is this: If there were an African American person who had no African American friends and chose to not to. Is that person really African American? I say no. Of course, that person would be labelled an African American because the color of skin is visble to others. With deafness, it’s an invisble handicap.
It doesn’t matter to me whether you learn ASL or not, but I’d recommend it. It may be the reason you do feel excluded from the deaf community. Perhaps, some deaf people simply feel uncomfortable communicating with you orally and are afraid to do so.
Just my 2 cents…
So having deaf friends are what makes you “Deaf?” I’d have to disagree with that.
Your racial analogy is a bit of a strawman in that the African-American who may not have “black” friends would still consider himself a part of the African-American community through shared experiences.
It would only be “shared experiences” because the African American’s skin color is visble and thus subject to racism.
Deaf people can keep quiet and people would NEVER know that they were deaf.
So, Noelle, how do you identify yourself as a deaf person? Sure, you may experience hearing diffculties…but how different are you from senior citizens with “miracle ear” hearing aids? I don’t consider those people deaf…they grew up hearing and lost some hearing as they got older.
As for what you have posted so far, it seems that you are oral..which means you went to an oral school..which means that it’s likely that you have deaf friends who went to school with you? That makes you ‘deaf’ in my book.
Let’s say, you never went to oral school…you went to mainstreamed schools without an interpreter…you never met another deaf person…and did not care for the deaf community…would you still call yourself deaf? I knew some such people in college…they couldn’t hear a thing, but acted as if they weren’t deaf and wouldn’t give me the time of the day…
Noelle,
I could be mistaken but I suspected there was a misunderstanding somewhere among you, your mom, and deaf community. Most members in the deaf community are usually against *oral education* yet they do support speech training.
It is true you would not be where you are if it were not for your mom’s efforts to ensure that you be educated the best way she could. IMHO, you are one of the lucky deaf people to fare well in oral education. Many more deaf people were not as lucky as you were in oral education.
What JJ said is sincere. Let’s visualize a realistic scenario: a hearing child of Italian immigrants who does not want to speak Italian fluently. I’m sure even you agree with the consequence of this decision; this individual who does not speak Italian well would also feel disconnected in the Italian community. To embrace an ethnic community one has to be fluent in their language, culture, and norms. In that instance, how is this different from the deaf community whose primary language is ASL?
On the other hand, in many ways, the members in deaf community do have the right to be concerned about the welfare of deaf children because these deaf adults want deaf children to be well educated too. As educated people, we know the window of language acquisition is most effective during the first three years of a child’s life. Unfortunately many deaf individuals whose parents started them with oral education have not recovered from the lack of language acquisition and those deaf individuals still could not read or write well.
Now that you are aware of many deaf people who started with oral education and due to the lack of language acquisition, they are struggling with reading and writing. Do you still believe that the members of deaf community have no business in educating all hearing parents of deaf children about the full guarantee of ASL/English bilingual education with speech training?
Last but not least, Noelle, you are stuck in time when you were seven years old at the time many deaf people were in fact against cochlear implants. Look, we are now in the 21st century, I know several individuals who come from the 2nd and 3rd deaf generation whose primary language is ASL have opted for cochlear implants.
Why in the 1980s, the size of cochlear implants were quite large and, yes, I admitted to calling those oversized cochlear implants as Borg. I mean who would not after watching Star Trek: Borg. See, the cochlear implant industry actually thought the members from deaf community would run in drove to have cochlear implants but when they found out that hardly anyone from the deaf community was interested in getting cochlear implants, they instead turned to hearing parents with deaf children . . .
I hope this helps you understand better about deaf community.
In unity and peace,
Patti
What you mentioned about language acquisition for young deaf children is important, but I have concerns about deaf children learning ASL first because the grammar structure of ASL is different from English, which would explain the documented delay in acquiring reading and writing skills. I’m fine with a dual ASL-English effort, but it should be up to the parent of the deaf child to make that decision. If the parent went the way of oral education, he or she should maintain parental involvement in his or her child’s language development. It’s up to the parent to decide whether bilingual ASL/English would be beneficial for the deaf child, but if he or she went with ASL, it would be necessary for the parent to keep their children focused on learning, to get them to read as much as they can, and to work with them on a constant basis instead of just accepting the “limitations” of their child’s deafness.
It is critical to encourage deaf children to read, because when my best friend and I were attending oral deaf school, many of our deaf peers did not have the necessary parental encouragement to push themselves beyond their “limits.” My mother did–she would encourage me to read, to practice using my speech while reading, and to write stories which I did quite often as a young child. Oral education can only go so far, and it is up to the parent to push their child further academically.
Cochlear implants in young children or toddlers can also help in their language acquisition. When I was at Smith College, I took a deaf education class which allowed me to attend deaf classes at Clarke School for the Deaf. Many of the young children were implanted as toddlers, and their speech was impeccable and so was their hearing. I found myself wishing that I could’ve been implanted at a younger age so that my speech and hearing skills would be much more advanced today, but that was the 1980s. Yes, the cochlear implants were humongous back then. I remember having to wear a pouch with that big, boxy implant. But over the years they’ve become increasingly miniaturized. I have a wireless cochlear implant by Cochlear that I love. There are no annoying wires, and my movements are no longer restricted by that wire. I don’t think I’d take a stem cell transplant for the cochlea because I like being able to control my hearing. I like turning off my implant at night, the background mute mode, the whisper mode, plugging in my IPOD into my implant, and plugging in my laptop computer to my implant so I can hear all the awesome action sounds on a DVD movie. All that’s so much fun to have. Why give that all up for a stem cell transplant? I admit I’m curious about what it would be like to fully hear, but I prefer my CI for its ease and availability.
I know that speaking orally and using a CI allows me a greater ease in the hearing environment, and in communicating with my hearing peers. That’s why I think oral education and CIs are beneficial because it helps deaf children assimiliate within the hearing world, and creates fewer obstacles for them. However, having a CI and speaking orally isn’t the “magic” cure that it’s made out to be. There are always going to be accessibility problems, and there’ll be the words you can’t hear if your back is turned to your hearing co-worker. And the telecommunications issue, let’s not forget that.
THat’s why I get annoyed about all the schisms in the deaf community, the Deaf versus the deaf versus the oral versus the CIs versus the hard of hearing and so on….because what we all should be focusing on is accessibility.
I’m angry that inflight movies aren’t captioned, that video Ipods don’t have captioning, that movies on the internet don’t have captioning, and so on….that accessibility is important. Why aren’t we uniting together to fight for this? We should be focusing on this instead of what makes one “deaf.”
Noelle writes: “What you mentioned about language acquisition for young deaf children is important, but I have concerns about deaf children learning ASL first because the grammar structure of ASL is different from English, which would explain the documented delay in acquiring reading and writing skills.”
Please name at least three documents to support the statement you just made. I know for a fact that oral education caused deaf children to struggle with reading and writing skills, not ASL.
Noelle said: “I’m fine with a dual ASL-English effort, but it should be up to the parent of the deaf child to make that decision.”
No argument here.
Noelle argues: “If the parent went the way of oral education, he or she should maintain parental involvement in his or her child’s language development.”
Yes. And I’m sure you know that not all parents are like your mom. Many hearing parents have neglected their deaf children to the point where their deaf children struggle with reading and writing skills.
Noelle explained: “It’s up to the parent to decide whether bilingual ASL/English would be beneficial for the deaf child, but if he or she went with ASL, it would be necessary for the parent to keep their children focused on learning, to get them to read as much as they can, and to work with them on a constant basis instead of just accepting the “limitations” of their child’s deafness.”
It is interesting to notice that you did not mention “language development” when you discuss ASL/English bilingual education. Your statement about ASL/English bilingual education comes across stipulation. I am getting the impression that you do not consider ASL to be equal to English language, hm? Also, what do you mean by their “limitations” of child’s deafness?
Noelle persuades: “It is critical to encourage deaf children to read, because when my best friend and I were attending oral deaf school, many of our deaf peers did not have the necessary parental encouragement to push themselves beyond their “limits.””
Ah, you even acknowledge that due to lack of parental involvement not all oral children can read and write well; and oral education could do only so much and is not a guaranteed education for all deaf children. Exactly what do you mean by, “push themselves beyond their limits”?
Noelle explains further: “My mother did–she would encourage me to read, to practice using my speech while reading, and to write stories which I did quite often as a young child. Oral education can only go so far, and it is up to the parent to push their child further academically.”
So, you are saying that for deaf children who failed in oral education only because their parents did not work hard enough to make sure their deaf “push themselves beyond their limits”?
Noelle claims: “Cochlear implants in young children or toddlers can also help in their language acquisition.”
Well, honestly, that’s the problem. We have the stats of deaf children who are successful with cochlear implants yet I’m seeing many CIers whose speech are not quite understandable and some hearing people have told me that some CIers do not hear well enough. I’m not sure whom to believe anymore. All I know CI does not work for all deaf children.
Noelle raves: “I have a wireless cochlear implant by Cochlear that I love. There are no annoying wires, and my movements are no longer restricted by that wire. I don’t think I’d take a stem cell transplant for the cochlea because I like being able to control my hearing. I like turning off my implant at night, the background mute mode, the whisper mode, plugging in my IPOD into my implant, and plugging in my laptop computer to my implant so I can hear all the awesome action sounds on a DVD movie. All that’s so much fun to have. Why give that all up for a stem cell transplant? I admit I’m curious about what it would be like to fully hear, but I prefer my CI for its ease and availability.”
Well, that’s great! Good for you!
Noelle further raves: “I know that speaking orally and using a CI allows me a greater ease in the hearing environment, and in communicating with my hearing peers. That’s why I think oral education and CIs are beneficial because it helps deaf children assimiliate within the hearing world, and creates fewer obstacles for them. However, having a CI and speaking orally isn’t the “magic” cure that it’s made out to be. There are always going to be accessibility problems, and there’ll be the words you can’t hear if your back is turned to your hearing co-worker. And the telecommunications issue, let’s not forget that.”
Are you saying that all deaf babies ought to be cochlear implanted?
Noelle exclaims: “THat’s why I get annoyed about all the schisms in the deaf community, the Deaf versus the deaf versus the oral versus the CIs versus the hard of hearing and so on….because what we all should be focusing on is accessibility.”
Haven’t you listened to my previous message? I was telling you about some deaf individuals coming from the 2nd and 3rd deaf generation whose primary language is ASL have opted for CI and are pleased with their decisions. What about deaf community’s primary language is ASL? Since you choose not to embrace sign language, how could they make you feel at home in deaf community?
Noelle intensifies: “I’m angry that inflight movies aren’t captioned, that video Ipods don’t have captioning, that movies on the internet don’t have captioning, and so on….that accessibility is important. Why aren’t we uniting together to fight for this? We should be focusing on this instead of what makes one “deaf.””
For 125 years, the National Association of the Deaf has been working hard politically to get EVERYTHING captioned. Have you done your part? For 125 years, the members of the NAD have been fighting through legal means for the rights and accessibility of deaf and hard of hearing people. Therefore, I can safely say that the members in deaf community do focus on legal accessibilities for all deaf and hard of hearing people.
Patricia, you asked for documentation from Noelle. I’d like to do the same here.
I am sure that the CI does not work for many, but please just show me the statistics or documentation proving that this stands true for a vast number of those implanted at a young age. I have heard so many people making similar claims to this, yet they’re only relying on word of mouth from those they know personally.
***********************************
(You wrote:)
Well, honestly, that’s the problem. We have the stats of deaf children who are successful with cochlear implants yet I’m seeing many CIers whose speech are not quite understandable and some hearing people have told me that some CIers do not hear well enough. I’m not sure whom to believe anymore. All I know CI does not work for all deaf children.
**********************************
And please don’t go so hard on Noelle about her choice of terminology: “limitations”, etc. She has every right to use whatever words she deems most appropriate, just as you do. Her perception is just every bit as valid as yours- even if it means that she thinks oral methods are often successful. This is based on her life experiences, just like your own claims are based on your own life experiences. There is truth to both sides of the coin. Although, Ridor did once say- “but then the coin falls to one side”.
Bemused Observor
Uh, since Noelle wrote specifically, “as documented,” I expected her to present at least a source of evidence to support her statement but she did not. So, I challenged Noelle to present at least three documents.
I hope you learn by now, I don’t ever bluff my way through a debate! Since you asked for stats on deaf children with cochear implants, here goes:
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.e.....tions.html
Cochlear Implants in Children: Ethics & Choices
A quick overview …
As of 2002, Gallaudet Research Institute Study received 439 responses from the parents of deaf children with cochlear implants.
59% of children are behind in reading
37% of children are behind in math
By the way, in a place like this blog, an inquiring mind has the right to ask Noelle to clarify what she meant by “limitations.”
In my opinion, an author should be able to defend what one writes or correct one’s mistake. If one cannot defend or admit a mistake, one should think twice about posting a comparative argument.
Thank you,
Patricia Raswant
In those 439 responses, were the parents selected randomly from across the states? Were they either deaf or hearing? How does these statistics compare to deaf children with no implants - but with the exact same set of factors (such as 300 having deaf parents using ASL, 100 having hearing using only oral methods, and so forth)? Comparative statistics will help validate your claim, but right now, these numbers tell me very little. And a further test of validation would be that the *same* group compile the numbers- you cannot go somewhere else- to a different organization and pull their numbers for comparsion. No two groups ever use the same criterion or calculations to create statistics. Finally, is Gallaudet a truly non-biased educational center to compute the numbers? Methinksnot, because I’ve heard about how MSSD and Kendall teachers and staff members aren’t always so great at dealing with implantees. Of course, that could easily be said for any other schools.. but you get the point here. Would those same numbers look different if they were compiled by, say, Cochlear Company?
Whew- with all of that said (sorry- I happen to have a hidden passion for numbers), I do agree with you. There should always be room for defending yourself or correcting a mistake.
Bemused Observer
I provided a link, you could check there for the details that you inquired. However, I believe this excerpt would answer your main argument.
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.e.....tions.html
‘Cochlear Implants in Children: Ethics & Choices’
QUOTE
We also talk about how the child is doing with the implant, what type of school the child attends and how he or she has adjusted, services the child needs, and overall satisfaction. We can’t hit everything, but we will try to highlight some things, especially related to education. Our data is from two sources—one is a Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI) study. It was a 12-page questionnaire sent to 1,841 parents with 439 returned. They were distributed to the schools. We don’t know really how many parents actually saw the questionnaires. The schools could have just given them to the kids and maybe they never reached the parents. Also, we had interviews with 56 parents of 62 children with implants in 15 states and Australia. We’ll talk about some of the solutions now.
UNQUOTE
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.e.....tions.html
I hope this helps.
Patricia Raswant
Bemused Observor
One more thing, here is another excerpt from the same link that I provided in the previous post. You’d have to scroll down a bit …
Closing Presentation: Considerations for the Future: Putting it all together
by Professor Spencer, Dept of Social Work at GU
QUOTE
One of the things I want to point out is that when they knew signs, they always scored better than when I was just speaking. Signs helped. On the next slide are children in oral programs. The children in the oral programs were the best and the worst. Think about it. It actually makes some sense. They are either succeeding the most or they’re not succeeding at all, and they had no other alternative.
UNQUOTE
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.e.....tions.html
Comments:
1.) Interesting thread….thanks for your comments, Noelle. I especially liked this part:
Noelle: “I’m angry that inflight movies aren’t captioned, that video Ipods don’t have captioning, that movies on the internet don’t have captioning, and so on….that accessibility is important. Why aren’t we uniting together to fight for this? We should be focusing on this instead of what makes one “deaf.” ”
Yup, you are DEAF!
2.) I have personally seen so many mixed results with oralism, ASL, and even cued speech….
I do agree with Noelle that parental influence plays a PIVOTAL role in it all. Case in example, my wife and I. My wife grew up going to CID in St. Louis…she learned sign language at 19 years old. Me…I grew up with sign language…PSE mostly as I was primarly taught by hearing teachers who signed PSE/SEE and picked up ASL from my deaf friends. However, I bounced from deaf schools and mainstreamed programs….so it was a little of everything for me. Today me and my wife both have secure employment and are doing well. One common factor we had in our upbringing was our parents who made sure we were learning on the same level as other hearing kids our age.
3.)Noelle, you can plug your I-pod and laptop into your CI? Wow…that’s cool…. I have considered CI’s..but I am 32 years old and threw away my hearing aids at age 8…stopped speech classes at age 9 or so because the therapist just wanted to put on rubber gloves and put her fingers in my mouth to position my tongue…something in my heart said, “This ain’t right”…although someday I may consider a CI…just for sound effects in movies at the very least….
I’m afraid we do see ‘Deafhood’ as (D)eafhood. That is the albatross the activist has thrust into every discussion,and which has led division by enhancing the cultural ideal, at the expence of every other deaf and hearing loss sector. Bascially we don’t WANT any more terms/labels descriptions eminating from Gallaudet or America. We should all be working to unify all loss sectors, and Gallaudet showing some semblance of a democracy, be strong, but be FAIR, until we do, our access and equality is never going to go beyond a certain point. I challenge the idea any of the terms/labels so far produced have enhanced the cultural ideal either, currently, a lot of people are downright fed up with the whole thing and getting apathetic, which as we know is the death knell of progress. SOme demands deaf make are plain aggressiove, and a lot of moderates feel, this kills off real support for our rights,it gets token. For those who don’t care so long as they are with other deaf 24/7, there is nil consideration for those deaf who want choices. Why raise ANY deaf awareness, if you are NEVER going to leave a deaf community ? why wste our time ? Let others get on with the access campaigns, and butt out.
MM
Ladd meant the term to UNITE people not DIVIDE them and as his student I’m NOT going to let people pervert “Deafhood” to mean “we sign faster than you, so get the duck out.” It’s not going to be USEFUL that way.
My feeling? Those militants you complain about are as uncomfortable with their Deafness as anyone else. It’s just their personalities show how they express the complex emotions in their own Deafhood, and this determines how they relate to other people. If they don’t take time to think about this - think about where their feelings and insecurities about ASL and being a Deaf person lie - they will never really understand their own Deafhood.
Same thing for anyone else, including others on this thread. When you find yourself getting angry - STOP! It’s a warning sign! Think about it! Why does this discussion make you feel angry? Where does that feeling come from? We’re talking about a word!
Ladd in his book points out the tireless efforts of “gatekeepers” - hearing people who work within the Deaf/deaf communities and become the go-betweens. These people have tremendous power-they decide what info passes to Deaf people and often control their organizations. They often form the discourse around Deaf people. The terms “hearing impaired” and “hard of hearing” were not natural; they were invented terms, used to sell hearing aids. There are indeed degrees of deafness; there are also degrees of skin color. We have to learn to see the separation between the body and the spirit…
Another example: my friend zLotte continually says she can only be with men who are comfortable around gay men, because this means they are comfortable with their own sexuality.
Same thing with ASL/Deaf people: only when you are comfortable around all tribes in the Deaf nation will you truly be comfortable with your own Deafhood.
This has nothing to do with being straight or gay or deaf or hearing. It has to do with being comfortable and confident with who you are.
I attended one of the deafhood workshops and here’s what I learned:
Oralism: BAD
mainstreaming: BAD
cochlear implants: BAD
Anything other than ASL: BAD
Participating in mainstream society: BAD
I really am becoming disillusioned with the concept of deafhood, at least with the concept framed by Ella Mae Lentz, because it doesn’t sound too accepting of the different variations of being deaf other than her own.
All I know is that I am deaf and I’ve accepted it, embraced it, and moved on as I look at myself as an individual first and foremost. I don’t need no stinking labels to define who I am and I am not going to let others define who I am.
Of course, Deafhood is a process — some people like “At the conference” will take a long time to realize the need of Deafhood.
The point is that Oralism created a diversion that continues to plague us from day one. We have to reclaim ourselves as Deaf person in order to feel good about it.
Cheers,
R-
Ugh. Once again with the “division” of the deaf community. I wish you’d accept oral deaf people as a part of the deaf community instead of attacking them for speaking orally.
Agreed. It is a subtle form of attack on those by bemoaning how oralism, etc, have destroyed, hurt or have caused great division among those in the Deaf community will be their Achilles heel in this whole Deafhood process. But there is this great dripping irony noting the fact that many in the Deaf community still do not acknowledge the fact that their own people never took the time to fully accept and acknowledge those who were oralists or were different from themselves as Deaf people as being part of their Deaf community. And yet people are now trying to redefine “Deaf” to be more of an inclusive community rather than an exclusive community. Please, that’s adding insult to injury to those who sought inclusivity and acceptance in the first place.
The big “D” in Deaf has caused a lot of consternation, confusion and bewilderment among those who do not consider themselves to be culturally Deaf. I simply addressed them as being a part of the deaf or even hard of hearing community by including everybody who share the same common theme…hearing loss.
I have always believed in inclusiveness the day I step foot on the campus of Gallaudet University in January 1988. It didn’t matter to me if the person wore CI. It didn’t matter if the person was an oralist and did not know sign. It didn’t matter if the person used PSE and not ASL. It didn’t matter if the person was blind and deaf. It didn’t matter if a hard of hearing or deaf preferred to speak than sign. But the prevaling attitude at the time (even today in many ways) was about having an exclusive Deaf community at the expense of others who do not completely fit their picture. And that sort of attitude matter the most to many Deaf people. Which is fine but there are consequences to their actions. I’ve heard loud and clear from many deaf and hard of hearing people recently who have seen this attitude first hand to groan once more hearing about the promotion of “Deafhood.”
Now, I attended Part 4 of the Deafhood workshop at the NAD conference and it was they who re-iterated what I’ve been saying all along in my blogs and elsewhere that acceptance and attitude are what will make this to be a better deaf community. I agree. But that should be the main selling point rather than to try and create more confusion by trying to explain the definition of “Deafhood” into this whole process. They don’t sell that point exclusively but instead again bemoan about the whole oppression thing that is supposedly the root cause of our own internal division. Not me. I never once oppressed or mocked those who were deaf or hard of hearing regardless of their background or preferred mode of communication. If you want to see the source of deaf, Deaf, hh division, it’s time to look at it internally.
Also, I had to shake my head when Kelby Brick, who is a lawyer btw, asked David Eberwein to expand on one part in the powerpoint display that discussed about suing people in order to get other people attention (don’t have the exact quote of the powerpoint that said this). And guess what the speaker ended up talking talking about? Reparation. Or $$$$$ given back to those who were historically oppressed. Why was I not surprised when Kelby said he didn’t understand the one part of the powerpoint display that discussed suing?
Perhaps I should start gathering names of those who were internally oppressed by Deaf people who never considered them as not being “Deaf enough” and seek reparation payments from them?
Enough of the oppression talks by trying to assign blame for who and what caused the division. Enough of the talks by putting ideas into people’s head about reparation. If ya’ll want greater power from and for all deaf, hh and Deaf people, then follow the K.I.S.S. principle - Keep It Simple Stupid. Don’t make this anymore complex than necessary. And having a 4-series workshop on “Deafhood” doesn’t make this an easier process.
Now, I went to a private party a few nights ago. It was made up of Deaf, deaf, hh and hearing people (all knew how to sign, many were alumni of Gallaudet) and discussed Deafhood, the protest, sports and politics and so on. Many agreed that this whole Deafhood thing is getting out of hand. For so long, the culturally deaf people have kept up with the definition of the big “D” in Deaf for so long and now wants to redefine it and adding another label by applying into the Deafhood concept, confusing the whole process even more.
Tim Raurus said it best by showing his by recounting his DPN days:
“I tell this story because before DPN, I was not one to interact with deaf people who were not culturally deaf like myself. Deaf people have a history of fighting among themselves. Yet, during DPN, we all worked together for that common goal: a deaf president. Never mind the mode of communication our president would choose or his background, as long as he was deaf. And together we accomplished that goal.”
http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dpn/vi.....rarus.html
How quaint. Refusing to interact with those not of their kind or who were not culturally Deaf unless an event or a situation would warrant that important interaction.
Now we have this RDPN protest. And the need for this “Can’t we all get along” response is now once again on the table. Which is fine. But good luck to those who want to try and sell this “Deafhood” thing to those (deaf and hh) who are not remotely familiar with Deaf culture or don’t even sign a whit by tying the “D”eaf word into this whole idea. Acceptance has always been a part of a person’s own self-identity process whether he is deaf or not. Acceptance of self and the acceptance from others about yourself for who you are, not what you are. That is the key to success because we all share one thing and that’s hearing loss.
To “At the conference:”
Can you specify what gave you that impression? I was at all 4 Deafhood workshops and I did not get that impression at all. They repeated over and over that this concept includes everyone and this is not about separating us into groups.
One note: The interpreters were awful and twisted a lot of what was being said so for anyone who depended on hearing or on reading got a bunch of misinformation.
Ridor, about Kelby, please look at post #8686 above this one. I’ve never stated that it was Kelby who talked about reparation. Let’s not get into selective thinking here.