Oralism vs. ASL II: How to Change Organizations
By Shane Feldman on Wed 11 Jul 2007 |
Email This Post
Several days ago, I posted a blog, “Oralism vs. ASL: Here We Go Again“, about a group that plans to protest at the upcoming Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf (AG Bell) Conference at the end of this month. The blog provoked a large response from a variety of people. If anything, it helped me understand the underlying objectives and the protesters’ motives. My response: to change organizations, we must get involved as stakeholders.
I can relate to the AG Bell protesters’ desire to see sign language treated with more respect in deafness-related organizations. Several years ago I had the opportunity, as a NAD member and stakeholder, to propose changes for the current National Association of the Deaf mission:
The mission of the Association shall be to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States of America.
There is no mention of sign language in the NAD mission statement. So, my wife — at my request — introduced a motion for the 2006 NAD Conference to change the mission statement to something along the lines of:
The mission of the Association shall be to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of the sign language community in the United States of America.
My reasoning: the NAD seems perfectly suited to take this type of step especially when its board and staff meetings are conducted almost entirely in sign language. There is also its history, the organization was founded for many reasons, one which was in response to the 1880 Milan edict which banned sign language in schools. The NAD published the book, Sign Language and the Deaf Community: Essays in Honor of William C. Stokoe (no longer in print), the person who identified American Sign Language as a language in its own right. Many other organizations perceive the NAD as an organization entrenched in the sign language community.
Under this premise, it made logical sense to have the mission of the organization more accurately reflect the group that it represents, and therefore, meet a more specific group’s needs. As a stakeholder with an active voice, I felt this was the step in the right direction. There are valid concerns about the motion, such as how it would impact the organization’s funding and whether NAD would lose or alienate certain members; or conversely, gain more members than it stands to lose? In the end, the motion to modify the mission statement didn’t make it into the Official 2006 NAD Conference Priorities.
Now, tying that to statements from the AG Bell protesters about a different organization not having “sign language” in its mission statement, perhaps they would like to address this same issue in their own backyard first?
This leads me to a commenter’s observation that the inclusion of American Sign Language (ASL) in the AG Bell “communication options” section of its website does not mean the organization supports it. In her words, “AGBAD [the protester’s way of mocking the organization by calling it by its literal acronym] probably threw that in to appease Deaf people.” She concludes, “For me, what is more telling is what they say in their mission…” Alright, let’s take a look at the AG Bell mission:
Advocating Independence through Listening and Talking!
Here, the AG Bell mission does not explicitly state that ASL should be “banned” or anything of that sort. In any case, it appears that some of the AG Bell protesters probably want to modify the mission to state:
Advocating Independence through Listening, Talking, and Signing!
Now, let’s discuss the feasibility of such a strategy to modify the AG Bell mission. Just like the NAD, nonprofit missions are often determined and modified by their board. In order to modify a mission, it could take a majority or 2/3 vote. There are ways to pressure the AG Bell Board to consider modifying its mission. A protest is one choice but let’s be realistic, a Gallaudet-style protest to pressure the AG Bell Board would not be successful. Another choice is to contact the organization and inform them that you will be rescinding your membership or withholding your donations unless they take into consideration your views. But that is unlikely because I doubt any of the AG Bell protesters are members or donors.
There is hope though. The leader of the AG Bell protest said on his blog via a comment that he would consider joining the AG Bell, thus becoming a stakeholder, so his voice will be heard. Like my effort to change the NAD mission statement, this is the correct step in the right direction. Of course, the AG Bell protesters could still give the protest a shot but it will most likely only polarize the conflict and strengthen AG Bell’s resolve.
Remember, to change organizations, we must get involved as stakeholders.
© 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.
Reading this, I am reminded of how gentlemen clubs (THOSE from last century, that is) initially did not allow female members but eventually dropped their men-only policy. And although I could be wrong, I’m pretty sure that females did not have to first become stakeholders for such a drastic change to take place.
So, I am not (yet) convinced whether becoming stakeholders is the best (or ONLY) method. Would that be akin to asking a highly devout Christian to join “American Atheists” just for the sake of becoming a stakeholder to effect change? Shane- I’d love to hear your input on this.
Hey, JT:
Which gentlemen clubs are you referring to– the ol’ boy network or the questionable establishments with girls in their birthday suits seemingly able to store dollar bills in unbelievable places?
I agree with the principle expressed by Shane. In order to change the power structure, it is often useful to do so from within the power structure.
It is always easy, of course, to be against “the system” and to otherwise protest, complain, and gripe from the outside. But becoming part of “the system” can enable one to reform it with greater efficiency.
By the way, I don’t think the concept of asking a highly devout Christian to join an atheist group is the most effective analogy here.
Rather, you might want to look at the consolidation of the Christian Right’s power in the GOP. As you know, the Republican party has increasingly preoccupied itself with social issues in a manner that reflects the agenda of the Christian Right. This development resulted from right-wing Christians working for several years within, not against, the GOP. As a result, conservative Christians have been able to ultimately implement their political objectives in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. By working within the system, the Christian Right has been able to quell the power of their adversaries (the secular humanists, the liberals, etc.).
The Christian Right would have gotten nowhere if it had only confronted the GOP in the style of ACT-UP demonstrations of the 1980s and 1990s.
I really like your analogy which concurs quite nicely with Shane’s main point! Actually, I had chosen that particular example due to the overlapping ’superhero’ motif (i.e., some Christians trying to spread the gospel message in hopes of “saving” those who don’t believe.. which could be somewhat compared to those wanting to fix AG Bell’s severely misguided intentions by pressuring them to readily incorporate ASL into their agenda).
And to clarify — I do agree with Shane in how one should use honey (rather than vinegar) to attract..
It would be interesting to know if historians have analyzed whether honey or vinegar has been more effective than the other as a means of change among deaf people.
Several years ago, one Deaf group in France did employ ACT-UP-inspired techniques to protest cochlear implants. Members of “Sourds en colere” (Deaf Anger) used both confrontational techniques and street theater to express their views. While the demonstrations garnered press coverage, as on the occasion of a protest in 1993 at Lyon, it is hard to know whether “Sourds en colere” had any effect on the development of cochlear implants in France. It is uncertain, for that matter, whether the group had any substantive impact at all, aside from its fleeting publicity.
If members of AGB read this blog and the comments, will they willingly accept ASL-using applicants, knowing that they want to change the organization? :)
HAHA!! not bad. =)
Well, this was posted earlier: They’re here to serve deaf people, aren’t they?
Sure — I am an AG Bell member, and I certainly know plenty of members who know ASL, or at least some signs, and don’t hide that fact. OF COURSE AG Bell would accept ASL-using applicants. No one asks you to swear an anti-ASL oath if you join (LOL :-). I don’t think AG Bell is at all what you all think it is, at least not these days. And I think few people these days within AG Bell see ASL or NAD as a threatm so the idea of some “militants” joining is not a huge fear. I think they (I mean we) see the tide is turning towards spoken language, driven by technology.
Your idea reminds me of my friend, a communist, who did a couple of things just to become a stakeholder. He joined the US Army so he could lead a mutiny. He worked on an assembly line so he could lead a proletarian revolt. Yes, there are people willing to do whatever it takes for what they believe in. In my friend’s case, none of it broadening the experience of my friend.
Whoops — I accidentally deleted something. I meant (end of last paragraph) “Yes, there are people willing to do whatever it takes for what they believe in. In my friend’s case, none of it amounted to anything except broadening the life experience of my friend.”
Linwood, that’s classic… your friend sell his life story to Hollywood studios yet? Just too funny…
Jt,
Excellent counterargument. You had me stumped for a while.
To use a comparable example, Bob Jones University (BJU), also a nonprofit, once prohibited the enrollment of black people. There was a bevy of lawsuits between the IRS and BJU in the 70s. In the end, the argument that nonprofits cannot advance a policy contrary to a national policy that is against racial discrimination prevailed.
There is no national policy that ASL or Oralism is the preferred or primary method of communication (that may not be the case in other countries). I don’t know the specifics of the situation that you described above but there is a national policy against sexual discrimination.
In any case, prompting changes from the inside isn’t the *only* way to do it, doing it from the outside is another option, but I believe that the former is more efficient than the latter.
Shane, a point I’d like to reiterate… “AGBAD” to me was just a simple abbreviation for “Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.” If a protest sign says something like “AG-BAD” or “A.G. BAD” or “AG*BAD*,” or in other words if they emphasized the “bad” part of it in some way, then I could see how this would be a deliberate mockery. As it stands I never thought that using the abbreviation “AGBAD” conveyed anything except the actual abbreviation, so I honestly think that on this specific point you’re reading too much into it.
Now for a second point… why must things progress so SLOWLY? It’s a pretty good bet that the leadership of the A.G. Bell Association for the Deaf can read. It’s a pretty good bet they’re following these discussions. The points that are being made here are not rocket science. If a deaf child does not acquire language—any language… ASL or English—during the critical stage of language development (which is very early on in life) then odds begin to steadily increase that the child never will.
A.G. Bell needs to stop screwing around with this. EVERYBODY needs to stop screwing around with this. Language first and hearing second. We shouldn’t have to jump through flaming hoops to get this message across. I don’t want to have to join every last organization under God and sit through countless meetings and propose changes that will be shot down the first ninety times I propose them. Why do we have to play the same game over and over?
Why can’t we just get together and change everything at once? Establish the middle ground once and for all. Then nobody has to be bothered by what they perceive as “extremists” from one camp or the other.
It’s never a black and white issue with “language first and hearing second” when there is a range of hearing loss to deal with in the first place. There are instances when hearing would be more beneficial first during the very early formative years while developing lanugage right alongside it.
Not true, McConnell. Research has shown that using sign with babies is more efficient. That is why hearing people are teaching their hearing babies sign.
I have a video of my hearing daughter when at 1 year old at her 1st birthday party with her signing several signs. She had a vocabulary of 20 to 25 signs and her first sign was “milk” at age between 6 to 7 months. So, I’m no stranger to that. I’ll be putting up that video clip shortly showing the benefit of signing for hearing babies.
Language development is important when it comes to the ability to listen and understand words early on to develope the language component and grammatical rules rather than just communicate only. That’s where hearing aids and cochlear implants come in during the critical first 4 to 5 years of development. Language development is important during those critical years when voice, sound and understanding of words are built upon. Those with mild hearing loss can be addressed with the help of technology parents can have the option of providing sign language or not. I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary in some cases for those with much better hearing. But this option becomes increasingly important with increasing amount of hearing loss and type (ie frequency range).
Personally, for me those with better hearing can do fine in most cases using hearing aids. Those with greater hearing loss would fare better in a lot of cases to include signing.
Hearing loss does not mean that it automatically requires sign language early on in a child’s life. Just the amount of loss and type of loss, and the ability to process sound and understand words ought to determine that. There is no black and white issue when we get down to the range of better hearing and sound discrimination. It becomes a much more grey area of decision.
That’s pretty much what I meant in my post below….
“Personally, for me those with better hearing can do fine in most cases using hearing aids. Those with greater hearing loss would fare better in a lot of cases to include signing.”
Actually, those with a greater degree of hearing loss actually FARE BETTER than those with hearing aids if they qualify for cochlear implants which let them hear down to a whisper and clearly enough to make lip reading unneccessary.
Well Mike, there’s no reason why we can’t zero in on a specific level of deafness in which “language first, hearing second” IS a black and white issue. For example, my brother and I, as I have mentioned in a previous blog, were born with a LOT of hearing. There it makes sense to focus on hearing. But if a child is born profoundly deaf or if he/she is even in the “severe” or even “moderate” range, then language should get top priority. Not hearing. I can introduce you to MANY “deaf” children who were born deaf, received implants, now hear at the somewhat functional “moderate” range (not all–some don’t hear even that much), and still have no language.
It’s beyond a shame, man. It’s a crime.
Chris writes: “Not hearing. I can introduce you to MANY “deaf” children who were born deaf, received implants, now hear at the somewhat functional “moderate” range (not all–some don’t hear even that much), and still have no language.”
I am glad you mentioned that! I would love to see a report someday that shows the statistics between the CI children at the Laurent Clerc Center and oral schools. The former have been learning sign language since Fall 2000. I know that the report will reveal that they read with better comprehension!
mcconnell,
While Deaf Pundit and Chris Heuer may have appropriate and possibly correct responses, I am curious, what “instances” would hearing be beneficial first before sign language?
For instance, babies who lost their hearing through illnesses (such as what happened to me when I had an adverse reaction to a vaccine), would still have that auditory nerve, so implanting these babies make sense.
When these babies are implanted, they continue on receiving auditory input along with the language skills that they pick up. Have you ever visited the Clarke School for the Deaf? I met deaf children who had been implanted as infants, and their progress in speech and auditory input was incredibly astounding. Much better than mine when I was implanted at seven years of age.
Well, a recent Australian study of school aged children found no strong evidence that slight or mild sensorineural hearing loss adversely affects language,reading, behaviour or quality of life.
Wake M, Tobin S, Cone-Wesson B, Dahl HH M, Gillam L, McCormick L, Poulakis Z,
Rickards F W, Saunders K, Ukoumunne O C, Williams J (2006), Slight/mild sensorineural
hearing loss in primary school children: A population study. Paper presented at NHS2006
conference, Lake Como, May 2006.
Babies cannot focus or “see” well until age 3 to 4 months to become visually “mature” and be able to track and focus on objects from a distance. The ability to hear begins immediately and even while in the womb during the third trimester.
Still, babies who are deaf, hoh and hearing in the first two years benefit greatly from sign language. Now the decision comes to whether sign language needs to be continued for those toddlers with mild to moderate hearing loss fitted with a hearing aid will be up to the parents and what their audiologist/pathologist/teacher say.
Again, Shane, in the areas of better hearing the area gets grey on language development.
Hi Mike,
But you see, right now you and I are both standing on perfectly “middle ground.” I agree with you… the less deafness there is, the more that hearing will make an impact on language devlopment over visualization. And as for babies not being able to see as well as they can hear, that doesn’t really make any difference in this case because the infants in question are deaf, right? Now your question about when to discontinue signing in favor of hearing (if in fact signing SHOULD be discontinued) is an excellent question, but I would counter with this… why does ANYTHING have to be discontinued? I’m not convinced that the use of sign language distracts a child from learning to use his/her residual hearing, and I’d like to see solid evidence of that before I’d risk a child’s language acquisition on some organization’s ideology.
People asked why there can’t be a middle ground… well, what’s wrong with THIS?
Sorry… “perfectly SOLID middle ground…” No edit button…
No, since I am not putting babies/toddlers/children with slight/mild hearing loss in the same category as those with much more greater hearing loss when it comes to using the word “deaf”. Babies as a few weeks old can be outfitted with a hearing aid to take advantage of the early audiological development.
There are many reasons why sign language would be discontinued in favor of hearing once the child is of age talking, listening and using language. It’s almost the same idea for hearing babies to discontinue signing once they reach the stage of being able to talk and respond audiologically. No need to sign. The reverse is true of what you said, Chris, that not using sign language will not impede a child from learning and using his/her available hearing. I’ve just cited a recent Australian study supporting reasons why parents of children with mild (or even moderate) hearing loss would choose to forgoe signing.
Like I said, when we get into the area of better hearing, we get into that grey area.
“No, since I am not putting babies/toddlers/children with slight/mild hearing loss in the same category as those with much more greater hearing loss when it comes to using the word ‘deaf’.”
I’m not arguing that you should. I’m arguing two things… as the level of deafness increases, sign language should become the greater focus. That approach still falls under the “Language First, Hearing Second” maxim because the most crucial outcome of either signing or hearing in a young child should be language development. If a child has enough hearing to make use of that without signing, then that’s the route that should be taken. Aside from the fact that you use the term “hearing loss” wher I use “level of deafness,” we seem to agree on this. Correct me if I’m wrong…
The other point I’m arguing is that no matter what level of deafness is present, the option to use signing should still be there and should be encouraged. Even if a child has a mild “hearing loss” (to use your term), how is he going to benefit LESS from exposure to signs than your entirely hearing daughter did (that’s the impression I get from what you said, anwyay… that she is fully hearing… am I right on that?)
The message that I want altered is the message that use of ASL distracts a recently implanted child from learning to use his or her residual hearing. What evidence is there for that? I’d like to see it.
Otherwise I’m more apt to believe that the real issue here is that exposure to ASL distracts parents from purchasing a cochlear implant.
I am not making the connection that the exposure of sign language will prove less beneficial. Rather what I am saying is that not using sign language does not necessarily mean that language will suffer. Even the Australian study I provided showed that.
Correct about the “level of deafness” and “hearing loss.”
As for you comment:
“…as the level of deafness increases, sign language should become the greater focus.”
I agree on some aspects of what you are saying however what you said shows no real distinction on when that line is crossed triggering a sign language only approach. I don’t see it as sign language should be used but rather as ought to be considered instead as we go up in the level of deafness to the point when sign language is seen as best and appropriate use of for language and communication developement. I see gradation of possible approaches whether it’s because of technology, preference on the use of CUED method, Total Communication, SEE, or ASL. I am reticent on the idea of a one method (e.g. ASL only) fits all since technology has certainly changed the picture on language development. But as for CI, I’d more inclined to agree on the use of CUED speech over sign language in many cases since Cued speech users use the same parts of their brain –the auditory cortex— to process phonological information as their hearing peers.
As for the ASL distraction issue regarding cochlear implant is, as I see it, a mixed bag sort of thing. Nothing really solid in lot of cases because of what we do know over those what we’re not really sure of.
Chris Heuer,
I understand where you are coming from. I also believe that deaf children can benefit from visual languages at the earliest age. But that isn’t the point of this blog.
My problem is with the approach and message of the AG Bell protesters. If they proceed as is, will they actually make a difference? Will the money spent on airfare, lodging, markers and poster paper, as well as the countless hours and words spent on this protest be well spent?
I don’t think the protestors will succeed because they are not really serious in engaging in a constructive dialogue. They are approaching this protest from the stance that AG Bell is a bad, EVIL organization that has destroyed the lives of millions of deaf children through the dreaded use of oralism.
Heh.
HEAR HEAR!
*Sigh* I have to agree with Noelle. Check out this link: http://deaffilmblog.blogspot.c.....ntrue.html
History is history… AGB has moved past the early goals of “exterminating the deaf population” to acknowledging sign languages.
Even calmly explaining the history of AGB won’t help the protest to achieve the goals. We keep forgetting about children belonging to the parents for 18 years. In fact, in a decade or so, at least 80% of deaf people here in America would have CIs or better technological devices. Well, we can sit and watch how the protest would unfold next weekend.
It’d be helpful if AGB makes its stance change on sign language a bit more public. I don’t think many signing deaf people are aware of it. Hence, the upcoming protest.
YES, I agree wholeheartedly! That’s why I don’t think the protest will be very effective.
I think joining AG Bell is a good idea. But like it was said in the first entry discussing this issue, it shouldn’t be the only tactic done to address this issue. In my opinion, NAD needs to counter AG Bell’s statements in a more efficient way.
Chris, things move slowly for several reasons:
Firstly, we don’t have serious financial backing to get our message out to millions of people.
Secondly, we’re not organized enough.
Thirdly, we can’t even agree on *what* the message should be, and how to say it.
Deaf Pundit,
Those barriers didn’t stop another recent protest from being successful. Who knows, I could be wrong about the whole thing and John Egbert will successfully include the word “ASL” to the AG Bell mission.
Shane, once again you’re doing the exact thing that Genie Gertz explained as: Dysconscious Audism. Why is that you re decrying that some of us attempt to get our message across to AgBAD? You wanted to view it as “Gallaudet-style” protests. I do not view such things like that. I look at it as a way to demonstrate our presence.
Gallaudet protests are over. We took care of this and you’re still obsessed with this mentality. Something wrong with your mentality, Shane?
NAD already, in the past, made a lot of attempts to reach out to AgBAD. They were virtually ignored, mocked and/or silent.
Now you’re talking about the stakeholders which is interesting because Ella Mae Lentz talked about it in her recent vlog regarding the different situation. Now you’re trying to divide us by encouraging us to join the organization and implode from within.
The whole point of the demonstration is to educate the public that the efforts that the AgBAD has done in the last 100 years were simply despicable. And these actions has to stop. Don’t bother to change the subject by claiming that they have “changed”. They did not repent their sins. Capisce?
But no, Shane, it is evident that you wanted us to fight against each other rather than to fight the system. Instead of unifying against the common enemy, you rather to attack each other, why is that?
R-
Ridor,
See John Egbert’s comment below (#85260), it appears that he agrees with my suggestion. He says, “And I think all of the d/Deaf should join AGBell to have their voice and votes to change their ideology of today.”
To unify against a “common enemy” people with common interests ideally should find common ground. We haven’t reached that point yet. But then again, like I said in my comment to Deaf Pundit above, we’ve witnessed protests that achieved its objective despite the lack of widespread “unification”.
Shane
What about those deaf individuals who embrace AG Bell’s mission as it is? NAD exists for a strain of ideology and AG Bell for another. I think it’s nice to have those two camps set up so people can mingle and work with similar perspectives.
I think AGB and NAD have worked together on issues that affect the entire deaf/hoh population such as lobbying for more captioning.
Shane, you work(ed?) for NAD. You know anything about it?
Ben M.,
Yeah, the NAD works together with all the other deafness-related organizations in a coalition called the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Alliance; a Coalition of Consumers and Professional Organizations (DHHA). I know it’s a mouthful.
The only PR or public dissemination by the DHHA that I could find addressed funding issues and the USOC in 2003 (see the organization list at the end):
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....p;b=179747
The DHHA still meets. They recently sent a letter to Congress regarding FY2008 appropriations for the early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) programs at HRSA, CDC and NIH.
I think I read from someone that it’s like an African American joining a White Supremist group. It will not work. Ideologies are designed to clash with one another and one must lose. Either you comply or get out. AGB proponents will never embrace sign language and your being as a deaf person unless they define it. I say no thanks and off with their heads.
Shane,
This protest on July 27th and 28th is NOT, I repeat again, NOT “Gallaudet-style” protest!!! Where did you get that paraniod state of mind that we, the concerned Deaf citizen, will be out of control or do anything stupid????
And the idea of having the wording;
Advocating Independence through Listening, Talking, and Signing!
What do you mean by Signing? The word signing is a weak word! It could mean a middle finger or SEE or TC or American Sign Language.
Anytime you mention sign language, always use the term, American Sign Language!!!
AGBEll is so slick that they will be happy to have signing as a agreement and still can say no to American Sign Language and assumed that the deaf people mention SEE, or whatever.
AS of NAD, and you as a shareholder, You must do something!
Writing blogs to tell concerned Deaf citizens what to do is not leadership.
I will have a post about plans to have this protest to be effective and successful.
And for now, we will have a meeting at Gallaudet Ely Center on the 25th and 26th from 11am to 1pm.
More information on guidelines to follow for the protest
John Egbert
This protest on July 27th and 28th is NOT, I repeat again, NOT “Gallaudet-style” protest!!! Where did you get that paraniod state of mind that we, the concerned Deaf citizen, will be out of control or do anything stupid????
Look at drmzz’s comment right above. He wrote: I say no thanks and off with their heads.
Nice try, I am not attending this protest.
John Egbert,
I stand corrected, you want the mission to state, “Advocating Independence through Listening, Talking, and ASL!”
FYI…as a NAD stakeholder, I made a motion.
“Writing blogs to tell concerned Deaf citizens what to do is not leadership.”
Isn’t that what you’re doing? I disagree, writing blogs to tell concerned Deaf citizens what to do *is* a form of leadership.
I’ll give your plans and guidelines for the protest a chance, let us know when you post them. In the meantime, I have some feedback for your first press release for the protest at:
http://blog.deafread.com/agbel.....l-protest/
“Egbert speaks as clearly as any hearing person, something less than 2% of the deaf population can do.”
Where I can go to have my speech ranked and compared to the rest of the deaf population. :) I think it would be more effective to say that you were a product of oralism (which you claim to be) and that you are a card-carrying member of the AG Bell.
“The Volta Bureau’s bylaws, written by Alexander Graham Bell himself, state that if AG Bell ever promotes the use of sign language, it will cease to receive funding from the Volta Bureau.”
This is akin to the same mistake Bush made in his elusive search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. You better make a copy of the Volta Bureau bylaws before making this claim. Two things could happen, 1) AG Bell will simply respond with a copy of the Volta Bureau bylaws and say that your facts are wrong OR 2) the “slick” AG Bell will revise or conceal that portion the Bylaws and make you look stupid. If they’re smart, they won’t respond to you at all.
Even if that language is in the Volta Bureau bylaws, like J.J. Puorro says below, are they breaking any laws by refusing to include sign language in its organization?
Finally, it is not wise to promote your book in your AG Bell protest press release. Doing so may give some the impression that you may have an ulterior motive — a publicity stunt to promote your book and line your pockets.
Shane,
I am a member of AGBell
And I think all of the d/Deaf should join AGBell to have their voice and votes to change their ideology of today.
John Egbert
I agree with you. I’m member of AGBell as well (have been my whole life) but I am fine with how AGBell is those days because they are advocate for their own belief like NCSA are advocate for their own communication method. There are many other organizations that are advocate for their own beliefs. So let them alone.
John Egbert writes in #85260: “And I think all of the d/Deaf should join AGBell to have their voice and votes to change their ideology of today.”
I respectfully beg to differ. Firstly, what you said (vid. supra) is like saying that all Americans should join Al-Qaede, n’est-ce pas?
Secondly, the protest against AGBADHH will fall through for definite! From my experience since 2002 as a peace activisit, organisations like Move.On, A.N.S.W.E.R.S. and universities keep me and other activists, including our Noam Chomsky, well-informed two or three months in advance, not on the spur of the moment. Well- organised for demonstrations in anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-hunger, anti-genocide, rallies. This has given not only Americans but also Canadians and Europeans ample time to do the volunteer work, preparing speeches, writing letters to legislators, contacting official organisations (the police), designing posters. If not prepared well in advance, the protest against AGBADHH would, therefore, be an utter fiasco.
Off on a tangent, I am disturbed that the NAD has of late not published its NADmag. Otium sine litteris mors est! Perhaps we would consider setting up a blog, “AGBADHH Blog”. On the blog, we might discuss the NIH’s findings about intelligence development through sign language amongst babies — however hearing or deaf — through visual cues. We would show facts on the table that auditory nerves and tongue-vocal cords are not developed to the fullness ready for the acquisition of any spoken language until much later. AGBADHH Blog is quite an eye-catching name and would invite more people to join.
Jean Boutcher,
In response to your tangent, you will want to contact the NAD about that. Go to their website and fill out the contact form. I’ve received the latest issues of the NADmag and the new design is georgeous. Also the NAD has several blogs on their website. Go to: http://www.nad.org/blogcentral.
Oops, my comment above #85259,
I mean Stakeholder, not shareholder
John
Comments:
1.) I don’t care to discuss which method is better (from within vs. from outside) to effect a change in the AGB organization. I really am more interested in WHAT the protestors are really protesting here? They want to change an organization’s mission statement? The last time I looked, this was STILL America..even with Dubya in the White House. We all have the freedom to organize groups of like minded people. Is AGB violating any laws? No… how would the protestors feel if AGB protested outside the NAD convention asked NAD to change it’s mission statement? What the hell is going on here?
2.) Also..WHO are we trying to save here? Deaf children? There’s nothing we can do…just like nobody can tell us how to raise any of our kids. Kids BELONG to their parents for 18 years. So, we need to “convince” the parents that language acquistion is a priority…but it is also THEIR GOAL.It is likely that their view is that orally training their children prepares the child to acquire language quicker.
3.) Everyone in the Deaf community is in the community because they want to be. Orally educated Deaf people will join the signing community if they want to. It isn’t as if Deaf children will live their whole lives without ever knowing about sign language…
4.) Fighting AGB is the wrong thing to do, IMO. We should be fighting for 100% close captioning everywhere…or other things like that. Trying to fight AGB…or Deaf education at large…is a waste of time because we all know one size doesn’t fit all. I say we should set out to educate parents that communicating with their child is the number one prority and that also communication is a TWO way street. I think that’s something we all can agree on.
Just my two cents….
It takes means so do all what can take. I kept on thinking which is more effective, it even wastes more time trying figure out. I personally resort to take routes to where deaf children would get immediate results like monthly events for specific age group of kids in different location including websites for kids and their families in our state here. I am moving on here with a good number of people thinking the same thing.
I only wish I can afford to be a member of AGBAD..hee hee.
J.J. Puorro,
Wow! Your comment surprised me — we finally agree on something. :)
I fully agree with this. A shared approach is what would work best in this case of securing access to telecommunications for deaf and hard of hearing Americans.
J.J. Puorro (#85263) writes: “3. Everyone in the Deaf community is in the community because they want to be. 4.Trying to fight AGB…or Deaf education at large…is a waste of time because we all know one size doesn’t fit all.”
How true! There are some deaf people who choose to live in the hearing world. Your statement also occurred to me about a deaf leader who said way back, “A truly successful deaf person is the one who is a professor with a tenure in a hearing university, a physician, an elected government official, a member of a think tank like Brookings Institute or American Enterprise Institute, a president of a chemical company, an executive director of Paramount, a diplomat at the United Nations.
Do you agree with that?
How about a deaf person in professional sports like pro baseball, basket, hockey, football..etc? In hearing dominated professional sports?
How about just a deaf person who’s happy, who contributes to society–hearing or deaf society–in a way that’s meaningful and fulfilling to him/her? Why does a deaf person’s success have to be connected to the hearing world before it’s valid?
Really, I find the above quote in Jean’s comment to be quite chilling (just talking about the quote itself, Jean, not you). Simply substitute the word “deaf” with the word “black,” and substitute the word “hearing” with the word “white.” Or really just make such substitutions with any minority group of your pick. Now the quote becomes:
“A truly successful black person is the one who is a professor with a tenure in a white university, a physician, an elected government official, a member of a think tank like Brookings Institute or American Enterprise Institute, a president of a chemical company, an executive director of Paramount, a diplomat at the United Nations.”
I don’t really see it that way since this has nothing to do with racial qualities but rather the challenge of running and managing as a deaf person in a world full of hearing people. A measure of success is about overcoming obstacles and challenges. And be successful among your hearing peers or co-workers and for them to *look up* to you is certainly a pedestal worth to be proud of.
Which is more impressive somebody making the Deaf Olympics or that same person making the Olympics which is the epitome of the best of the best in sports?
Same goes for pro sports. The best of the best go there.
Yeah but what does that have to do with hearing ability? You’re a Matt Hamill fan, aren’t you? So if somebody wrestles him in the Deaf Olympics or if somebody fights him in UFC, what’s the difference? The opponent is still Hamill.
I don’t think that’s a case of splitting hairs. The implication above is that to be the best of the best it has to be “hearing.” The only thing hearing people have more of than deaf people is numbers. Not necessarily skill.
Look what happens when you expand on this topic. If I write a book for a “hearing” publishing company, I’m successful. If I write one for Gallaudet University Press, I’m a failure (even though GUP employs hearing people and has published numerous books by hearing authors, but that IS splitting hairs so let’s just pass on that one for now). If I’m a teacher in a hearing school I’m successful… if I’m a teacher in a deaf school or a deaf program I’m not. Keep following that kind of thing and shouldn’t this become true: If I have two kids, one deaf and one hearing, so long as the hearing child looks up to me and respects me I’m a successful father, but if the deaf one hates my guts, that doesn’t matter?
I know you’re not saying that, but still…
In professional sports they’re made up of mostly if not entirely of professional athletes. So, it’d be a challenge for a deaf athlete to be seen an equal but the also the day to day challenge communicating successfully.
Writing a book doesn’t matter because it’s about a book and not about a deaf person when it comes to submitting it to a hearing or deaf run publishing company. I don’t see it as a failure in any of those cases you’ve outlined but you are. It’s a success regardless which publishing companies will want to publish your book.
I’ve made no distinctions about failures when it comes to overcoming certain obstacles in a bit of twisting of context here. The distinction I made is how one can still overcome obstacles and challenges in a mostly hearing society. Not about failures.
Look at Matt Hamill. Many people are rooting for him because they see him as an underdog trying to break into the world of professional sports dominated by hearing people. You read those Mixed Martial Arts forum about Matt Hamill and how many people think people are trying to give him a break because he’s deaf when it’s really about Matt’s ability to fight in the ring and has the skills to do the job.
Whether you like it or not, those are real bench marks for a lot of deaf people to be recognized by their hearing peers whether it’s about a deaf actress in Jericho, UFC fights, first deaf pro baseball player (ie Dummy Hoy), first deaf professional football player, first deaf CEO of a mostly hearing run company and so on. Success is relative and I look at just that. I don’t even bother with the idea of “failures.” You can if you want but successes come in many shapes, forms and opportunities whether it’s deaf or hearing.