When I checked my email just a few minutes ago, I came across an email linking to the National Association of the Deaf’s new
ASL position statement. Before even opening the link I knew what the position statement would entail. I had already heard from inside sources within the legal department that this position statement was under review. I just wondered when this would ever come out so people could throw a fit about it.
From my experience on the board of directors for the National Cued Speech Association, I understand the complex process that boards must go through in order to draft a
position statement and then adopt it. Essentially the position statements are what they sound like – stating our positions on certain subjects or issues.
In the NAD’s case, the board of directors felt the need to define their position on
ASL as being “the recognized sign language of the deaf community.” I can see that the board wanted to define what
ASL is and how NAD wants to advocate
ASL as the visual language of the deaf community. After all
ASL has a deep history that none of the other visual modalities can match (SEEI, SEEII, Cued Speech, and so on).
“The NAD reiterates its position that acquisition of language from birth is a human right for every person, and that deaf infants and children should be given the opportunity to acquire and develop proficiency in American Sign Language (
ASL) as early as possible.” –
Last paragraph of the NAD’s ASL position statement.What’s troubling though is how others may perceive this particular section. I’m already seeing some feathers ruffled in the Cued Speech community, particular on the issue of the first/native language of the deaf child. It seems that some people are interpreting this section as implying that
ASL is the birthright of deaf children.
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with this view, but I can understand where they’re coming from. After all certain elements of the deaf community have taken on a militant fashion in advocating
ASL as the language of the deaf (not just the sign language, but the language itself). Do those individuals necessarily represent the NAD, or rather the deaf community as a whole? Not at all.
I think the question at heart is who the NAD represents here. The NAD has already stated that
ASL is among one of its core beliefs here. The NAD also strives to protect the legal rights of deaf individuals in all aspects of life, and has done successfully in many cases in the past. Yet I can’t find anything related to Cued Speech or oral approaches other than recognizing the different communication modalities and the right to choose. When I first visited the NAD website, I immediately thought this was an
ASL-centered organization. If I thought that, is it possible that others may have thought the same thing too?
“The mission of the National Association of the Deaf is to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and quality of life of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the
United States of America.” –
The NAD’s mission statement The NAD’s mission statement is very simple and inclusive, yet the new ASL position statement doesn’t seem to fall in line with the idea of inclusiveness. Why not have a position statement on Cued Speech and how it provides a clear avenue to spoken language? Why not have a position statement on cochlear implants? Maybe the NAD doesn’t want to alienate its membership? Why this ASL position statement now? Why not five years ago, ten years ago before cochlear implants were the rage? Does the NAD feel threatened and wants to reaffirm its “historic stance” now?
There are many questions that many people will have about the new position statement that the NAD has put forth now. However the answers to these questions may not narrow the divisions that exist today in the deaf community on the different communication options we have available. I am sure that the NAD will be receiving letters in response to the new position statement, both positive and negative. Yet I am not sure whether the NAD truly represents the deaf community as a whole.
Will the NAD ever add Cued Speech and Cochlear Implants to the plethora of advocacy issues that it covers?
- A Future NAD member?
22 comments:
I see this position statement as supporting ASL -- in addition to English. "The NAD supports maximizing language proficiency in deaf infants through the implementation of a dual language approach; that is, incorporating early acquisition and learning of ASL and English." I don't see a conflict with cued speech, because the NAD also supports the acquisition and learning of English which is the focus of cued speech. I also don't see a conflict with hearing aids or cochlear implants, either, because the NAD says, "ASL should be made available to every deaf infant, in addition to any assistive technologies that may be used to take advantage of the deaf infant’s access to the language(s) used by their families and care providers." To me, this is a pretty inclusive statement, even if it does not describe every which way to acquire or learn English. It's a position statement about ASL for goodness sake. Good for the NAD.
Mother of Bilingual Deaf and Hearing Children
NAD began as a pro-ASL organization, in 1880 -- the same year of the Milan Conference which decreed oralism supreme in deaf education. Look at the NAD films of the 1930s, especially Veditz.
This does not mean that NAD is for native ASL users, just that ASL is a major part of NAD's history and remains important to the organization.
Excellent!
A big red flag should have gone up for many people regarding the NAD when the President cut her all-too-important vacation time to rush to D.C. and support the protest at Gally in 2006.
"National Association of the Deaf's president Bobbie Beth Scoggins of Kentucky cut her vacation short and flew in to declare NAD's support of the students' demands."
Click here.
Clearly, the NAD is a trailer-park outfit best serving militant Deaf people - not representing the deaf/hoh spectrum, despite the mission statement.
*laughs*
The NAD is a joke in my opinion. I personally know one of the VIPs, and let me tell you something, he's an idiot.
Enough said.
:o)
Paotie
Aaron: First of all, are you the member of NAD? No, I'm not talking about tomorrow or next year. I'm talking about in the last 5 years?
No? You should not criticize the NAD if you never bothered to sign up in the first place.
NAD, in the past, has been weakened with constant struggles between modes of communications. Today, NAD gets to define the specific goals and statements to strengthen the organization as whole.
I think it is about time that the NAD acknowledge, embrace and preserve the ASL. And be firm with its position with language and abandon the rest.
Again, what did you do for NAD?
Probably nothing.
R-
well, depending on you all people who wants to keep ASL stay strong. You want to be a member of NAD. Up to you. We cherish ASL. For years we asked to keep ASL in the book on the earth since AGBAD wanted it destroy. You are a cuer. I am so cool with that. As long as you do not against ASL. Enough for hostile to those crazy hearing people who invented the best for deaf children!! Why don't they just be opened to ASL is a language to communicate in visual? I CAN'T STAND all organizations tell people to BAN , FORBID, NOT ALLOW, NO_NO to ASL. What is so BAD about ASL??
That is why NAD has ASL to cherish. We NAD are welcome you to be our members for deaf rights as such, jobs, businesses, communication access, etc. We do not reject you because you are not asl user. Stop look for FAULTS or FLAWS. Once you come around and NAD people, you will see differently what you read in NAD information! Of course, we cherished ASL since it came to deaf community for years.
It is not good for those organizations to tell everyone that ASL is BAD, EVIL, ETC, ETC. I have been there.
will ever add?
NAD already include other factions in their advocacy efforts..do you read?
im sure national cued speech assoc meet all your needs ?
Patio,
Are you trying to become Richard Roehm number 2? You did nothing but bitching about the deaf community. What is your %$#@! problem?
DeafRush
You see, Cued speech and SEE created by the hearing people, not deaf community. We do respect their theory to think it is working. Cued speech and SEE is very smallest percent to use. Don't point deaf people as militant. We educate them as much as we can.
Aaron, most of the Board members are long-time ASL users or advocate the usage of ASL as a primary sign language for the deaf for a long time.
Mother of Bilingual -
That's good that you see it as being inclusive and having no conflict. Note that it's not what I interpret it as, it's how others read the statement and how they react to it.
Marisa -
Thanks for your comments
Paotie -
I know quite a few people who have worked for NAD and they're not trailer-park trash. They have pretty sharp minds. At least one of them will probably end up being my lawyer. :-)
Ridor -
I didn't really think this was a highly critical blog, just me thinking out loud about how others MIGHT perceive this statement.
Hedy -
Much thanks for your comment. In fact the last thing on my mind is banning ASL. I'm just merely musing on how people may react to the position of the NAD on ASL.
Anonymous -
I understand that the NAD may involve other "factions" or organizations if that's what you mean in their advocacy efforts, but it doesn't seem to be that transparent from the website. There is quite a lot of information to soak in at once.
The NCSA is only one organization and focuses on Cued Speech, but the NAD is a much larger org with a big network and a good legal department. I wouldn't mind having NAD behind my back when it comes to legal issues regarding Cued Speech and CIs.
Dennis -
I thought Sign Language was created by hearing people, it just became a language of its own through the generations?
Please don't misunderstand my point about "some" people acting in a "militant fashion" regarding ASL. They're only a small portion of the deaf community, but they seem to get a lot of attention. Wouldn't you agree?
IMO, the NAD needed this. Instead of catering to the deaf umbrella and not gaining traction membership wise, they now have sharpened their focus. (In their case, they 're-sharpened' it, as it was their original mission.)
The NAD has tried to be inclusive, and they still do; yet, their membership rolls do not reflect this. They need a galvanizing issue to rally their membership around, and this position statement is a nice way to do it.
As for the NAD advocacy arm, I assume they'll still retain their focus on serving the deaf community and their legal issues. We all (non-ASL/ASL deaf people) have too much in common when it comes to the legal arena.
Paotie makes it sense! NAD should represent "the deaf/hoh spectrum".
Spectrum means "all". NAD fails to represent all modes of deaf Americans. Capsice?
Aaron, you said "sign language was invented by hearing people." Actually, this is not true. In practically every country in the world, you will find deaf people with their own sign language. It is only natural for deaf people to come together and figure out the best way to commuicate with one another and the world-- almost always, that was to create a visual language. This doesn't happen overnight, obviously, but throughout generations of deaf people. It is quite amazing when you think about it. I believe (I'm not a history teacher so take my words with a grain of salt) that here in America, ASL developed out of LSF (brought to us by Clerc), Martha Vineyard's signs, and home signs at ASD and the first few deaf schools. Hearing people probably were heavily involved in the instruction-- and definitely heavily involved in attempting to create a sign language with an English structure. But where did those sign languages spring from-- the deaf community, always.
Aaron,
Cued speech is not a "sign language", so when the NAD says that ASL is the recognized sign language of the deaf community that has absolutely nothing to do with cued speech.
Cues/cued speech is not a language in itself, but is merely an aid to communicate in English.
The NAD statement is indeed inclusive, because it embraces the English language, too.
"After all certain elements of the deaf community have taken on a militant fashion in advocating ASL as the language of the deaf (not just the sign language, but the language itself"
Aaron,
I am not able to make any comments yet since I am not clear with this part so I am going to ask you several questions first:
Would you care to clarify this part by giving examples?
What makes it a militant fashion?
Why is it that those who advocates ASL are labeled militants?
NAD already has a position paper on CIs. In fact, it's their second one, which is much more moderate than their first one which was quite negative.
There's nothing wrong with ASL, but what scares hearing parents is when they see the atrocious written English skills of deaf people from deaf families, who went to deaf schools. Shouldn't these people be models of excellent English, since they had the benefit of having ASL as their first language? I won't point fingers, but there are examples of what I'm talking about in the comments listed here.
By the way, Aaron, the picture of you as a kid is adorable. Makes me want to pinch ur cheeks!
R-
What Anon 11:25 wrote is what I have understood about the history of natural signed language. Please allow me to add some information.
The Old French Sign Language was developed by Abbé de l'Épée who was a hearing teacher in Paris school for the deaf. Lauren Clerc then introduced this sign language to Thomas Gallaudet that eventually spread to schools for the Deaf such as American School for the Deaf. (We called it American Asylum back then). Today, this signed system is known as Old Signed English.
However, the other parts of signed language already existed at that time coming from different parts of the Deaf community especially from Martha's Vineyard that the proximity is close to Connecticut.
The students learned Gallaudet's form of sign language but it was noted that they used another form of sign language outside the classroom. Because using methodical form of sign language is not considered natural, they evolved this artificial language to what makes it more natural that it was free of all English grammar and shortened sentences down to key phrases. This "natural language" later became known as American Sign Language.
Ever since, ASL has been transmitted to Deaf people from generation to generation through residential Schools for the Deaf.
Hope this helps to clarify the misconceptions.
Hi there
I just want to make clear is that NAD recognizes ASL as a language. We need to remember that ASL and English are languages. To my understanding, NAD did not say anything against SEE, Cued Speech, Signed English and other codes that are part of English Language.
Hope this clear up.
Deafchip
I need to make it clear that French Sign Language existed before the Abbe de l'Épée modified it to create a "signed French" system.
Old French Sign language existed within the French Deaf community before the school in Paris was established. Pierre Desloges wrote about it in his 1779 book.
Here's a quote from Gallaudet.edu:
"Desloges's book is important to students of deaf history not only for its closely reasoned arguments on behalf of sign language by one of its users and for its early but fragmentary description of that language, but also for the evidence it provides that a sign language of wider communication was in use by the Paris deaf before the Abbe de l'Épée adapted it when he inaugurated a formal course for the instruction of the deaf."
http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/TDE.html
Todd -
I concur with you that we have too much in common when it comes to legal issues. Certainly the NAD will continue to fill that role for the entire spectrum in the deaf community.
Anonymous 11:21 -
You're right that in that there have been distinct sign languages that evolved within cultures. However would you say that without the involvement of hearing individuals (namely teachers of the deaf), those sign languages would have different dialects and there would have been divergent signs? Just a thought to ponder. No disagreement with you here.
Deep Ears -
It's not that we're arguing that Cued Speech is a sign language, it's not (even though we still make the argument that cued languages should be accepted as a true form of visual language).
Remember that inclusiveness may not be so obvious to the average person when it comes to the NAD. I am certain that a large number of individuals within the NAD embrace the idea of inclusiveness (I know plenty of NAD members). It's a matter of how people outside NAD "might" view this issue.
Barb Digi -
See YouTube "Breaking the Code" http://youtube.com/watch?v=plPw4H-ZsMg
Some individuals have gone on the offensive and decried Cued Speech as torture.
I have personal experience in radicalism, after all I got teargassed in Miami during the 2003 FTAA protests. I've also witnessed anarchists carry out vandalism on the North Carolina headquarters of the Republican party.
We both may have different interpretations of militant.
When I think of militant, I think of someone who has very strong beliefs and may seem hell-bent on spreading their message. They may choose to actively carry out information campaigns targeted at a certain group, actively harassing people who they don't agree with.
Just a matter of interpretation - I see it as being very "aggressive" or "combative."
Anonymous 2:12 -
Interesting point about "models of English. But not all deaf adults who have a poor grasp of English went to schools of the deaf. There's plenty who were mainstreamed (to a certain extent) and still turned out to have poor reading and writing skills.
David (DeafChip) -
You're right, NAD said nothing negative. I'm just merely musing about the perceptions people may have and how things may go down the road in the future in the deaf community.
Thanks for sharing the youtube video link. I got to view it and I am saddened to see not only ASL supporters bashing CS but the CS bashing ASL as well. It is like the ongoing conflict in the Middle East or something! At least there are no ammunition involved. I couldn't help but to jump in the discussion since one of the CS supporters, erkajen, made a stereotyped statement that ASL users tend to graduate with a low reading level which is not always the case.
Back to the point, I still don't see how your suggestion of these "militants" play a role to push NAD to write the ASL position paper. As a matter of fact, I heard through the grapevine that the ASL position paper was originated a year ago. You can ask them when the task was initiated for verification.
Ugh, teargassed? It's horrible for what you have experienced and to me that is what militants do. Do pray tell, did the ASL militants ever physically harm to those who don't support ASL? I think not.
Post a Comment