Do the Needs of Many Outweigh the Needs of a Few?
By Shane Feldman on Wed 26 Sep 2007 |
Email This Post
On the surface, it may appear that there is a marginal difference between deaf and hard of people. Navel-gazing identity politics aside (including the white hot Oralism vs. ASL conflict which has little to do with this blog), the needs of these groups are different. Deaf signers who do not use assistive listening devices (i.e. hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc.) may not care whether or not there is a “loop” system in a room, and hard of hearing people who do not know American Sign Language (ASL) may not need ASL interpreters, and so it goes. Sure, many people fall in the gray area. They could be hard of hearing, wear cochlear implants, and be fluent in ASL or any other interesting combination. Regardless, people with hearing loss have specific needs in order to effectively communicate.
Hearing politicians often lump all people with “hearing loss” into a neatly compartmentalized category, or worse, with all “people with disabilities” or those who have “special needs”. This puts all people with a vested interest in any type of hearing loss in a position where they may collaborate to achieve somewhat dissimilar goals (loops for hard of hearing people and ASL interpreters for deaf signers, for example). However, scarce resources and a growing awareness of the difference between deaf and hard of hearing people can unravel well-intentioned efforts.
For example, a recent email from the Northern Virginia Resource Center announced that the Chicago O’Hare and Midway airports plan to install 11 videophones for the deaf or hard of hearing where users can request airport services and receive tourist information via VRS or call friends and relatives who have videophones. Great news, right? Well, one reader replied:
How is this going to help those who do not use sign language or even know it, and need to get services and information? Are those airports even aware that only a very small percentage of people with hearing loss will benefit from this service, while they ignore the rest?
That was an unfortunate response, it reeks of “we outnumber them, why give them this much attention and support?” And that is where the argument seems to be distilled at: numbers.
Some hard of hearing people, when seeking support from political leaders, argue that people with a hearing loss who do not use sign language vastly outnumber those who do. Their claim is true. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders at the National Institutes of Health, there are 28 million people with hearing loss in the United States. The Maryland legislation for the ASL as a foreign credit bill (HB0586 Maryland ASL Bill) in 2005 stated:
ASL is used as the preferred means of communication for approximately 500,000 deaf individuals in the U.S. and Canada.
Is the sign language community really that small? Mike McConnell wrote an insightful blog on the number of deaf and hard of hearing people in the U.S., and estimates that the number could be 930,000 or even 1 million. Assuming that the signing population is on the higher-end of McConnell’s estimate, 1 million, that is only 3.5% of the entire population of people with a hearing loss in the United States. A drop in the bucket.
Consequently, the “we outnumber them” argument is gaining traction with more and more advocates in the hard of hearing community. Terry Portis, executive director of the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) — formerly known as Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH) — threw down the gauntlet in the July-August 2005 issue of Hearing Loss:
In spite of this [the miniscule number of signers in the U.S.], how much of state and federal dollars are used to support the communication choice of the vast majority of people whose lives are impacted by hearing loss? While it is difficult to come up with exact numbers, I would suggest that state and federal funding for supporting hearing loss is exactly opposite of what it should be. The statistics of people who are hard of hearing are used to justify funding that then usually never gets to them.
According to Portis, less than 3% of HLAA members use ASL, so he represents a specific, albeit enormous, segment of the deaf and hard of hearing community. Porits explains that most HLAA members rely on hearing technology and visual clues such as speechreading (or lip reading) to help them communicate. A brief glimpse of HLAA position papers reveal the organization’s priorities such as insurance coverage of hearing aids, telecoils, education of hard of hearing children in regular school, and assistive device warranty laws.
Unfortunately Portis neglects the fact that there is a continued alarming lack of access for deaf signers all over the country. While the funding may be disproportionate, the available amount still does not provide the deaf signer with the equal access protected under the law or with the opportunities that a U.S. citizen deserves. Arguing that a proportionate amount of resources should be diverted to a much larger number of individuals with hearing loss who do not know how to sign could make logical sense to political leaders. However, it overlooks the unequal amount of access and opportunities for both groups.
A profoundly deaf person who does not use his/her voice or lipread well could have a more difficult time finding meaningful employment compared to a hard of hearing person who has a good command of lip-reading and speaks almost normally. In another example, a deaf signer who does not use his/her voice that has been taken to the emergency room could have a harder time communicating with a doctor without an interpreter compared to a hard of hearing person. There are different degrees of inequality in these situations.
Portis concludes that “it is time that advocates for people who are hard of hearing start to make some noise about serious funding inequities that are found throughout the country” and some have taken up his charge. Put another way, the tables have been turned for the signing deaf community. It is also possible that hard of hearing people who desire to become integrated into the hearing world with minimal barriers have ramped up their advocacy efforts while signers, more content among their own, may not feel as compelled to correct inequities. A larger population with a stronger desire to become part of the hearing world can easily overshadow the signing community. But that should not be the case.
The solution isn’t to transfer funds from one group to another or even to compare the amount of funding. Both groups should endeavor to create more funding for both, signers and hard of hearing people. There is no fixed amount of the funding pie that will be split between both groups of people with hearing loss that we must squabble over. Instead of taking $1 away from signers and giving it to hard of hearing people, both should be increased by $1. Together, we should seek equal access for both groups, even if the other is not present. So if a signing person is advocating for greater services for signers, they could also do the same for hard of hearing people, and vice versa. After all, we both understand the difficulty of being denied communication access, don’t we?
© 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.
200 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What these hard of hearing people forget (or overlook) is a very simple fact: inequalities exist in all disability groups.
For example, when I worked at Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, I was faced with the difficulty of deciding what color, matte/shiny, etc to use for large print signs. Apparently, a certain type of low-vision user likes to see blue letters against a matte yellow background, while another certain type of low-vision user likes to see black letters against shiny white background. The idea here is low contrast vs. high contrast. Ugh. How to decide? Pick one, or pick both and risk drowning Kennedy Center with signs?
Another problem we faced was…strobe lights are popular as visual fire alarm systems, but they are equally bad for epileptics, who react badly to strobe lights (they have seizures when they see strobe lights). Which is more important–informing deaf people that there is smoke/fire, or making sure epileptics don’t have seizures?
It goes on and on.
At the risk of outlawing strobe alarms for deaf people entirely, the point about strobes aggravating epilepsy is valid.
Shouldn’t there be research to see if lowering the frequency of strobing will eliminate this problem? 1 flash per 2 seconds versus a rapid strobe of 3 flashes per second, for example.
Another concern is that HoH groups competing for funds for assistive devices and services could cause Deaf people to experience reduction in services. Government budgets being limited, the principle of the greater good is followed in most cases. Again, research is needed to determine what kinds of assistance is universally needed by all groups–whether it be running captions, visual display screens, universal telephones containing both VP and TTY and hearing aids, or elimination of loudspeakers in favor of universal access devices.
Not only the frequency but the color as well that can induce seizures. In Japan, a Japanese commercial had this wild, intense red and yellow strobe effect flashing has caused a lot of Japanese kids go into an induced seizure because of that. Though it’s a combined effect but frequency of flashes is what mostly gives many people seizure problems.
Even the color of the new kind of headlights seen on some of the newer cars nowaday (almost like a whitish/blueish ting color) can cause slight nauseau in some drivers when the oncoming lights are shone into the eyes.
Dianrez, the epileptic groups told us that the number of flashes doesn’t matter. The color of flashes doesn’t matter. All it takes is one flash for some epileptics, and two flashes for some others, etc. The level of sensitivity among epileptics varies.
The point is, at one point the epileptic groups did their best to prevent widespread installation (via advocacy/legislation) of strobe fire alarms in hotels, public places, etc. Fortunately for Deaf people, they failed. But every now and then when this issue comes up, they try to make waves again.
Flashing rate does matter. It’s what triggers some of the epileptic episode. Not just flashing but other things as color, distance, patterns invovled, etc…
http://www.epilepsyfoundation......060306.cfm
Michele, “fortunately for deaf people, they failed”? I feel uncomfortable being fortunate in expense of other people. Is strobe light the only solution for deaf people? What about bright red light that doesn’t flash? What do you think?
Agreed… Even a sign that says FIRE would be pretty useful in places where we wouldn’t be asleep…
Ben, I was speaking as a Deaf person, obviously.
In all seriousness, if I was responsible for ensuring installation of strobe fire alarms in hotels (for example), I would set aside one or two rooms without strobe fire alarms, and through advertising, let epileptics know that they can request strobe fire alarm-less room.
The problem is in *other* public areas such as schools, airports, museums, etc…steady, non-flashing light wouldn’t work because a Deaf person could think it’s just a regular light. You do need the flash to signal to the Deaf person/people that something is wrong and that they need to get out.
The strobe itself could be switched to a light bulb…(flashing, of course).
This is a good thread. Do deaf people get priority over people with light-triggered epilepsy? I think not, the principle of universal access and universal accommodation should apply. If something will satisfy both groups, that should apply. A box sign reading “EVACUATE” could glow on and remain on while a moving band in the background going back and forth calls attention to it. All things are possible if one takes the time to think things through. Most ADA compliant features I have seen weren’t well thought out.
Dianrez,
Good response. What ADA compliant features, that were not well thought out, come to mind?
We’ve all seen the ramps with a step before them. In toilet stalls for the handicapped, toilet paper dispensers are below the level of the toilet. Subways that have gates beside the turnstiles for wheelchairs require the wheelchair to back up after opening the gate. Many displays are hearing aid/loop compatible but not closed captioned. The stupid, not thought-out examples are there if one looks.
I agree that most ‘compliance’ only goes so far, and much of the failure of compliance efforts is due to unthoughtful installation–or what we used to call lack of common sense. Even a lot of non-disability-focused things suffer from poor design. Many times, the well thought out stuff for disabilities ends up being the preferred choice of those without disabilities.
Like I said to Ben, a non-flashing light is so easy to overlook, especially if you are a heavy sleeper, or you are busy doing something or you just came in, unaware that the fire alarm has just gone off.
No, I think flashing light of some kind is necessary to ensure that you get ALL Deaf people’s attention.
In this case, universal accommodation is almost impossible, given that epileptics are saying that they don’t want flashing lights of any kind and obviously, Deaf people *need* flashing lights to ensure that all Deaf people don’t accidentally get killed in a fire simply because they didn’t realize that the fire alarm light was on!
I simply don’t know why there can’t be an alternative to the flashing light problem. One of the federal agencies here in Washington, D.C., use a text-messaging alert system to let deaf employees know when there is a fire drill, or an evacuation drill. It’s simple, and could be implemented with no cost at all since most deaf people carry some form of pagers, i.e. Sidekicks and Blackberries, with them.
All they have to do is sign up to that specific hotel’s e-mail alert system or an airport alert system.
Noelle, when I worked at Kennedy Center, we had this deaf custodian who wasn’t well educated. We tried a text pager for him since his job took him all over Kennedy Center and we were afraid he wouldn’t be able to see the flashing fire alarm.
Well…because he wasn’t well educated, he didn’t know how to use a pager and despite repeated attempts to train him on how to use a pager (I trained him many, many times, as well as many attempts made by another Deaf co-worker to train him, plus his hearing boss tried to train him many times, etc.), it just didn’t work that well for him.
We had to give up on pager idea for this guy and resort to using buddy system to alert him to fire alarms if he was working in an area without a visual fire alarm.
Sometimes pagers don’t work well, especially for low-functioning deaf people.
Accessibility is a complex issue, trust me.
I am aware that accessibility is a highly complex issue. That is why I want the deaf community to work together in making sure that MOST or nearly ALL deaf members are covered in terms of access and emergency preparedness.
Text messaging would cover nearly all deaf people, but for the few low-functioning deaf people, the buddy system would have to work.
Noelle, *sigh*. What about public places, such as museums, airports, etc?
You have to take in the possibility that a low-functioning deaf person might be alone.
Can’t assume that such a person will always have someone with her/him.
We can’t absolutely cover everyone in this instance. There will always be the extreme few that cannot utilize the kind of technology used by the deaf community. I know that there are deaf children with severe multiple disabilities. I know they can’t benefit from CART because they can’t read the text, I know they can’t benefit from ASL interpreters because they can’t see the interpreter due to their blindness, I know they can’t move about freely due to their paralysis, I know they can’t function cognitively in classrooms or go to college due to their severe mental impairments.
HOWEVER, these deaf people represent a very small percent of deaf society. We should make every good effort to include them in accessibility coverage, but if our efforts fail, it is not for the lack of trying, it is because their difficulties are so profound that it cannot be addressed conclusively.
The best accomodation for those we label “low functioning deaf people” is the erradication of the educational discrepencies that create them in the first place.
Exactly. What if they’re born with mild mental retardation? What if they’re dyslexic? What if they’re born to parents that don’t speak English or ASL, such as Hispanic parents or Chinese parents with no knowledge of how to deal with their child’s disability. What if that low-functioning deaf person has multiple disabilities?
Oh, that’s not what I was thinking. I was thinking of all the people who are just deaf but never acquired language of any kind because they were ignored or put in an inappropriate environment.
That’s right, Chris. None of these happened merely because of children’s inability to hear. Lack of access and exposure to rich language by visual means are what contributed to most of their low functioning status.
Michele, I empathize with your experience. If any option you have always has its ‘deal-killer’, then choosing is always going to be frustrating. I’m a hearing aid fitter, and realistically, even the best of hearing aids can’t compare to normal audition. No two brains are a like. We look for aural patterns and have strategies for dealing with those patterns….but the list of possibilities is pretty huge when you try to get specific for one person’s needs and wants.
If we are trying to improve accessibility, the least we can do is stop putting barriers up on the paths that lead in the right directions.
Another reason why I would support the idea of a “Million deaf People March” (I purposely used lower case to include all people with hearing loss and not just only about special interest group only). Or unless somebody has a better slogan to include ALL people with hearing loss for the million march idea. There are 30 million people in the U.S. with hearing loss, so the idea merits a possibility of that working successfully.
All of us have various communication needs regardless of our preferred mode of communication whenever we are in public places, at work, at home, at a sporting event and so on. For people seeing a million plus people with hearing loss marching in the streets of D.C. could even actually galvanize more people into addressing our communication needs. Congress, the industry, and services could in fact re-think on just how big of an economic impact we all carry and that we’re not to be taken lightly.
Well, the large majority of 30 million people with hearing loss would dare not to identify themselves as “Deaf”. So what to do??
We all share one common need and that is we have communication needs whether it’s in the form of CC, signing, use of hearing aids, SEE, cued speech, AVT, and so on and so forth. That’s the common link we all have.
Robert does have a point…there are many, many “hearing” people with degrees of loss that don’t self-identify themselves as “HOH”, “person with hearing loss”, etc.
I.e., many “hearing” senior citizens don’t even consider themselves in the hearing impaired category and wouldn’t care less about the issues deaf people have.
Man, this is a tough issue like Ketcham mentions above..you can’t please everyone.
I do agree on a joint fund raising concept where both (or all) segments get more $$$ instead of the $$$ going from one group to another.
J.J.,
Let’s assume that a government informs “hearing loss” groups that they have $100,000 earmarked for deaf and hard of hearing needs. Both most likely have ideas in mind that exceed that amount. In that case, what happens?
Shane, I am actually surprised (and offended) that SHHH would complain. After all, it is general knowledge that SHHH and AG Bell organizations are very well-funded, unlike NAD.
The difference is, NAD is much more active (and successful) in area of legislative advocacy than SHHH and AG Bell.
If SHHH and AG Bell feel that NAD (and culturally Deaf people) are being heard more, that’s their own fault for not being more active in area of legislative advocacy.
Now to answer your theoretical question: obviously each group would get a slice of that $100K…and it would be terribly small, given that we have cultural Deaf group, HOH group, oral Deaf group, CI group, Cued speech group, blah blah blah.
Could say “take this slice and be happy you got it.”
That’s why I’m advocating communication access as a point we all can rally around. The atrocious HDTV captioning is one example and affects ALL deaf people.
For instance, reasonable accomodations—that’s something we need to rail against because the ADA has been so narrowly interpreted that a reasonable accomodation for me is an ASL interpreter that I cannot benefit from as an oral deaf person with a CI. I had to fight to get CART at my college. CART was not considered a reasonable accomodation because the school wasn’t aware that there were different segments of the deaf population that required highly specific accomodations.
What atrocious HDTV captioning problem? Please enlighten me more on this.
Here are links for you which explains the problem with digital captioning in great detail:
http://coataccess.civicspaceondemand.org/node/41
http://www.hearinglossweb.com/.....tv/fcc.htm
Thanks!
Shame on you, Shane Feldman, for repeating the oppressive phrase “navel-gazing identity politics.”
YOU are doing the exact same thing that Jordan attempted to do, which is attempt to label pro-Deaf culture activism as an unimportant internal issue.
But it is NOT an unimportant internal issue. It’s an extremely important external political issue that is very important to the future of deaf education.
I agree with the statement about “navel-gazing identity politics.” Too much heat and light has been expended on who is more Deaf than thou. Shane points out a far more productive approach than protesting those who are different from your ideal.
About time somebody said something about it. I agree.
It has NOTHING to do with “who is more deaf than thou”. That is oppressive language which attempts to deflect attention away from the real issues.
The real issues are that deaf children NEED ASL in order to develop normal cognitive skills.
STOP trying to re-frame the issue in an oppressive manner.
Deep Ears,
Identity politics is not unimportant, but using it to oppress others does not seem to help us move forward. Some comments in this blog are good examples of that. I’m sorry you do not feel that the issue I brought up is a “real” one.
Shane,
You are attempting to reframe my comment. I am saying that when you use the phrase “navel gazing”, you are implying that Deaf culture activism is unimportant, because it is some kind of internal issue that doesn’t address important external issues. “Navel gazing,” in this instance, is a bigoted, anti-Deaf culture term.
Now you are attempting to reframe the issue of Deaf culture activism by portraying it as an issue of oppression against hard-of-hearing people. That’s a very narrow and improper frame you are attempting to create.
Everybody knows that if a hard-of-hearing person has a good attitude and accepts others as equals, then he or she will also be accepted as an equal. This is how Deaf culture grows and prospers.
Your statements expose the sterility and futility of identity politics by mindlessly spouting off cliches about “bigoted, anti-Deaf culture,” and “good attitudes.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with your goals, but I do object to your intemperate language and attempt to impose your ideological blinders on everyone else.
To me, the real heroes are those who create opportunities and solutions by working with those who are the polar opposites, without preconceived notions. The real heroes provide a better place for D/deaf people to get better opportunities in light of the almost continuous discrimination we face. It’s hard work, yes, but more progress is made than spouting off slogans.
DE, did you read the same blog article as I did?
From what I read, the HoH people are telling the hearing to not pay any mind to the signing deaf, because our population isn’t as big as theirs.
Go back and read it!
And by the way, Shane has every right to say what he thinks about the verbal vomitage about deaf identity politics. I for one, agree with Shane, and am FED UP with people trying to tell me what my identity should be, and trying to think for me.
Deep Ears:
“Everybody knows that if a hard-of-hearing person has a good attitude and accepts others as equals, then he or she will also be accepted as an equal. This is how Deaf culture grows and prospers.”
That is not true, and pretty much everyone else confirms it with their comments in one form or another. A hard-of-hearing person may have a good attitude towards the D/deaf community and willing to accept them as “equals”, but may not know ASL. That person gets lamblasted and put down so many times by some Deaf people that s/he is left with a bitter impression of the “deaf culture.”
So deaf culture grows and prospers… at the expense of some people.
Deep Ears,
I am sorry. I am in the same boat as Vikki, DP, Anonymous and others. Do you know me well and represent me?
The person who started the intemperate language was Shane, when he used the phrase “navel gazing identity politics.” This is an attack, in the style of King Jordan, in the attempt to marginalize the validity of ASL and Deaf culture.
Anonymous: the whole purpose of Deaf culture is to achieve those exact goals that you mention, so you are attempting to turn the world inside out, and also marginalize Deaf culture in a similar manner.
Refusal to learn a language, yet stubbornly asserting a right to partake in a culture, is a sign of superiority. Any hard-of-hearing person who wants to be treated as an equal and accepts culturally Deaf people as equals would therefore learn ASL.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/trolls.gif
But there ARE culturally Deaf people who do not know ASL. Yet they take pride in the culture.
So using your reasoning, in order for me, as a Black woman, to participate equally in my Black> culture, does that mean I must resort to speaking ebonics? I don’t think so.
Au contraire, I think it is you who is marginalizing ASL and Deaf Culture by your strident language and demands that everyone follow your ideal community.
Keep up the “good” work and you’ll rapidly find yourself marginalized into obscurity.
And rightfully so.
Why can’t we accept culturally deaf people that do not know ASL into the deaf community? I consider myself culturally deaf—for instance, I went to a residential school, have deaf friends who are mostly oral, and I understand the difficulties of being deaf in a largely hearing environment.
Refusal to learn language? – Hmmm, there are many choices people can make in this world – English, French, ASL, LSF and etc. It’s a matter of respect. Where’s your respect?
What are you talking about in terms of respect?
Noelle, WAD is talking about Deep Ear’s lack of respect.
I’m talking about people who have superiority complexes who want to have it both ways. They want to be accepted within Deaf culture, but they also want to assert a superiority due to their ability to speak.
You can’t do that. THAT is the lack of respect and THAT is why some hard of hearing people feel rejected. The truth is that that type of person rejected culturally Deaf people first.
I have a right to be impolite on this thread where Shane Feldman is attacking culturally Deaf people by using the phrase “navel gazing identity politics.” That is King Jordan’s trick and Shane is attempting to do it here. It’s the attempt to marginalize Deaf culture by portraying it as involving meaningless “navel gazing.”
Nobody is demanding that people join Deaf culture, but if you do, you do it as an equal, not someone with a superiority complex.
DE, I don’t like the term “navel gazing” either, nor do I like the attempted marginalization of Deaf Culture that often occurs in many of these discussions. But I’m sorry, I personally don’t equate the use of speaking ability with having a superiority complex. I DO see a line that can be crossed in which the deaf person doing the speaking is rubbing it in the non-speaking Deaf/deaf person’s face, and I think an emphasis should definitely be placed on not crossing that line. And I’ll even go one step further and say it’s POSSIBLE for a deaf person who can speak to develop an attitude of superiority about it.
But it doesn’t necessarily follow that such an attitude MUST develop, and to say that if a person wants to belong to Deaf Culture he or she can’t speak at all in any circumstances… that strikes me as being just as oppressive as teachers and parents who never allow deaf kids to sign.
I don’t know… are there ANY instances in which a deaf person’s speaking doesn’t betray the culture?
“I don’t know… are there ANY instances in which a deaf person’s speaking doesn’t betray the culture?”
I’m sure I can think of many instances where speaking doesn’t “betray the culture,” but I’m fascinated by someone who thinks that a Deaf person speaking somehow oppresses the non-speaking Deaf person.
I think that says more about Deep Ears than Deaf Culture and the Deaf community, which brings me to the point — Deep Ears doesn’t speak for you, me, or anyone else in Deaf Culture or the Deaf community.
Oh, I can easily see instances where the decision (on a Deaf/deaf person’s part) can be oppressive to a non-speaking D/deaf person, especially if there’s no signing. Many non-speaking D/deaf people have told me that they loathe having ANYONE speak “for” them unless that person is a paid interpreter repeating exactly what the non-speaking D/deaf person said. A lot of people just barge in and speak for them anyway, and sadly it doesn’t take only a hearing person to do that. It just takes a speaking person. So yes, it can be oppressive.
Chris,
I did not want to equate the use of speaking ability with having a superiority complex, but I was simply referring to some people who want to join Deaf culture, while at the same time they view culturally deaf people as being inferior to themselves.
Then they complain because they feel rejected. That’s the irony. And they accuse culturally deaf people of being exclusive.
Deep Ears:
Wow, I am impressed with all of your posts. You have nailed them and these are what contributed to the problems I have witnessed where culturally Deaf and Deaf culture become a scapegoat.
Hello Deep Ears (sorry I didn’t your post until Katherine replied to it):
I understand what you mean. I can’t speak for how everyone feels but I DEFINITELY don’t see Deaf Culture as inferior to ANYONE, myself included. I just see it as… there, I guess, both as inclusive and exclusive as it is, depending on the individuals who emobody its values.
I don’t see oralism as superior either, nor the Hearing. Same thing in both cases. They’re just “there.”
(Sorry I meant “didn’t SEE…” argh… long day…)
Ideological purity is frequently the enemy of progress.
Read it, learn it, understand it, and then get back to me.
Anonymous, no offense, but that kind of scares me. Let’s take the issue of ASL in the classroom (bilingualism in the classroom, actually… ASL and English).
Do I not support SIMCOM in the classroom because of “ideological purity” of some sort? No. I don’t support SIMCOM because I honestly believe it does much to screw up the language-learning abilities of deaf children.
It’s one issue among many where taking a stand can get one accused of what you’re talking about, yet I wasn’t born deaf, didn’t learn ASL as my first language, have used hearing aids (and still do from time to time), have many connections with hearing people, etc.
Not everything is about ideology or purity for ideology’s sake. Many things that we need to address are quite practical.
Just saying…
A bone to pick, but first some facts (I’m not sure if the table is going to copy over but let’s see):
“Have hearing problems”
(includes both deaf and hard of hearing)
Total U.S. population:
235,688,000 20,295,000 8.6%
Children (ages 3-17):
53,327,000 968,000 1.8%
Ages 18-34:
67,414,000 2,309,000 3.4%
Ages 35-44:
38,019,000 2,380,000 6.3%
Ages 45-54:
25,668,000 2,634,000 10.3%
Ages 55-64:
21,217,000 3,275,000 15.4%
Ages 65 and over:
30,043,000 8,729,000 29.1%
(Source: http://library.gallaudet.edu/d.....s-us.shtml)
One thing that irritates me to no end is that the type of argument Shane is talking about is based on the fact (albeit probably unknowningly even to those making the argument) that the vast majority of people who lose/have lost their hearing are aged 65 and over… with the next biggest category being people who are approaching that age. In fact the younger you get, the smaller the numbers are.
Yet when you need the most help and the most support is when you’re young. Because a person who loses his hearing to old age has most likely acquired a language (and has most likely probably had a career and is now in retirement, as opposed to a deaf high school graduate who has a good chance of being neither well-educated nor in a good position to find a job… due to discrimination and other factors).
If you want to talk about funds going to the biggest groups, fine, let’s just ship all the dough off to senior citizens in nursing homes. How much do you really think you have in common with them? Are we in the same political boat, with the same types of problems? Probably not.
I agree with Shane’s post… it should not be the case that we should transfer funds from one group to another. That would be catastrophic in my opinion, especially if you start transferring funds away from the younger age groups.
We need better solutions… and I think a good one would be for us to stop fighting each other.
Yes, but baby boomers, those in their 50s, are losing their hearing. They’re still in their careers and are quite involved in their communities. They should be reached out to in terms of gaining support for communication access.
I think that communication access is an issue that the Deaf and the hard-of-hearing and oral communities can rally around because having equal access to communication benefits everyone.
Also, to go slightly off topic, on the issue of Deaf v. hard-of-hearing, I’ve always been irritated whenever people ask me if I sign, because I don’t like that assumption that just because I’m deaf means that I know sign language, which I don’t. It’s the same sort of irritation a third-generation Hispanic feels when he or she is asked if s/he knows Spanish.
For instance, my college that I went to was not familiar with CART or remote captioning at all, what they were familiar with was ASL interpreters and note-takers. They had an ASL interpreter on staff. When I came to college and asked for CART, I had to explain to the disability office that I couldn’t benefit from the ASL interpreter, and that I needed CART to function in my classes. They ended up giving me CART, the remote CART kind, which I really liked because there wasn’t the physical presence of the captioner in the classroom.
There was another deaf girl on campus, and she ended up using the ASL interpreter. I wondered why she didn’t use CART instead. CART provides almost a verbatim transcription of what is said by the professor, and I was able to save the transcripts to my laptop to look at later. I didn’t even have to take notes, which allowed me to participate more in the classroom.
I get irritated too, when people ask me if I lip-read. :P
Noelle, I understand what you mean but in all fairness even *I* would ask you if you could sign (if I noticed or figured out somehow that you were deaf upon first seeing you). But that isn’t a judgment thing on my part, it’s a communication facilitation thing. If you don’t sign, cool, that means we gotta write or type on my pager or your cell or something because I can’t lipread all that well. So it’s just a question of figuring out what we CAN do. Otherwise how else would I know?
But yeah I guess some people do judge others for how they communicate. It’s not just signers doing that to non-signers, though…
Expanding on that, I never really get all that upset when people ask me if I can talk, for the same reasons. But for some reason it does bug me when they say “Wow you talk well for a deaf person.”
I don’t know… the former seems to be about gathering information and the latter seems to be about… classifying?
(PS “classifying” isn’t quite the right word… let me think on that a bit…)
Yes, but it’s a constant question that I face from hearing people, and I get tired of it.
I understand your frustration when they compliment you on talking well for a deaf person. It’s sort of like telling black people that they’re very articulate or have good grammar.
Yes, exactly that. Smells the same as “You’re a credit to your race.”
That statement, “you’re a credit to your race,” annoys me as well, but it is taken from the African-American community.
We have a lot more commonalities with the African-American community than differences in terms of our interactions with the majority culture. For example, the philosophical (and cultural) differences between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois is easily reflected in the Oralism vs. ASL debate, plus all the other differences pulling at us.
Chris, when you said: “But for some reason it does bug me when they say “Wow you talk well for a deaf person.”
It’s no wonder it bugs you because when a hearing person says that, s/he is praising YOU for your success in meeting the hearing standard of speech quality.
Additionally, that hearing person is telling you that you have succeeded in working with the hearing system by using speech well enough for them to approve & accept you.
Lastly, it is audistic as well. I trust I need not to explain that.
Michele, you don’t need to explain it, no. But I’d like to debate you on something here, and before I can do that I need some information that might be personal… so I’ll understand if you don’t want to answer…
…but were you born deaf? To a deaf family? Went to a residental institution? ASL was your first language? If you could answer those four things it’d help me out…
“Audistic”? I’d consider that statement to be condescending.
Hello Anonymous:
I think there’s a line. I think audism and audistic attitudes are real, but I also think that sometimes Given Action X can happen, and if there’s one set of intentions behind it, it can be interpreted as audistic. But if another set of intentions or attitudes are behind it, then it shouldn’t be. And that’s what I’m planning to debate Michele over…
Chris, you asked: I need some information that might be personal… so I’ll understand if you don’t want to answer……but were you born deaf? To a deaf family? Went to a residental institution? ASL was your first language? If you could answer those four things it’d help me out…”
Sure, no problem. :-)
Answers to your questions:
-Yes, I was born Deaf.
-I have been signing since I was 4 years old.
-I went to residental schools all of my life…(in MD and DC)…MSSD was the high school I graduated from.
-I consider myself bilingual because I learned ASL and English (reading/writing for English only) at the same time, and I’m fluent in both.
Any other questions before you debate me? ;-)
Chris, I forgot to add that my family is hearing. They have been using sign language (not ASL…straight English, really) since I was a toddler.
(Of course, my family didn’t know I was using ASL…I actually was code-switching without knowing it. I used straight English with them and when I was with Deaf people or at school, I used ASL).
that’s why I consider myself bilingual. I was speaking two languages, and was very aware at around age 5/6 that hearing and Deaf people had different rules of behavior. (Nobody explained that to me…I just was able to pick up on that by myself.)
Hi Michele:
No that’s all I need. I just didn’t want to be rude…
Okay, now I was born almost completely hearing. Very very very mild… well I guess what audiologists would call it would be a “mild hearing loss.” With a catch. Like my brother, the condition was progressive. I didn’t go completely deaf until like 12 years ago or so. And up until maybe the 1st grade I could hear well enough to make out most of what was said (although even by then I was probably sliding into the “moderate” range). It wasn’t until around 2nd grade that things started getting tough speech-wise, and by middle school it was a practical impossibility. Which is why I went to the Wisconsin School for the Deaf at the age of fourteen, which is where I learned ASL.
Now my point here is that speech, music, all of that, ARE A NATURAL PART OF ME. I loved Guns-N-Roses, Journey, all those guys. I had no opportunity to sign until I was fourteen… I never even MET another deaf person outside of my brother until I was that age.
So… I can see the argument about how when I speak, etc, it plays into an overall system of oppression. I’ll concede that.
But I’d like you to concede that I CAN’T go back in time and be born in some other way or undo what I was. And what I was was a person who for a good six years had most of his hearing. When some Deaf people make the argument above about how I play into the system of oppression, I have to counter with the point that they do to. They oppress a part of me. I’ve had this said outright when they made that “Think-Hearing” sign on their foreheads, and I’ve had this said indirectly through being criticized for making use of something that’s a part of me (speaking ability).
Why should I be ashamed? I was what I was… a six year old kid who could talk and a teenager who kept a lot of hearing and speaking ability through no choice or fault of my own. Now I’m 37 and profoundly deaf but the memory of how to speak remains. It’s there. To deny it is just as screwed up as to deny somebody the right to sign by rapping his knuckles with a ruler.
I can’t go back and changes this. So why make it an issue? Why not come up with some other set of rules so we can all just accept each other as we are?
For once, I agree with you about a new set of rules so that we can all accept each other as we are.
That’s why I said what I said about ideological purity. We need to come up with a different, shall I say, paradigm.
I think that’s what Shane’s trying to say too. Instead of one faction advancing while another gets pushed back or has to sit where it is and stew, everybody advances all at once.
I forgot who was talking about a Million Deaf March (McConnell, I think), but you know one way to tie something like that together would be to formally recognize each other’s unique needs and commit to using all our of various factions’ strength to make sure those needs are met. That way when the next deaf kid is born, he has someplace to go, and a wide variety of options to choose from, with nobody being made afraid of any one option.
Michele, final thing: But I CAN say that not ALL music is a part of me, and I think that makes a difference. I could care less about Britney Spears or whoever she is, because she’s from a time when my hearing was already gone. And this is why I don’t… this is hard to explain but this is why I don’t make a big thing out of trying to understand her or hip hop music and the like… if others want to listen to it great but the issue has moved beyond my range of concern because “hearing” is something my body no longer does. But it CAN still speak.
Oh god this is such a murky area. Am I making any sense here at all? Anyone?
I think I understand you just fine Chris. My hearing was better as a child although my appreciation for music soared when I could finally find lyrics for all those Journey songs. Something happens to us developmentally as we get older that make those early years be preferred over today. With my 1 year old hearing daughter, I have a new enjoyment of Sesame Street because I couldn’t speech read Muppets very well…although I’m not happy with the fact that the captioning is not true CC because they don’t caption verbatim–it’s more like subtitles.
Like it was mentioned earlier in the comments, most people with hearing loss out there don’t identify themselves as hearing impaired–or any other auditory category. As such, the vocabulary they use isn’t sensitive to it in the specific ways we’ve had to deal with. For eons, the facility of speech and language is what has been considered “higher order” behavior in people…which is why if you didn’t have good speech–people would treat you as stupid regardless of how smart you really were.
Britney Spears has an audience, but I’m sure I’m not in that audience.
Chris,
OK. It is easy for me to concede that you can’t go back to what you were. No problem.
I’m focused on what you are NOW.
If you truly feel that it’s “no problem” for you to use your voice, to listen to music, etc….then the question is, why would you feel bugged/annoyed when a hearing person praises the quality of your voice?
It suggests that you are no longer that person you once were. Because if you were still that person, the person you were THEN wouldn’t mind at all when a hearing person praises you on the quality of your voice!
You feel bugged/annoyed because you have absorbed (and accepted) the values of Deaf culture.
FYI: it is one of accepted practices of Deaf culture to ask questions about a Deaf person’s background, hearing loss, etc. As a culturally Deaf person, I never feel offended when people ask me such questions. (It is only the hearing society that seems to think such questions are “rude”…so maybe you’ve retained that type of “hearing” thinking, Chris. heh.)
As you’ve noted, it’s a murky, complex issue. I certainly cannot reinvent Deaf culture or demand that Deaf culture change its values, mores, etc., especially when I practice these values and mores myself and certainly will teach them to my Deaf son.
You’re still trying to have your cake and eat it…it doesn’t work that way (in cultural sense), sorry.
Think of it from Deaf historical perspective: hearing people have drummed into Deaf people’s heads over and over again for centuries that speech is better than sign. Is it any wonder that Deaf people don’t appreciate it when other oral/HOH people carry the banner for hearing people?
In a sense, oral deaf and HOH provide clearest evidence of hearing people’s attempts to drum speech into these deaf people, and it is why some culturally Deaf people feel uncomfortable with them. When oral deaf and HOH use sign language, that discomfort is lessened. But the minute they are seen using speech, it only reminds Deaf people of the status hearing people enjoy over Deaf people.
Lastly, I would go along with “accepting people as they are”…the problem is, people never quite do that, do they?
I mean, I’m pissed that SHHH would actually bring the numbers thing and use it against ASL-Deaf people just so they can get more money. How dare they? And you tell me that “people should accept each other”…please. If SHHH truly “accepted” ASL-Deaf people, they would not dare play dirty politics by trying to convince the media and the government that more money should go to SHHH just because they happen to outnumber ASL-Deaf people.
Not only that, I also see a flaw in “accepting people as they are” thing…if people accepted each other as they are, nobody would be protesting AG Bell, would they? Nobody would be criticizing NAD or ASL-Deaf or ASL itself.
All of these things happen for a very simple reason: extremes exist.
Extremes are meant to exist. Mother Nature has dozens of examples of extremes. Society has dozens of examples of extremes.
You’re trying to stay in the middle and trying to keep both cultures (although I hesistate to call “hearing” a culture!…and I actually saw a post or two in here suggesting that it’s possible for a deaf person to NOT sign and still be a member of Deaf culture…that’s WRONG! A deaf person can elect NOT to sign, but in doing so, you become just a member of the Deaf COMMUNITY, not Deaf culture. There is a difference. To be a member of Deaf culture, use and loyalty of sign language is required.)
If I’ve missed any other points you’ve made, Chris, let me know. I tried to cover all of your points as best as I could.
No you didn’t miss any Michele.
Okay, now I just want to take a second and remind those reading that this isn’t an attempt to hijack this thread because it’s central to what Shane is talking about (IMO, anyway).
Michele, I think some of your arguments sidestep the issue.
It’s not like I was born into Deaf Culture and then turned my back on it. I was born outside of it and then entered into it. But the thing is, I think there are a couple of Deaf cultural values that could use a little tweaking. Because if I’m supposed to be ashamed of my voice (which I often am, but not because it makes the types of Deaf people you described uncomfortable… I’m only ashamed of it to the extent that it gives me an advantag. I wish we lived in a society when its use or absence didn’t give me an advantage AT ALL. But that’s a separate issue from being ashamed of being able to use it. I mean, I didn’t even really get any speech therapy from what I remember. Lip reading training, yes, and we all know how well THAT turned out (coughs). And so I don’t lip read. But voice?
I don’t know, man. How is that wanting to have your cake and eat it too? I think it’s more the case, in that one specific example, of certain types of Deaf people wanting me to be ashamed of a part of myself AT ALL TIMES.
But I’m not. And I don’t think I ever will be. Had I been born deaf it would probably be a different story in my case, but I wasn’t. And a lot of people weren’t.
You make a good point about how nobody really accepts people for what they are. I don’t see a lot of commenters in here arguing for ASL even though they say they’re no more for or against it than they are for or against any other mode of communication. And I see a lot of hostile comments in here about the “funds” and “power” that the ASL-using “Deaf Community” supposedly has. All of that leaves aside the fact that historically schools for the Deaf that taught ASL employed mostly hearing teachers so where do people think all of those funds are GOING? But we’ll debate that another time.
What I’m trying to say is that in a world this hostile you and I can make choices on our own, you know? And if the various cultures/communities of the world want to hold some kind of gun to our heads, I say let ‘em pull the trigger and see what happens. I’m still alive, you’re still alive, and we’ve both been through more than enough pain in our time, I would guess, so really, what’s there to be afraid of?
I’ve already taken the steps of learning to sign, not SIMCOMing in the classroom, etc. Well, I’d like to be accepted, too. Just as I am. If not by everyone else, then maybe just in here..? Or maybe just by you…?
People decide what the rules are. It shouldn’t be the other way around.
While I almost always cheer Michele on here, I have to agree with Chris here.
Also, Chris, I don’t think the voice is an advantage that you can bash over other Deaf who don’t use it. I think it is more of hearing system that claim that if you can speak you will succeed. THAT bugs me to no end. If you have to use voice from time to time, you are simply using what you were given, nothing more or less. I don’t use voice because I wasn’t given that skill at early age and now I simply don’t want to use it but do that you have an unfair advantage? If you choose to AGREE with hearing system that demand speaking skill in order to success. Other than that, rather hate that the society smiles on you more than other Deaf who choose not to sue their voice but to sign or to write.
All other points, right on, Michele!
Oscar, for me… whew, this is COMPLICATED… I’ll do my best…
I’m not ashamed of my speaking ability because I HAVE it (just as I don’t think anyone should be if they have it). Same goes for whatever level of hearing you have/make use of. But I’m ashamed of the system that either forces speech on deaf kids (many times at the cost of their self esteem) and a society that can literally starve you to death (by discriminating against you in employment) if you don’t or can’t use it.
Thus speaking becomes a choice, just as the amount of value placed on the ability to hear is a choice. And I can mentally divide up various situations into two rough categories: Situations in which I use my voice (but doing so DOESN’T hurt Deaf people who won’t/can’t speak), and situations in which I use my voice, but doing so DOES hurt those who won’t/can’t. In the latter types of situations, I’m ashamed. The former, no.
You know, Oscar, in re-reading your post, I think you and I are in agreement here. Sorry. Misunderstood the first time around…
:) No prob. Probably my fault because I’m not the champion writer as either you or Michele :D.
Noelle,
If an implantée still needs CART, then
I would not need cochlear implant and would, therefore, be perfectly content with my hearing aids which help me with
my violin and cello.
Jean:
The cochlear implant is not a cure. It is an useful tool, like a hearing aid, but both have their limitations. I didn’t use CART in a small group situation like my literature classes, which had eight students, and I was able to follow everyone, but I definitely needed CART in large classrooms.
I don’t think you quite understand that cochlear implants are utilized differently—for instance, a deaf child who was implanted at twelve months, can better utilize the cochlear implant. I got the cochlear implant when I was seven years old, back in 1989. As far as I know, I and other implantees (who received the implant at that age) are the first adult generation to have grown up with cochlear implants. In 1989, they couldn’t implant it in young infants or toddlers.
Noelle, in 1980 or 1981 the House Ear Institute did implant several toddlers. I know, because I’m one of them.
What has your experience been like with it? I know that implanted toddlers have acquired language skills at a greater rate than I did when I was seven years old.
“Have hearing problems” WT…!!! Even Gallaudet allows this bad stigma!
“Have hearing problems” WT…!!! Even Gallaudet allows this bad stigma!
From the perspective of some people, including, I’d say, a majority of hearing people, being deaf equates to having hearing problems.
I agree. Deafness is defined as lacking one of the five senses, and so is blindness. These two categories are defined as particular disabilities, but I wonder about those who lack a sense of touch, smell, or taste? Are they considered disabled? If not, then it would go to show that hearing and seeing are considered to be more important than the sense of touch, smell, or taste.
It’s one way of defining it, Noelle. I see other ways to define it in addition to that. And I can see how some people would define it in other ways that REJECT what you just said above.
It’s not just up to society. It’s up to the individual, too.
I would point out to SHHH that their argument is fallacious. They are a minority as well, so hearing people can use that exact same argument them! There are more hearing people… so why bother giving services to HoH people? I mean.. c’mon.
Northern Virginia Resource Center (NVRC) is running by “hearie” deaf individuals like Cheryl Heppner. She and her cohorts tend to focus largely on assistance devices and marvels of technology.
When I was in the hospital last summer. I was handed the VuPhone TTY with phone headset attached which I could not use it due to my left broken arm. I had to hold the TTY as I could not bend much further to type messages on TTY via turning table.
I repeatedly asked for the videophone but the hospital took recommendations and advices from the NVRC!! Did the NVRC ask their deaf constitutents what they would like to have following devices for their hospital stays, etc? Nope!
I never feel welcome to the NVRC despite living in Northern Virginia! Hell with the NVRC. Time for the widespread use of VP in public areas! Hard of hearing people have to learn some ASL.
The majority of ASL users and me have to endure the learning of oppressive language (WRITTEN/SPOKEN ENGLISH) within the dominant society of ours all our life.
Let us, deaf ASL users to enjoy our linguistic usage (ASL) in the public settings and poke into hearing eyes within our ASL presence!
Time for us, culturally deaf to rise up to the militant stance of having the full access to the ASL-receptive device. Very overdue for us in many times since the introduction of AT & T videophone in the 60s! We wait too long for finally use the videophone few years ago!
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Sorry you don’t feel welcome at NVRC. I find that they’re generally helpful with all deaf folks from loaning TDDs, to referrals for sign language classes, and pushing (or is it advocating) for interpreters in local area hospitals. Granted that the staffers are not Deaf, they are incredibly helpful to everyone and don’t make a distinction in that regard.
I have to agree with Robert…I like Cheryl Heppner and I think she is doing a great job.
But it doesn’t change the fact that she is late-deafened, and walks around with a guide dog 24/7. She sends out a message that she’s “disabled”, and therefore, her focus is more on the area of late-deaf, HOH, oral deaf than culturally Deaf.
I’m not saying that she has to choose…it’s just what her focus has been on all these years she’s been running NVRC.
Michele Ketcham,
According to your comment, the only acceptable profile for a leader of a deaf-related organization is one who is deaf since a young age, does not use guide dogs, and does not perceive oneself as “disabled”.
I assume you would also count “fluent in ASL”, “culturally deaf”, and “does not wear a CI” to that criteria?
Sigh…this type of identity politics hurts our community. If the NVRC is doing a fantastic job for us, why judge the leader for who she is?
You know, Shane, it goes both ways, man. Over the last year now I’ve seen plenty of evidence of all things Deaf and ASL taking a severe beating in the media and on the internet. The “Deaf Community” has become one great big giant movie screen for a lot of people to project their hostility onto.
In a way it’s justified. From what I read a lot of rejection and mockery that many “deaf” people experienced at the hands of “Deaf” people (especially those who fit the criteria you just listed) matches my own early experiences.
But a kid who is born deaf didn’t lose his hearing, you know? He never had it to lose. And while a great many people (especially those aged 65 and older might think nothing of considering themselves “hearing-impaired” and getting a hearing aid, how much experience have they had, really, with the discrimination that goes along with being deaf?
Deaf people didn’t and don’t cause all the problems we currently have (not that you’re saying they are, but many seem to think they do). It’d be nice if the rest of the community could formally recognize THAT, for once.
Shane, I am responding to your comment in which you said: “According to your comment, the only acceptable profile for a leader of a deaf-related organization is one who is deaf since a young age, does not use guide dogs, and does not perceive oneself as “disabled”.
I assume you would also count “fluent in ASL”, “culturally deaf”, and “does not wear a CI” to that criteria?”
Shane, I never said that. (You read way too much in my straightforward post!)
I was just saying that *this* is the image that Cheryl Heppner projects, and *this* is her background.
As a culturally Deaf person, I *do* pay attention to what type of background a leader of a deaf-related organization comes from, because it DOES influence/color that leader’s thinking (and potential actions that this leader will take on behalf of that organization).
Let’s take AG Bell as an example. They recently hired a hearing man (Alexander T. Graham) as their new Executive Director.
Personally, if I was a member of AG Bell, I would be upset at the idea that a hearing person would lead AG Bell organization. I would want an oral deaf person to lead AG Bell organization, or maybe a oral HOH person to lead AG Bell organization.
But a hearing person? No way. I wouldn’t feel confident that a hearing person (such as Alexander T. Graham) would be able to fully understand the concerns of oral deaf and HOH in order to lead AG Bell organization in the direction that it should/could go.
Anonymous — (#89042)
Have you YOURSELF personally experienced numerous fractures all the way from the neck to the foot from an auto accident and experienced the frustations about the lack of communicative technology specifically in NVRC?
No, not personally, no. I’m sorry that if that was your experience with NVRC.
I’m not going to get drawn into a debate over NVRC except to point out that it’s largely comprised of volunteers on a shoe-string budget. From my personal experiences, and from what I understand, I’d say, on balance, that NVRC is a plus on the ledger side of things rather than a minus. It serves all deaf people in Northern Virginia. While its services may fall short, it is better than nothing.
Does Maryland or even DC have a comparable organization?
Anonymous,
Washington, DC has an organization with a different purpose called Deaf Reach, which focuses on human services:
http://www.deaf-reach.org/
The DC Metro Maryland area does not appear to have a comparable nonprofit organization. Some have tried to establish one in the past.
Thanks. I’d forgotten about Deaf Reach.
I’d agree with you that the solution you would have most benefited from wasn’t what you got. I’d be just as upset and frustrated were I to have requested CART and gotten an ASL interpreter instead. It would have been easier for me to tell the doctor to just write or type everything out on a laptop text pad.
What I don’t understand is the breakdown that occurs when it comes to requesting accommodations. You obviously knew specifically what would work for you yet the hospital didn’t pay attention to that–why did the hospital listen to NVRC instead of you?
RLM,
I understand that you had a bad experience with NVRC. My impression of their organization is different. I think they’ve done a fantastic job with so little. They appear to try their best to cater to all people with communication access issues, often overcoming many of the issues that I brought up in my blog. I’ve heard people refer to them as a model organization for other deaf related-organizations to emulate. Based on the information that I have received from the NVRC, I agree with their assessment.
I too agree that NVRC is quite notable as an organization. I also think they are in a position to make improvements when it is clear that doing them will improve services–either in deliverables or efficiency.
This article was about increasing resources available for both demographics. Technologically, we have yet to exploit the capabilities that current technology potential could provide. Remember just a few years ago to the Wyndtell/RIM pager which has since evolved into the Blackberry? If it weren’t for Deaf-centric beginnings, I wouldn’t have the chance today to have mobile 2LVCO. Technologically, there shouldn’t be any reason not to have CapTel on just one mobile phone. Back in 2001 I was already dreaming up something I called PoET- Point of Encounter Text—which was simply my calling a captioner on my phone so they could listen in and caption whatever they heard and send it to display on my little screen in real time. I think there might be a way to tweak IPRelay/mobile IPRelay to do this kind of thing.
But I digress… The question at hand is how to increase the resources to the benefit of all of us with varying degrees of aural perception. I’d like to be able to choose how I can receive communication in the ways that I can comprehend. But defining a “universal” method isn’t any more simple than the diversity of communication options.
They actually have this technology in Britain. It’s the “Personal Communicating” device that they have.
http://www.teletec.co.uk/webcaptel/
Thanks for that link Noelle…you rock!
Wow actually that’s a brilliant idea and solution to many problems and we’re already in place to set it up with our existing relay services… just call a captioning service and read the movie through your pager as you watch… I attended a play in NYC not long ago and read the captions off a Blackberry type of device but I have no idea where the captoining was coming from…
Yes, but Britain has a much faster wireless system than we do here. They’re on the 3G network, and we’re not. I’ve spoken to a few captioning companies, and they can’t do that right now due to the state of wireless networks here.
Just a thought here… while admittedly I am not sure how truly successful such a service actually works, I wonder how many of these hard of hearing individuals realize that you CAN use VRS relay and request oral interpreting as opposed to ASL interpreting? At least, I know of one VRS provider that does offer this option, and I would guess others do as well.
In addition, if these videophones allow for VCO (or at least some of them), then a hard of hearing person using VCO will be able to use their own voice, hear the the other party on the line, and see an interpreter mouthing the words.
That’s one of the things that kind of irritates me… the attitude that videophones, VRS, and interpreters have to be strictly for the Deaf Community or ASL users. There is the ability for hard of hearing persons who depend on lipreading to still use such services, if they would just get over their initial resistance and keep an open mind.
We are living in the changing time. Like it or not! That is our payback for suppressing our ASL usage for very long time!’
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
There was some noises around ipod chatters saying we need to raise awarness about the hearing damages it caused by turning it up to 120 db. It is easy to see that its just a drop in the bucket and while some saying they provide stuff like tty, (yeah, we get it). However, it should be shifted to what matters the most. I can easily say they can cough up at least a billion, and it wont hurt them either.
My response.
Michele and Shane,
I personally like Cheryl Heppner as an individual, No questions about it!
Shane,
WHY the NVRC hire many hearing people not deaf people working as organizational staffer?
I recently got the TTY loan from the NVRC during my nursing home stay. Guess what? The built-in flasher on the Ultratec TTY doesn’t work which I missed one and half week’s incoming calls. Sheesh!
NVRC loaned me the flasher for lamp. *sigh* I begun to question NVRC’s capabilities of serving the deaf Northern Virginia thru personal experiences.
Almost everyone know how shoddy and incomptent the DeafReach organization is. The executive director of the DeafReach is HEARING and earn a lot of $$$ like $75,000 per year as compared to peanut wages for DeafReach employees! Something wrong with the big picture!
I feel bad for deaf employees within the DeafReach which some facilities have big HOLES on the floor. The DeafReach do not call upon any deaf volunteers to fix up the holes on floor. Sheesh!
Shane, I challenge you to go on your own and wear the disguise to see for yourself to the DeafReach and NVRC facilities and decide for yourself.
DeafReach tend to make their clients too dependable and control their bank accounts, instead of teaching them to be fully independent.
For example, several DeafReach clients complained to me as a deaf citizen about the DeafReach does not help them to obtain the residence phone services in their homes. One DeafReach employee keep telling them “wait and wait and wait” Guess what? Four years!! I had to call the executive director of the DeafReach before this current director. That deaf employee came to see me and told me to mind my own business. I told that person and the DeafReach what’s good for having the organization identified itself to help people leading an independent life! *groan*
That is time for us to shake off metro deaf organizations and lit fire up their rear behinds to do something real for deaf people in general.
I know several DeafReach board members who really looked down on grassroot deaf clients and patronized them. That is not acceptable to me and other concerned deaf activists!
Shane, go to the NVRC and DeafReach during the late afternoon and will see the real difference between putting on shows and reality. I urge you to take off your hearing aid which deaf clients of DeafReach will feel much comfortable and tell you their sides. Capsice? :)
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Former Employee of DeafReach,
I agree with you, RLM, DeafReach really needs to shape up and to encourage their clients to be more self-sufficient but at the same time, give them support and empowerment they need.
Their buildings are falling apart, many of these staff do not earn enough money, they seldom get raises very often and the environment isn’t healthy.
Someone needs to speak out about DeafReach and to tell them that they need to start improving their services for the deaf, otherwise, it is just like a cycle where these clients are so dependent on their system and cannot get out.
I left because I became very disillusioned with DeafReach, sigh!
RLM - I’m starting to think the unthinkable. I think that you had experienced far too many problems in past. It’s like this is too many bad to be true. Getting my drift? Eh?
Noelle in #89172) writes:
“Why can’t we accept culturally deaf people that do not know ASL into the deaf community? I consider myself culturally deaf—for instance, I went to a residential school, have deaf friends who are mostly oral, and I understand the difficulties of being deaf in a largely hearing environment.”
There is la différence between “deaf” and “Deaf”. Whereas “deaf” refers to an audiological term, “Deaf” means a person who is ASL-oriented. Had it not been for ASL, Deaf culture would not have evolved. Cheryln Heppner said to Dolnick in “Deafness as a Culture” (Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1993) that ASL evolved from disability (deafness), and, in turn, Deaf culture evolved from ASL.
A residential school for the oralists is not the same as a residentiald school for the manualists. The latter is where students have become culturally Deaf after having been exposed to ASL.
Hope you have now gained a better understanding about the concept of a “culturally Deaf person.”
I reject your assertion that Deaf culture or a Deaf identity only belongs to those who speak ASL. I do not think that ASL is a prequisite for being a part of a community—what counts are shared experiences. I know what it is to be deaf, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against, to have to fight for my rights to accomodations, and to be talked to ‘like I’m deaf’ in that condescending tone by hearing people.
I do not know ASL, and I was never brought up using ASL, and I don’t feel like that’s something I miss as a deaf person. I am fine with the way I communicate, which is through oral speech. Vikki brought up a good point earlier when she asked, “Do I have to speak ebonics to be considered a part of the black community?”
I say to her, “No, you don’t, because what lies at the matter here is your racial identity–ebonics is just a small part of it, but does it define all black people? No, they are just considered black by the outside world.”
A hearing person sees me and treats me as a deaf person in the same way that people treat Vikki as a black person. They form assumptions about her based on her racial identity, as they do about me based on my deafness. That is what we face on a daily basis.
We need to differentiate between culture and community. Those two are very different things. That’s anthropology 101.
Noelle, you’re confused between the definition of “Deaf culture” and “Deaf community”.
I taught Deaf Culture at an university in upstate New York last year, and this definition also appears in many deaf-related publications.
You are already a member of the Deaf *community*. To be a member of the Deaf community, you can be: oral Deaf, HOH, culturally Deaf, Deaf-blind, interpreter, CODA, parent of a deaf/Deaf child. All of them spend time in Deaf community by the virtue of their ties to deafness and as you say, their shared experiences.
To be a member of Deaf culture…it requires a different set of criteria. To be considered culturally Deaf, you must:
-Be born Deaf OR have lost your hearing before age 4/5;
-Use ASL to communicate
-Hold a point of view that there’s nothing wrong with being Deaf
Deaf culture also includes literature, art, folklore/history, and social customs/mores/values.
Since you do not use sign language to communicate, you cannot be a member of Deaf culture. I know it’s hard to hear this, but you’re not. That’s all there is to it.
Deaf culture is largely defined by its language: ASL.
If you want more info on this, I recommend you visit this wonderful website:
http://www.deafculture.com/definitions/
and
http://www.deafculture.com/ethnic culture/
Jean Boutcher is also correct in the information she gave you, Noelle.
Michele, while I agree with the info you gave Noelle, there’s a few things I’d like to point out…
It’s criteria #1 that plants me in the “middle” of what’s known as the Deaf Community (as opposed to the Deaf Culture). There’s absolutely nothing that I can do about #1, so why allow anyone to hammer me for it? Not ALL (in fact in my experience not even MOST) Deaf people do this to me, but a few have that attitude that I’m “deliberately” not joining (or even betraying) the culture when I do things such as use my voice, etc. But how can that be? Because according to criteria #1, they never intended to allow me into it in the first place. Thus my attitude thus far has been: “Why bother?” It’s a hell of a thing that I’ve done almost everything else that there is to do to be considered a member of the culture but I still can’t quite get in because of things I have no control over.
But to be fair, as I said above, I think relatively few Deaf people are that rigid. I know of another blogger whom I’ll not name here who comes from an ASL-using Deaf family yet has gone on record saying that he doesn’t care about implants (an attitude which I can argue violates the criteria of believing that there’s nothing wrong with being deaf or that it needs to be cured). So is even this guy “not” a member of Deaf Culture now? Try telling him that.
Final point–I don’t want this to sound, though, that this kind of thing is mostly on Deaf people (regardless of how few of them actually act this way). Hearing people can be just as bad, and so can oral deaf people. People are just people. I have the exact same problem with trying to be a member of hearing society. I can wear my hearing aids, I can talk, I can try to improve my lipreading skills, get an implant (if that helps), etc. Regardless, there will always be people who will have no intention whatsoever, subconsciously or otherwise, of considering me an equal.
Therefore I don’t really owe them anything, either.
Michele, is the number 1 perhaps an outdated prereq? I satisfy all three criteria but feel uncomfortable with number 1 even though it was accept in olden days. May we not remove that one in order to accomodate for new realities? Because there are many people, including Chris Heuer and LaRonda, who now are fluent ASL users (LaRonda, I know for sure, Chris, just assuming) so that may be basis for rethinking that one requirement?
Other two requirements are right on because logically what makes a culture? A common language.
And we may want to modify the third to say that “Being deaf is just like being white/black/Latino/etc.” Much stronger statement than the original statement.
Oscar, just to make sure you realize this: I’m not the one who actually determines the criteria of Deaf culture! This has been well studied by sociologists, researchers, etc…you’ll find this in many deaf-related books.
Good point about “being Deaf is just like being black/Latino etc”, though.
I still think people make the rules though, just as much as “the rules” make the people (in terms of identity, etc). We didn’t come pre-wired with our norms and mores and values. As individuals we can flex a bit if we see fit. We DO have that freedom.
If we didn’t, Catholocism, to pick one example of many, wouldn’t have changed as much as it did between, say, 700 B.C. and now. Or even 1930 A.D. and now. Many cultures have changed over time, and not just minority cultures. Dominant ones too.
Sure, that does happen. The key is, the entire group has to WANT to change.
I don’t see that happening with members of Deaf culture, though. There’s simply too much stigma still attached to anything hearing.
In one of your posts somewhere in here…you brought up a point where you noticed that some members of Deaf culture use hearing aids, and you also observed that one culturally Deaf person had no objection to CIs (if my memory is correct on that one!).
You’re correct that if members of Deaf culture truly are committed to the idea that “there’s nothing wrong with being Deaf”, they wouldn’t need hearing aids.
Here’s my theory: the hearing aid thing is a small remant (sp?) of being culturally blind (or brainwashed) that culturally Deaf people still can’t get rid of (you know, the old idea that lipreading helps you to succeed, and some speech is useful, etc etc). This is one of the gray areas (as well as contradictory areas) that culturally Deaf people wrestle with.
Chris, not to nitpick here, but Catholicism didn’t exist in 700 BC. Perhaps you meant 700 AD?
There is this nagging but problematic use of the capital letter “D” in Deaf when used in conjuction with “community” such as “Deaf community.” The understanding of “D” refers to those who are culturally deaf. So, Noelle cannot be a member of the Deaf community but certainly the deaf community.
Chris, about the CI thing. I’d say that there is a good portion of Deaf people who do wear hearing aids. You might as reject them as not “members” otherwise they shouldn’t be wearing hearing aids if they view nothing wrong with being deaf.
This “membership” thing can be viewed as one of those slippery slope type of situation in trying to make it an all or nothing exclusive club. Since not everybody signs in pure ASL. Not everybody signs and not move their mouths at the same time as if they were talking. Despite that they do strive to sign in ASL. Despite that people have different interests when it comes to associating with Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing and people people. Just because one favors one area of interest doesn’t mean an automatic suspension of their “membership.” Let’s not turn this into a witch hunt determining who is eligible or not.
Mike, unless you meant “you” in the general sense, this isn’t about *my* standards for rejecting people or granting them membership into anything. Outside of the classroom I don’t really have on language, hearing aid use, cochlear implant use, identity, etc. Of course we’re gonna bump into the issue of needing to sign or write because I don’t lipread, but that’s pretty much it.
Otherwise, yes, you have a point. I know more than a few “Deaf” people whom many would consider to be strongly culturally Deaf (or “Deaf-Strong” I believe the term is) on campus nonetheless they wear hearing aids. So I too have often wondered what was up with that, but I didn’t really care all that much… because they’re adults and they’ve made their own choices…
Sorry, I meant: “Outside of the classroom I don’t really have ANY standards regarding language, hearing aid use…”
So you have standards for language and hearing aid use in your classroom? If so, what are they?
I apologize… that did not come across clearly. I don’t mean standards for the students (regarding hearing aid use, implant use, etc). They’re my *own* (though faculty are increasingly discussing this and trying to come up with something more widespread) standards that I have to meet so that I can satisfy diverse communication needs in the classroom. In not SIMCOMing (at least I TRY very hard not to do it anymore) I can avoid the problems that causes, but then I’m still sometimes left with people who either don’t sign well or don’t sign at all. And I’ll probably face that on an increasing basis in the future. So there are standards to be met. Am I meeting with them enough? Am I supporting them enough?
This isn’t just about Gallaudet. I think Deaf Ed’s infrastructure is shifting now towards this type of issue. Bilingual/bicultural institutions especially HAVE to be able to meet people where they are and make sure they’re all hitting the same levels in diverse areas of expertise/competence before their students graduate.
Regarding implants, hearing aid use, etc, I try to find out one way or another who is using what by meeting with them privately, finding out what their needs are… etc. It’s the only way to provide quality services.
Again my apologies for how that came out the first time…
(PS, I DO have standards regarding language use in the classroom, though. I’m an English teacher, after all, so… can’t really avoid that…)
Thanks for your explanation.
And, yes, I’d be interested in your description of how the faculty at Gallaudet specifically or Deaf Ed in general are trying to impose some sort of standards to meet the diverse bicultural and bilingual needs of the Deaf community. There is no one right answer, but I’d argue in favor of transparency.
Oh I’m sure it will be. The ASL/Deaf Studies Dept now has student testing of some sort for ASL competency and I know we’re going to factor their data into the things we do here, but we’ve just set this up, you understand. So who knows what can happen? It’s excting though…
How we teach literacy is changing too, becoming much more technology-based… awesome stuff but a bit scary sometimes. Lots of new things to learn how to use. We just had some people come in from MyReadingLab.com… cool stuff…
Yes, “you” in the general sense and not at you.
“To be a member of Deaf culture…it requires a different set of criteria. To be considered culturally Deaf, you must:
-Be born Deaf OR have lost your hearing before age 4/5;
-Use ASL to communicate
-Hold a point of view that there’s nothing wrong with being Deaf
……
Since you do not use sign language to communicate, you cannot be a member of Deaf culture.”
Your explanation is contradictory. Your statement that since Noelle doesn’t use sign, she cannot be part of Deaf Culture misses the fact that she doesn’t use ASL, period.
Deaf individuals who use PSE, SimCom, or SEE, are generally not considered to be part of Deaf Culture, even though they might meet the other criterion that you have listed.
But in general, I agree with Chris that Deaf Culture needs to be more expansive and inclusive for all sign users rather than focusing solely on ASL. And even then, while this is heresy to some, I’d extend the reach to the non-sign-users.
In my view, a confident culture embraces differences. A rigid culture fails to grow and will decline in the long run.
Well put.
Anonymous:
Many members of Deaf culture sign in the range of PSE to ASL, depending on how well they are educated.
You’re right, members of Deaf culture generally don’t use SEE or SimCom, for example.
But PSE is definitely used by the better-educated members of Deaf culture. I know whereof I speak, because I’ve seen many Deaf people (i.e., Deaf of Deaf, college-educated Deaf, etc) use a range of PSE and ASL, and sometimes in combination of both.
I myself use a range of PSE and ASL, depending on who I am with.
Chris, I will respond to your post later tonight. Unlike other people’s posts, yours require much thought and time to formulate responses.
Can’t just shoot from the hip with ya, dude (to borrow your way of speaking, heh.)
Vikki: you said “But there ARE culturally Deaf people who do not know ASL. Yet they take pride in the culture.
So using your reasoning, in order for me, as a Black woman, to participate equally in my Black> culture, does that mean I must resort to speaking ebonics? I don’t think so.”
Vikki, see my post above to Noelle for the difference between Deaf culture and Deaf community and the criteria for membership in either.
You cannot be “culturally Deaf” and not know ASL.
I’m white, and I can be “proud” that there are other cultures. But I cannot call myself “culturally Black” or “culturally Jew” or “culturally French” or whatever.
A hearing person could take pride in Deaf culture, but s/he cannot be a member of Deaf culture. S/he can be member of Deaf COMMUNITY, yes. But not culture. See the difference?
Each culture has its own criteria for what determines cultural membership.
Deaf culture requires the knowledge AND use of ASL, as well as being born Deaf (or losing your hearing before age 4/5).
Black culture, on the other hand….you yourself know quite well that there are many facets to Black culture. Ebonics isn’t the only requirement, and I would venture to say that it’s not YET a requirement for most black groups. I.e., if you were born in Africa and grew up in Africa, ebonics certainly wouldn’t be a cultural membership requirement, would it?
Ebonics is a very American black thing, and the American black group would have its own set of criteria. That criteria varies…MLK and Malcolm X had very different viewpoints on what American blacks should do, for example. NAACP and Black Panthers have very different viewpoints as well. Yet they all are members of Black culture, aren’t they?
Then that means people who were born and grew up in Africa aren’t a part of black culture, but AFRICAN culture. Big difference there.
However, I do know several people who are involved with Deaf Culture that meet two of the criteria: deaf before the ages of 4/5 and sees nothing wrong with being Deaf…capitialize that D! But ASL? Not so much.
Now what about the CODAs? The ones whose parents immerse them so completely in deaf culture that they pass easily for Deaf? So they aren’t members of Deaf Culture? I think David Stuckless would take issue with that one.
Hence, African American can mean a caucasin born in and raised in Africa, moved to America to become a citizen is indeed an African American. Then you have those who lived in Egypt, Libya or even Algeria, all in northern Africa, who are not obviously black. And they move to America to become citizens are also African American, too.
You’re right, mcconnell.
That’s why I don’t ascribe to calling myself “African American.” I prefer “Black American” or “Black.” But that is my preference. If others wants to use that term, more power to them.
Vikki, I already answered this in another post, but I’ll repeat myself.
CODAs can be members of the Deaf COMMUNITY, but they cannot be members of Deaf culture.
If you don’t believe me, just take a look at any deaf-related books & websites…they all will tell you the same thing. It’s just how it is.
Vikki, yes, there’s a big difference between AFRICAN culture and AMERICAN black culture. But both groups are still black.
The only difference between these two groups is their upbringing and their folklore/history.
Pity we don’t have Africans here…I would bet that they do consider themselves culturally black! I have some African friends who would disagree with you. :-)
DeafSpook, It’s time for you to reveal who you are, please. Or your comment isn’t worthy to make the following comment.
I guess that I tend to encounter jinixes more often in my life. That might be a fate for me to see more about what really going on with life as many people usually overlook.
At first, I did not give any hoots about the DeafReach or other social organizations serving the deaf while I attended Gallaudet. I moved in the rooming house across from Gallaudet. The rooming house was consisted of several Gallaudet students. It ran by deaf landlord and the HANDS Co., a group of deaf investors. I preferred the rooming house than dealing with students bickered with rent money and ulitities, etc.
The deaf landlord rented some rooms to the DeafReach clients (you could say “low-functioned deaf individual). I begun to see their world beyond my imagination. Those deaf individuals had their friends came over. I striked conversations with these people which they constantly complained about me and other Gallaudet students not socialize with them.
That’s how I found out about what really going on with the DeafReach’s incomptences in many way. Many low-functioned deaf individuals griped to me about systematic discrimination within the DeafReach organization, ex. food bank. I decided to check out the so-called discrimination all for myself. Those individuals said that they were not given any donated meat. I got the meat despite of my semi-vegan diet. How interesting!
I always want to be an investigative journalist myself.
I kinda believe that my fate have been pre-setted since birth. I usually had bad lucks - struck by car while I was a kid, I almost got killed in the empty bank safe, I got my legs smashed by the playground equipment when I was about six years old, I almost got terminated during the pregancy but someone stopped my deaf mother from doing it, I almost got drowned as a kid and many things happened to me. I survived!
People often said to me - “You led an interesting life!” I replied - “I wish not”.
RLM
RLM:
People who comment on DeafDC.com aren’t required to reveal their identities. If they wish to hide behind a moniker, it’s their priviledge to do so. Please stop demanding for people’s true identities to be revealed. It’s starting to sound like a bad script from a cheap comic book.
RLM — I think a lot of people know you because you stand out and are an interesting character.
McConnell: when I use “D” in saying “Deaf community”, it’s just my personal preference. I use “D” all the time when saying it with “community” and “culture”, even though I know there’s “d” and “D” thing.
It’s just a general term on my part to simplify things, because otherwise I’d have to say “deaf/Deaf community” all the time.
It actually makes it bit more confusing if you do not clarify the differences between “d” and “D”. I have always understood that “deaf community” is all inclusive while “Deaf community” is not.
Mike,
Definition of “d”
1. “d” (”deaf”) = an audiological term for a person who cannot hear.
2. “d” (deaf) = an audiologically deaf person
who does not know sign language or who has not
experienced Deaf culture.
“D”
1. “D” (Deaf) = a person who uses sign
langauge and has experienced Deaf culture
When discussing the civil rights, ADA, etc.,
we use “deaf”. The NAD serves all people who
are deaf, Deaf, LD, HH.
McConnell,
“community” is always inclusive, because it includes oral deaf, HOH, CODAs, interpreters, late-deafened, Deaf-Blind, etc etc.
the choice of deaf/Deaf to go with “community” is stylistic.
But when talking about “culture”, you always say capital D for Deaf. can’t do “deaf culture”.
(additionally, Jean Boutcher’s definitions are all correct in regard to deaf/Deaf definitions by themselves.)
Chris,
OK. I want to start by saying that I did not intentionally “sidestep some of the issues”. I was actually trying to respond to all of your issues/points as directly (and as best) as I could.
And I’m not even sure which issues I supposedly “sidestepped”!!
Even though I can tell you and everyone else the definitions of “deaf/Deaf community” and “Deaf culture”, the reality is that membership in Deaf culture isn’t as rigid as it sounds.
For example: I’m sure you know Fred Weiner (the 2nd in command at Gallaudet or whatever his current position is).
What many people don’t know is…he’s actually a HOH who can use phone. I know this because he used to work as an interpreter at MSSD when I was a student there in the days before relay. He used to interpret phone calls for me and other students who needed to make phone calls to our hearing families and/or friends.
Yet he is considered a solid member of Deaf culture.
Why? I would suggest a theory: it is his ATTITUDE that gives him automatic membership in Deaf culture.
Fred Weiner doesn’t come across as “HOH”…meaning he presents himself as a native user of ASL. He also presents himself as someone who is totally comfortable with himself as a Deaf person (even though audiologically he is HOH). In other words, he only uses his HOH skills in a specific context (like his job as an interpreter at MSSD), and when he’s not interpreting, we never saw him use his voice or not sign. He always signed, period.
Now…in your case…since I have not met you in person, and can only judge you by your posts in Gallynet and in DeafDC…I would give you my theory for why you aren’t accepted as a member of Deaf culture (keep in mind that you are automatically a member of the Deaf community by the virtue of your late-deafened status, so this isn’t up for debate):
-It could be the quality of your signing;
-It could be the fact that you have been seen using your voice in situations where it could have been avoided;
-It could be the fact that you enjoy music…maybe you even have a radio or a stereo or a CD collection in your office and/or in your car;
-It could be some other factor that I haven’t thought of (I would need to see you in action, so to speak in order to give you a better evaluation).
I have to say that for *most* part, I see you as my equal culturally.
I say “most” because every time I think, yup, Chris is a member of Deaf culture because he gets it and truly understands….then boom! You say something that a culturally Deaf person would NEVER say!
And it is at these occassional moments where I go, Oh boy…you’re definitely not a member of Deaf culture.
It’s like you come so close and then just piss it away.
There is one more issue I would like to address, because you have sort of brought it up, as well as Oscar.
The issue has to do with you, Oscar and some other people thinking that Deaf culture can be fine-tuned, tweaked, or changed to suit your taste or personal outlook. (or in case of Noelle, thinking that one is a member of Deaf culture even though she doesn’t sign at all!)
That pisses me off. It annoys me. It shows a lack of understanding and respect for Deaf culture.
Bear with me.
Hearing people have had a history of trying to fine-tune or mess with ASL. They have continually viewed ASL as deficient or substandard or whatever. Therefore, they have felt free to pick apart ASL and try to “improve” ASL.
I see the same thing with Deaf culture: it’s amazing how people feel free to pick apart Deaf culture and feel that they can fine-tune or tweak it. It doesn’t work that way.
Nobody picks apart or tweaks French language or culture, do they?
Nobody picks apart or tweaks Spanish language or culture, do they?
You could say the same for other languages and culture.
Yet when it comes to ASL and Deaf culture, hey, it’s nothing. It’s defective. It’s substandard. Therefore, it’s okay to pick it apart, tweak it, change it blah blah blah.
I want people here to realize that Deaf culture is simply a reflection of the needs of its members. The same is true for every other culture on this planet.
No culture is perfect.
No language is perfect.
Deaf culture is what it is. ASL is what it is. Let them be. Respect them. Don’t demand or ask that they change to suit YOU. It doesn’t work that way.
Chris, I am sorry that you’re having a hard time with identity issues…because that’s what it basically boils down to. You’re already in the community. Now, cultural membership is another thing entirely. It also requires that you be comfortable with your identity, and judging by your posts, I am not sure if you’re there yet. But I would venture to say that you’re a lot closer to Deaf culture than you are to hearing culture, and that, once you figure it out, I wouldn’t be surprised to see you as a member of Deaf culture someday.
See, Michele, the issue you’re sidestepping is that I DON’T have identity issues. I know exactly what I am. The real issue here is what others think I am and how they define me. And in that respect, some culturally Deaf people (or at least the ones who fit the general definition you’ve given) do that to me as much as hearing people do that to me.
You’re side-stepping the fact that I’m not… what would be the word… “pretending.” I don’t have a music collection anymore because I can’t hear anymore. When I did have one, it was because I COULD. It’s that simple. I never lived in denial of what I was. It’s just that I was different things at different times.
Comparing this issue to some other minority… you don’t often or generally see a black person slowly–and NATURALLY–becoming lighter skinned and then white (or vice versa), or a woman slowly becoming a man. In a lot of situations, what you’re born as is what you remain.
But that’s not my situation. I was born with a lot of hearing. It’s not something I asked for, it’s not something I had a say in, it’s not something I planned. And then I slowly went deaf. Again, not something I asked for or planned.
What norms or mores or values in Deaf Culture make some sort of provision for that truth? See, many of the things you just listed, it’s like you’re looking at a frozen snapshot in time. If I had a music collection NOW it’d be weird, but I don’t have one now, I had one THEN. I write about music that I heard THEN. Not now. What I can still do now is speak. So I speak (though not in the classroom). But I don’t strain to hear (or pretend I can) or wear hearing aids much or bother to lipread much. Because presently I’m deaf. This is not a complicated thing for me, but it seems to be for some people I meet.
What in Deaf Culture is capable of taking that journey with me, the walk from then to now? I haven’t seen much. I’ve seen Deaf Culture become more accepting and more accomodating towards me as I became more Deaf (which grew in my case out of becoming more “deaf”), but that’s it. Some individuals in Deaf Culture never really valued the hearing I did have or the speaking ability I still DO have. It’s not even neutral… some DEvalue it or think it’s a superiority trip.
But that’s not the case. It’s just something I was. And it’s something that’s still a part of me. Billy Joel is not going to leave my head no matter what we do or say here. And I am always going to be in a different boat than someone who has never heard Billy Joel. It doesn’t make me or the other person better or worse. It’s just, as you say, the way it is.
Chris, I cannot think of anything in Deaf culture that would fit what you are.
Deafhood might fit your needs better…it’s a growing movement with chapters in California, Indiana, New York. Genie Gertz is one of the forces behind Deafhood, and if my memory serves, she wants Deafhood to be for all types of deaf/Deaf people, and that as long as you’re on that journey towards accepting your deaf/Deaf identity, you’re welcome. Something like that.
Wanted to add this website with Genie Gertz’s explanation about Deafhood for your benefit:
http://www.csun.edu/~patrickb/DH/DH.html
Chris, I re-read your post and I do see some inconsistencies in your statements.
You say you know what your identity is, and you’re not “pretending”.
Good for you.
But I do remember your past posts where you have said things like “To avoid getting killed by cops, USE YOUR VOICE!” and then you wonder why culturally Deaf people get upset with you.
That’s what I mean. Occassional comments like that coming from you does make me wonder if you’re truly comfortable with yourself as a culturally Deaf person. To be comfortable with yourself in that sense also requires a very good understanding of the norms and values (as well as taboos) practiced by Deaf culture, and every now and then, you violate them.
I think that may be the reason why some Deaf people question your identity.
I mean, Deaf people never question my identity. I don’t go around making comments that violate norms, values and taboos of Deaf culture, and my positions have always been consistent. People know where I stand.
While in your case…I’d say I know where you stand 70% of the time. It’s the 30% that gets you in trouble.
And that’s why the oral deaf will never want to join the Deaf community because of the audistic attitudes you display towards them.
Oral deaf are automatically members of the deaf community whether they want to be or not.
If they don’t participate, it’s their decision.
One more thing: there’s nothing remotely audistic about me. Everything I’ve said to you and everyone else has been FACTUAL and straightforward. (I.e., definitions I’ve given you are all backed up by various books, and examples I’ve given you are backed up by my own observations/experiences of living in Deaf culture/world.)
Michele, I’d say that’s a pretty good estimate: 70/30. There are just some things I that I just can’t support–just for myself. So I’d say yes, I’m about 70% in favor of Deaf Culture and 30% reserved about certain things. But I certainly am 100% in favor of strong Deaf Community ties.
Regarding the cop thing, what you said isn’t what I said. But this post isn’t the place to get into that. Different people are going to interpret the same thing in different ways. You’re going to bump into that no matter what your identity is.
But I do have to say in all honesty that I don’t write posts or make comments with the goal of not violating a cetain group’s norms, nor even to be neutral, nor even to be deliberately inflammatory. I write what I think is true in order to explore and challenge that “truth.” In the end what I think is true doesn’t have to be true for everyone equally.
Anyway thanks for this debate. To tie it once again back into what Shane was saying, I hope that even though many of us fall along a range of beliefs and needs, our differences won’t stop us from cooperating with each other as much as possible.
Chris, about the cop thing: I know it was simplistic, but that was the basic point that got across and got you in trouble.
And I’m aware that you don’t intentionally break norms/values…it happens anyway, every now and then (thanks to your 30%, heh).
Don’t worry. I still think you’re allright. Just don’t be surprised when the 30% part of you causes some excitement around here. ;-)
(The only way I’d be surprised is if DeafDC.com ever became predictable…)
Peace out, dude.
(-;
Dudette, you mean! ;-)
Ah yes, my bad. Dudette, indeed.
“I think that may be the reason why some Deaf people question your identity. I mean, Deaf people never question my identity. I don’t go around making comments that violate norms, values and taboos of Deaf culture, and my positions have always been consistent. People know where I stand.”
Michele, WTF? Everyone in the deaf world must march lockstep to a set of beliefs or they’re out? Thank God my freethinking deaf friends aren’t remotely like you, otherwise I’d have voluntarily left the community a long time ago.
There’s more to life than worrying about whether you fit the stereotypical image of the culturally deaf. And it IS good to question things.
You’re twisting my words and my meaning, Ben.
Contrary to what you think about me, I am a freethinker as well. I don’t mind questioning things, but when I see some people spouting things that are based on half-baked ideas or outright erroneous conclusions, I have to say something.
And I’ve never worried about fitting in.
“Half-baked ideas?” Ouch.
Dude(ette), uncool.
Remember that all of stuff was PRESENTED as a series of questions…
(Oh wait, never mind. Michele, disregard that please, with my apologies. You’re talking about something else… My bad…)
Noelle: you think you’re a member of Deaf culture, even though you don’t sign at all?
OK, here’s a test to see if you are truly a member of Deaf culture…
(Remember, as oral deaf or HOH (?), you are already a member of the Deaf *community*…the issue is your belief that you’re CULTURALLY deaf.)
Here’s the test:
I am not sure where you live…maybe Maryland, DC or Virginia or elsewhere?
In any case, there are a couple of strongholds of Deaf culture. One of them is state associations, such as Maryland Association of the Deaf, for example. Or Virginia Association of the Deaf. Their members are overwhelmingly members of Deaf culture AND sign language users. Their officers are ALWAYS users of sign language. I’ve *never* seen or heard of an oral deaf or non-signing HOH become an officer of a state association.
Keep in mind, you would have to run against someone else…if you’re the only candidate for the position, it doesn’t count! (because then you would get it by default.)
If you can run for President or Vice President or Secretary or Treasurer or even Board Member of a state association where everyone signs…and still win that position over a signing candidate, then maybe, just maybe I’ll believe that you’re “culturally deaf”.
Good luck.
Michele and Noelle,
The national and the state associations would not vote a non-ASL member for any position or Board simply because they cannot afford to hire an oral or Cued interpreter. It would costs $250+.
Jean, you’re missing my point.
It’s not just the cost issue. It’s emotional, mental and social issue for state associations, because their members would be VERY uncomfortable at the idea of voting for a non-signing officer/board member!
Jean, you may have forgotten that NAD did have an oral deaf man serving as their treasurer for something like two terms (Mark Apodaca)…but even then, I noticed that people weren’t exactly “chummy” with him!
Michele,
You are absolutely right on both counts. I can envision a mental picture of deaf members being quite upset if an officer were a foreigner without the knowledge of sign language.
So, NAD is really a special interest group that caters mostly to Deaf people? How come they don’t actively promote diversity from withing even those who do not know sign language or even ASL? Yet they claim they “represent” the 30 million people with hearing loss? Sounds a bit screwy if you ask me.
I used to work at NAD headquarters, so I can say definitively that there are ASL Deaf, HOH, ex-oralists (who now sign), ex-Cued speech (who now sign), etc who all work at NAD headquarters.
The point I was making is that although officers, board members, members of NAD and state associations all sign, the work of NAD at federal level AND the work of state associations at state level benefit ALL types of deaf/Deaf people.
I.e., their work on captioning, accessibility, discrimination, etc etc.
That’s where NAD says they can confidently represent ALL types of deaf/Deaf people by the virtue of their work and accomplishments.
Keep in mind that I’m just telling you how NAD sees itself.
I don’t know if you remember, but Shane wrote an article some weeks ago relating to wanting NAD to become more specialized. If I remember correctly, he had his wife make a motion to put that in effect, and it was shot down at the NAD conference.
Michelle…
As a fellow ex-NAD staffer, I must respectfully disagree with you. You seem to imply that since working at the NAD, people from various communication method backgrounds (i.e. oral, cued-speech, etc) suddenly stopped and concentrated only on signing from that point on. Not true.
I. along with a few others, still warble/yowl. Several people formerly and currently at the NAD still use cued speech. So there is really no “ex” but more of an “add”– acquiring a new communication method.
If the NAD really want to say they represent all types of hearing loss (I’m tired of the labels), then they need to broaden the horizons. But in order to broaden the horizons, they need more diverse perspectives rather than just ASL users or converts.
I was an ex-NAD staffer as well (you came in just shortly after I left), and I remember our accountant was ex-Cued speech user. Did he use Cued speech at NAD headquarters? No.
And the business manager was a graduate of oral school…he didn’t “refuse” to sign while at NAD. He signed all the time.
Our executive director was a product of mainstreaming background. She signs all the time.
And yes we had HOH staffers, but they all signed.
That was my main point. It’s not like certain people dropped signs and did whatever they felt like. That never happened during my time at NAD. It may have during yours, though.
[…] was intrigued by a number of comments made recently on DeafDC.com regarding whether or not an “oral deaf person” (note the lower-case […]
[…] Morning Call Features wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt in regular school, and assistive device warranty laws. Unfortunately Portis neglects the fact… a reasonable accomodation because the school wasn t aware that there were different segments of the deaf… culturally deaf for instance, I went to a residential school, have deaf friends who are mostly oral…, as opposed to a deaf high school graduate who has a good chance of being neither well-educated nor… life (in MD and DC) MSSD was the high school I graduated from. -I consider myself bilingual because […]
Great blog post, good discussion, even if in the end it came down to a debate between Chris Heuer and Michele Ketcham. *grin*
I know I’m coming in late, but I want to throw a few things out here. I viewed McConnell’s post a while back, and I had some problems with it.
It was an interesting essay, and I found it a good read overall. I agree that relying on an absolute figure is not a good idea. But just as the figure of 2 million can be questioned and disputed by McConnell, so can his own conclusions.
I’m wondering if he accounted at all for the rubella bulge in his calculations? If not, he should go back and re-do his figures. Also, relying on Canada’s figures isn’t perhaps the best way to extrapolate U.S. figures, especially when you factor in higher immigration rates to the U.S. This includes the burgeoning Deaf Russian population in NYC, for example.
Additionally, his citation of the SHHH statistics presents their findings uncritically. I’d like to know who they canvassed in their own statistical compilation. Are *all* deaf people represented? Just SHHH members? How did they come up with the figures that they did?
If we’re talking about culturally Deaf people only, yes, the number most likely isn’t 2 million, and is probably smaller. But if we’re are talking about “ASL speakers” as everyone who is reasonably fluent in ASL, then 2 million is a distinct possibility, when you consider Deaf people, sign language students, people who know ASL but don’t consider themselves culturally Deaf, CODAs, interpreters, etc.
While I too am curious as to how Lane and Bahan came up with 500,000-2 million, I’m also curious as to how McConnell, SHHH, and others determined their figures. In the absence of a definitive tally, census data, etc., a ballpark figure is safest; and that’s what they did. Essentially, all statistics can be questioned, disputed, used, abused, interpreted, and misinterpreted.
This of course leads us back to your post, Shane. I think the numbers of “28 million” and “500,000-2,000,000″ have been overused, interpreted, and misinterpreted by many over the years. I too am guilty of this. I think there’s a long overdue need to conduct a more definitive (as definitive as any poll/census can be!) census, one that will bring the numbers current. Only then can we start to better argue and serve the community.
As for the point you bring up, I agree– on issues where there is common ground or a common underlying need, there needs to be a basis of equality/parity. While education will probably always be a deal-breaker, issues such as captioning, employment, mental health services, etc. are universal, regarding of the degree of deafness/hearing loss and where one is in the pecking order. So I disagree with Deep Ears and similar folk: while “navel-gazing” may not be a term you like, the concept behind it isn’t helpful. We can have thousands of conversations about Deaf ed and about culture, but if we really want to make progress as a community, we need to work on those issues where we can find common ground with other supporters, and in the process of working on these goals, educate them about us, so that maybe we can then work on the harder and thornier problems that need solutions.
David Evans,
Do we really want to include ASL users in the census? Some would argue that it could be counterproductive, because it indicates that we acknowledge that population #’s are an important factor when determining funding allocations. Also there is the risk that the number of people in our community may actually be lower than we expect.
I think it’s necessary to know how many people use sign language to more appropriately direct the resources they need to them.
Noelle,
Should resources be divvied up based on population #’s?
Shane, my friend, who’s this “we” in your comment to DE above? The way I see it there’s a bunch of “they’s” (state governments, federal governments, etc) but no “we.” It’s not like deaf people who don’t use ASL have any more control over the state and federal governments than do Deaf people who DO use ASL…
So there’s no “we,” y’know?
Chris Heuer,
When I say “we” I am referring to ASL users, because this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this idea bandied about.
I think that to ensure that resources are accessed by all in the deaf/Deaf community is to make sure that the resources will benefit each particular deaf individual through universality in the technology.
I also think that to equalize the playing field between the deaf/Deaf and the hearing, is to have a subsidization of these resources and accommodations. I don’t think the deaf should have to pay for these accommodations, rather that the accommodations should be subsidized on the federal level like the USF fee in subsidizing the relay system. If accommodations such as CART, captioning, oral interpreters, ASL interpreters, to name just a few, were subsidized, it would take the additional burden off employers in hiring deaf people because they wouldn’t have to worry about paying for these accommodations.
By removing that worry from employers in hiring deaf/Deaf people, you may see a corresponding increase in employment of these deaf people since the costs of accommodating their disability are removed.
Shane:
Oh.
[…] Springs – I received an email the other night from a friend asking me what I thought of Shane Feldman’s blog, which discusses fiscal spending inequalities with regard to public accommodations and policy […]
Paotie disagrees with Shane’s view.
“The Deaf community needs fewer idiots like Feldman, and more people willing to accept the reality for what it is: there are far more HOH people than Deaf people in the United States, and part of the American democratic way requires that no unequal distribution of resources shall become part of the American way of life. That is why the civil rights’ movements existed and gave birth to future generations of civil rights passages, including the ADA.”
http://www.paotie.com/2007/10/.....oligarchy/
[…] Oct 4th, 2007 by Terry Portis The nature of the blog is that it is an online journal of sorts. From time to time, it is fine to journal about someone else’s journal. Last week, another blogger blogged about an article I wrote for Hearing Loss Magazine. The blog entry written by Shane Feldman can be found here. […]
Shane, Chris, and Dave:
HI guys, I’m late joining in on this discussion as well.
I completely disagree with individuals like Terry Portis and other HLAA folks who use this argument about the numbers in their favor.
For one thing, there is no current data displaying the difference between whom is truly audiologically hard of hearing and whom is deaf. None. Zero.
Often when a person with a hearing loss is asked if they are deaf or hard of hearing, if they are part of the general mainstream out there, these people feel more comfortable it seems because of society’s view of the term “hard of hearing” vs. “deaf” to tell the census ppl, or others that they are “hard of hearing” than to admit that they are deaf. Many of these hard of hearing individuals are more likely audiologically deaf. Also, one may start off being hard of hearing but as we all know, if your type of hearing loss is progressive, in a short time or over time, you eventually end up Deaf. Okay? The big difference is once you are deaf you stay deaf, not so true for those who call themselves hard of hearing. Even for those who know they are deaf but call themselves hard of hearing still, its more to do with their comfort and need for identity.
We have not yet changed society’s view yet about being DEAF. You don’t see TV advertisements showing is “its cool and sexy to be deaf”. You do see advertisements tho for hearing aids catering to people with a hearing loss “for those of you who are hard of hearing, here is the Wonderbra of hearing aids”. Capice?
It is a complete misnomer for HLAA to claim their numbers are greater than the deaf, therefore funding should shift to serve the majority. I have heard this said from those involved with the HLAA organization, and yet there are thousands of “hard of hearing” people out there who never even heard of HLAA, and if they had, they have no interest in joining. Majority of those who call themselves hard of hearing only want to get their hearing aid, then whoosh, you never see them again! Their lives are part of the hearing culture, that is the culture they identify with and live and breathe with. They do not see themselves as part of the “hard of hearing” membership of HLAA, nor do they see themselves obviously as part of the Deaf culture. You see what I am saying? The sad thing about reality, is when such people mingle as part of the hearing culture, eventually become more isolated as they get older, and withdrawn because they eventually become so deaf, that they can’t function as “hearing-like” as they once were and avoid people period. Such individuals however, are far more appreciative of the services our agencies offer them as a light at the end of the tunnel. That is if we find them. There are many good people involved with HLAA whom I call friends. Such people are able to show respect to what Deaf people need and feel the respect is equivalent for understanding hard of hearing people’s needs. I could go on and on, but I will not ever support HLAA’s claim that the majority of the folks out there are truly hard of hearing. It may seem this way, but the fact is - if we asked for these 30 million folks to submit their audiogram, we would find the scale tipping more so on the Deaf side. When I have this discussion with hoh folks whom are members of HLAA they end up agreeing and also quietly sharing they are more deaf than hard of hearing, especially as they get older.
Working with hard of hearing folks and this HLAA organization’s leadership Brenda Battat has been a positive one, as we both work well together to combat broader issues out there to break down the barriers.
We are more powerful together in numbers than alone.
The more they understand us, the more they support our issues and vice verse.
As far as I know, they are not interesting in taking away deaf funding, tho some like to bitch and moan, they do deep down know that Deaf need this funding more so because there is no place else to go. Hard of heairng people can go to a hearing-oriented agency and still get services because there is communication, somewhat limited. I’ve seen HLAA folks (the good ones) talk more about the need to find new funding to augment what is out there to support services to people who have a hearing loss but do not sign. Showing respect toward each others needs and causes can go a long way than not.
Just my 2cents.
Thanks.
Sheri,
If you are talking about audiological degree of hearing, there are way more people who are in the mild to moderate loss than in the audiologically severe, profound, deaf category.
It’s my understanding that HLAA is trying to represent the interests of those neglected ‘inbetweeners’…their hearing ability isn’t good enough for them to function like normal hearing, but it’s not bad enough that they fit in with Deaf culture. You are correct that most people’s hearing loss worsen over time. But the typical progressive timeline is over decades for that population. But just because their loss progresses, doesn’t mean they automatically start becoming part of a Deaf culture.
One of the things I’m learning from the comments is that we all have different ideas of how we define things. The demographic that HLAA proposes to represent is not primarily the cultural Deaf population. It could include them as far as deaf community goes, but they would be just one type among several types of people with hearing loss.
Another thing I’m learning is this notion of cultural Deaf identity says views nothing wrong with audiological deafness. The frame of reference is not one of “loss” like it is with most people’s experience of hearing loss. To me, this is the essence of Deafness–and Deaf culture grows from the soil of that essence.
But the much larger demographic and experience is the frame of reference of “loss”. Diminishing of the hearing capacity-and so the attempts to reduce the impact of that loss and still ‘keep up’ to a level of ‘normal’ hearing capability. These people won’t tend to choose a new lifestyle or culture that is radically different from where they are now. It may be that in 20 years, it would have been a good idea that they had learned ASL while their hearing loss was still moderate…but that isn’t what people naturally choose…or when they do choose, it is for some personally compelling reason. But having moderate hearing loss is having some things in common with both hearing and deafness–a spectrum.
It is precisely this diverse spectrum of hearing loss that makes it harder for HLAA to define the identity of their demographic than it is for Deaf groups. There are other dimensions of hearing loss that have nothing to do with audibility of sounds (language processing, brain processing). These are even harder to develop awareness for because the hard of hearing are all lumped together as ‘just wear a hearing aid to fix it’ when that may not work.
I think the average person with hearing loss, who feels their loss has a significant impact on their quality of life, would look at the Deaf community and ask “where are the services designed for *me*?” And it seems the more technology develops, the harder it is for people with hearing loss to use even the hearing they do have.
I wouldn’t presume to know what ‘works best’ for the Deaf culture, and more than I can presume what works best for the Albanian culture or Blind culture. But the hearing loss community doesn’t have a ‘culture’ to identify with where they feel at home. It isn’t hearing culture…there is no such thing. But people with hearing loss do realize they have some things in common that put them outside of fair access to society. I think one of the challenges HLAA and other hearing loss groups face is to clarify those boundaries and develop generalized paths that they can benefit from and overcome those barriers. Deaf culture has evolved and charted paths of its own, and the hearing loss group has to do the same for itself.
Jay,
My comment above has to do with the fact that I challenge the statistics which purport there are many many more hard of hearing than deaf.
This is not about “who” “becomes” culturally deaf. Good grief, thats a whole different article altogether, smile.
My disagreement stems from the fact that all of the statistics about the “numbers” of people in America with a hearing loss are all based on an “estimation” and based on how the individual answers the questions asked, not based on actual facts!
For example…
“Typical of surveys of hearing loss or deafness, when attempting to distinguish among those who are hearing, hard of hearing, or deaf, the SIPP asks how well a person can hear human speech (see, e.g., Schein, 1989) or, more precisely, “normal conversation.” The SIPP asks each individual (age 15 or older) or informant (responding for children aged 6 to 14 years, as well as some older persons) to respond to the following two questions (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a, Questions ADQ6 and ADQ7; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b, Questions CDQ11 and CDQ12):
“Do you [Does the child] have difficulty hearing what is said in a normal conversation with another person even when wearing your [his/her] hearing aid?” [Note: the respondent is not forced to answer yes or no; the individual may indicate “Person is deaf” in lieu of providing a yes or no response.]
An affirmative response is followed by “Are you [Is the child] able to hear what is said in normal conversation at all?”
These are fundamentally social questions; they pertain to interactions between a person speaking and the person (who may be experiencing hearing loss or deafness) being spoken to. Given that the idea of normal conversation is commonly shared, it is this manner of social interaction that defines hearing loss or deafness.
It is important to note that the SIPP defines hearing loss and deafness in relation to an individual’s difficulty hearing normal conversation with the use of a hearing aid (if worn); from a less conversationally functional and more audiological perspective, some respondents may have a hearing loss that is not going to be apparent using the two questions above. Further consideration needs to be given to whether the person uses a hearing aid (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a, Question ADQ2c; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b, Question CDQ7c). A person who reports no difficulty hearing normal conversation when wearing her/his hearing aid, nonetheless, does have a hearing loss. This creates a special subgroup among those with hearing loss or deafness responding to the SIPP: persons who have no difficulty hearing normal conversation and use a hearing aid (i.e., “No” response to Questions ADQ6 or CDQ11, but “Yes” response to Questions ADQ2c or CDQ7c).
As noted, the SIPP allows individuals to select the label “deaf” in lieu of indicating the degree of difficulty hearing normal conversation. This alternative response exists because people who are born deaf or who experience hearing loss before acquiring spoken language often do not identify themselves as having difficultly with normal conversation; they identify themselves as deaf (Hale, 2001). These respondents understand that the standard referent is to normal conversation, which implies that any alternative manner of conversation or social intercourse to which one may have ready access is not normal and does not count; being deaf does count.
Another social basis for defining deafness, introduced above, is the use of speech versus sign language, particularly a preference for the use of one over the other. Largely dependent on both the degree and timing of hearing loss, those who are hard of hearing are distinguished from those who are deaf by their ability and preference for the use of spoken language when communicating with others. Clearly, there is more room for social mobility by this definition because language and communication skills and preferences can change over time, affecting how a person with hearing loss or deafness creates a self-presentation and how that presentation is perceived by others. However, the SIPP does not inquire about preferences for the use of speech or sign language, though it does request information about the intelligibility of the individual’s speech (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a, Question ADQ8: “Do you have difficulty having your speech understood?”).”
See: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.or.....l/11/1/112