The Deaf Edge

[ASL Version]

[English Version]

I would like to continue the expanded discussion on my previous blog post, Effective Marketing and Advocacy. The issues raised in the comment section made the discussion very productive, but also made it more complicated.  The question of why ASL could not be implemented in education was raised, then a small discussion about ‘pure ASL’ versus bilingualism was raised.

So I think it’s important that we go back, and look at the right questions, so we can better understand these issues, leading to how to better advocate and market. The question is, ‘What is the purpose of education?’

My answer to that question is to have a person, normally a child, be educated in the ways of the society they’re in. The language, the society’s functions/used tools, and how they behave/socialize. So here in the United States, the society’s language here is English. A Deaf child will need to learn English to be able to participate in society effectively and on an equal basis. Not necessarily how to speak English, but at the very least, how to read and write English. So when I’m discussing ASL in Deaf education, I really am discussing bilingualism. Nobody here is advocating pure ASL only. If anyone does, then you might as well just go off and live in a cave, because you’re then removing yourself from society.

There has to be a balance struck here, and that ties into my next issue – democracy versus socialism. Various commenters have pointed to Sweden and how successful bilingualism was in that country. Things have seemed to change, but back then all deaf children were educated with Swedish Sign Language, and they then learned the Swedish language, therefore becoming able to participate in society. However, we need to go back and look at these countries versus our country here, the United States. Sweden for instance, is a socialist country, versus the United States, which is a representative democracy. Two different political systems, two different sets of rules.

We can look at Sweden and say, ‘The bilingual education in Sweden was very successful. Why can’t we employ that here?’ But we cannot force deaf children here in the United States to be educated in the bilingual method. The Swedish government, which is socialist, has decided which educational method is the best, period. It doesn’t take individual needs very much into consideration – only what is the best for the group as a whole.

Here in the United States, we are a representative democracy, which means we try to strike a balance between the individual and society’s needs. We take individual’s needs more in consideration here, more so than the socialist system does.

Now when we discuss IDEA and LRE [Least Restrictive Environment] – we need to look at what the I in IDEA stands for. It stands for Individuals. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The schools dislike that law, because they are then forced to pay more and train their teachers more, so they are better suited to meet the child’s needs. It is much easier to just throw one educational method at a child especially the oralist method, because it is difficult for teachers to learn and be proficient at ASL. They tend to look down at things that they are not good at. Another thing to consider is that forcing one educational method upon us is what  the Oralists have done for many years. They have stood up and pretty much said, “ALL Deaf children should get a cochlear implant and use the AVT method, because it is a 100% success. The  child is able to participate in society successfully.”

We know that is not true and it’s a cop-out. Statistically speaking, it is impossible to have 100% success with one method. We here know that, and that’s why we have choices. We have a range of choices here – from bilingualism, total communications, cued speech, to oralism. The parents will decide which method is the best suited for their child’s needs, so the child is able to maximize their ability to participate within society. The oralists claim their method is the best, and suppress information that says otherwise. Suppressing information, or giving out misleading/false information about other alternatives does not give parents a true choice, which is a violation of democratic principles. They are not playing by the rules, and that needs to be exposed and halted.

When it comes to LRE, the schools don’t like it either, because they have to take more things into consideration. For instance, my mother who is a strong advocate for deaf children, has pointed out to the public schools that LRE considers the child’s language needs, educational needs, and their social and emotional needs. Often the schools overlook (sometimes deliberately) the child’s social and emotional needs. Those two needs are part of the purpose of education. The child needs to learn social skills and coping skills, and if a child is placed all alone in the mainstream, their socialization is often very limited. And that’s how my mother was so successful in placing over fifty children at the Michigan School of the Deaf. Because that’s the place where it was the most least restrictive environment for the child.

Once that becomes more common knowledge, the better things will be for us. I hope I haven’t muddled the issue any more further. It is truly a complicated situation, and many factors play a role in it.

[ASL Version]

[English Version]

There’s been an ongoing controversy about the CAD’s president’s speech which was posted on DBC’s website. Amy Cohen Efron raised a question which was, “Does this presentation help the hearing understand us better?”

I’ve been commenting on DVTV and on Amy’s blog regarding this situation, but first, I would like to give you my background and experiences. My real name is Jeannette, and I’m a college student majoring in Public and Nonprofit Administration, with a concentration (it’s similar to a minor) in Ethics.

During my childhood, for five years, my parents battled with the public schools to provide me an ASL interpreter. Then at age 16 with my mother and the Deaf Community, we established a Deaf services agency, and for a year I was a youth board member. As an adult, I am again a board member of that agency. In 2006, with the Deaf community and leaders, we fought to restore mental health services for the Deaf. The government wanted to eliminate funding, which we restored successfully.

Then in 2002, which I will discuss in depth here – A Deaf mother had her two Deaf children removed from her, and placed in foster care. The government and the foster care parents wanted to implant the children.  Of course, the Deaf community and hearing allies were outraged over this. I was at Rochester Institute of Technology at that time, but I corresponded with the local Deaf community and friends via e-mail. I decided that we needed to have a protest rally to bring media attention to this, and hopefully help the Deaf mother win her case. So I joined two hearing advocates, who were allies of the Deaf community, and they trained me in this field. I established the GRDeaf_Protest listserv on YahooGroups. I worked with the advocates on press releases, interviews with the media, alerting the Deaf Community and allies to this story.

This is important to understand, an important example, because this goes back to Amy’s question. How do we persuade the majority to support our side? The answer is pretty simple. Execution is not so simple though. The concept is to hook them, drawing them in about the issues that they care about. Then once you’ve gotten their interest, discuss about the issues that matter to you.

So how did we get the hearing on such a massive scale to support us? Simple. We said, “Look at this mother. The government wants to implant her children. That surgery is elective. Optional. Those children do not have a life-threatening condition. Yet, the government wants to impose its will, against the parents’ wishes over an optional surgery. What if that happens to you? This establishes a dangerous precedent.”

That got the hearing’s attention, and drew them in masses. The media was also attracted to this. So once we got that support, we started to discuss about how the government was lying about American Sign Language and cochlear implants.

It worked – hearing people became more supportive of ASL, and more became opposed to cochlear implants. But the thrust of our argument was that the government has no right to infringe upon parental rights. It got international attention. CNN filmed a story on it, and was very sympathetic to us. Two hundred people showed up for the protest rally. It was such a beautiful day. Hearing and Deaf together, protesting this injustice.

What’s interesting though is… The judge didn’t like that. Because of the media attention, other attornies joined in and supported the mother’s cause. Then you had hundreds of people in attendance, watching the courtroom proceedings after the protest outside. So the judge grudgingly ruled in the mother’s favor. The two children would not get implanted. But she said in her ruling that if we did not argue for the parental rights, the two children would be implanted.

So that’s something that we all have to consider. What is effective advocacy and marketing? I would like to close this with my speech I had written for the protest rally. Unfortunately, I could not attend due to health reasons. Someone gave it for me, and here it is.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have entered a new millennium.  We have made great strides in advancing the rights of human beings. Society has evolved based on the population’s morals and values, and we have established laws to reflect that.  Yet, we are here today to protest a grave injustice. The court is being asked to order two Deaf children to undergo elective surgery without the consent of their Deaf parents.

The medical establishment has continually told us that being Deaf is a tragedy.  It refuses to admit that American Sign Language is wholly sufficient to allow the development of the language center of a Deaf child’s brain and to allow the Deaf child to develop full linguistic and cognitive competence, given each individual’s potential.  It refuses to admit that there are viable options other than a cochlear implant.

Hearing educators, arrogant in their assumptions and who often work in concert with the medical establishment, have integrated Deaf people into hearing classes.  Many Deaf students go through school without a bilingual education, therefore forcing them into a system about which they are unaware.  Through social promotion, they are advanced on the basis of a lower standard than in place for general education students.

The social service agencies that exist to serve us, have taken it upon themselves to declare what is the best for us, without our consent.  They have put blind faith in the educational and medical establishment that profit from the Deaf’s lack of education.

Now, the judicial system, which exists to protect and uphold our rights and to enforce the law, is considering a decision that could undermine everything a democratic and free society stands for, and the rights we are accorded under that system.  Contrary to what the medical and educational establishments desire for the judicial system and society as a whole to believe, being Deaf is not a tragedy.  What truly is a tragedy, is the continuation of judgement and oppression of a minority group in a culture that claims to cherish multi-culturalism.

We are here just as Deaf persons, or hearing persons, or even as Americans.  We are here together as human beings who value a democratic and free society, shoulder to shoulder, and peacefully saying, “We, the people, will no longer tolerate this cycle of injustice.”