“Divisive Language” & “Benevolent Militants”

The word “militant” carries a negative connation for most people (except for those who think of themselves as militants). This word derives from the 15^th century Latin word “militare" meaning “to serve as a soldier.” When Aidan Mack described movements such as the Civil Rights movement and the Women’s Suffrage as “benevolent militancy” I had to stop and look at those two words next to each other. “Benevolent” suggests a good nature or indicating a concern with charity. The first thing I thought of was how that phrase seemed to be a great example of an oxymoron. “Uncompromising” has many synonyms, but “militant” isn’t one of them.

I would not describe the Civil Rights movement as a form of militancy at all, rather instead it was an era of “civil disobedience,” where people with strong beliefs chose to disregard the law, or the status quo as it was through direct action and non-violent resistance. Nor would I describe the era Women’s Suffrage as a period of militancy, even though there were militants present during both periods of reform. The key leaders in those movements were determined, resolute, unwavering, and unyielding in their cause, yet they weren’t militants.

What I take issue with the most is how some people freely take on the label of “militant,” disregarding the history behind the meaning. History is full of militants who have won and lost physical and psychological battles against those they considered to be their oppressors or enemies. Violent confrontation served as the ultimate endgame towards whatever militants’ goals were, whether it was to create change or to uphold the status quo. All people will remember is the violence that took place. Hamas, anyone?

This is not to say that confrontation didn’t take place during the Civil Rights movement. People will recall the boycotts of public transit in Montgomery, Alabama and sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina. The aggressors during this time were the people who wanted to uphold the status quo. The victims were the ones who endured water hoses and police dogs while trying to exercise their right to freedom of speech, which they were really never given in the first place.

Reform served as the ultimate goal for most American political movements in the past century. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Susan B. Anthony are described as reformers who played a large role in organizing people together for their respective causes. The language they used played a crucial role in uniting people together, which some people in the deaf community today could take a few notes from. If individuals in the deaf community want to be successful in reforming the field of deaf education, they need to be aware of the language they use in speaking out to the general public. Divisive language won’t win any points for those who are attempting to rally people together behind one flag.

I will not call out anyone here, but I will use the example of the AG Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Today’s deaf community has never seen so much animosity against one organization, all because of one critical issue – the issue of American Sign Language. Some advocate it as the language of the deaf, while others advocate it as essential to the development of language and literacy. It’s not the position itself that is in question, but how people push their position. Obviously some people are very tact about stating their belief that all deaf children need ASL, while others just froth at the mouth when decrying the inhumanity of the oral method or even Cued Speech.

Given the current composition of the deaf community, it’s obvious that sign language has worked for some and not for others. The same goes for the oral method. Cued Speech still yet has to endure the test of time as it only has been around for almost half a century, yet enough adult deaf cuers have found success for parents and professionals to keep promoting the visual communication system as a way of achieving language and literacy. Regardless of the method, what’s obvious is the importance of the parents’ involvement in their children’s development. The more they’re involved in their child’s life, the more language that child will be exposed to.

Parents who are first-time parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children may stumble across blogs full of hostility and may leave with the wrong impression of people that use sign language or other modalities, carrying that with them as they make critical choices for their own children. They have the right to make their own informed choices, regardless of whatever other people believe they should do.

In an ode to Paotie – “Be nice, or be nice at it.”

- A Former Leftist Radical

Confessions of a Deaf Server

For the past few months I’ve been working as a server at Red Lobster. This is only a temporary job until I start grad school in the fall, yet it provides me with a good source of income. Today being Valentine’s Day, we had a big rush during lunch. Talk about oral communication. There’s nothing like getting slammed with three tables at once as soon as you clock in, taking orders and trying to make sure everyone gets what they want. It’s critical to get everyone’s order right and ensure the customers are satisfied; otherwise I don’t get good tips.

At first I was nervous about being a server, since it was quite a big transition from working behind the line as a cook to being the face of the restaurant. After all in high school and the first year of college I’ve worked as a cook at two local establishments and Bob Evans (also known as Owen Mills in some parts of the country) back home in Wilmington, NC. Being a cook still required quite a bit of oral communication with the servers and managers, yet the primary responsibility of being a cook consisted of reading the tickets and putting food on plates to feed the customers. Pretty easy compared to being a server.

As a server I have to introduce myself, welcome them to Red Lobster, present the Fresh Fish selection, and make the promise that the customers will have a great lunch or dinner. That’s all part of the routine when I first approach each guest. Each experience is different from the last, as so many different variables are present. There’s the guest who has an attitude from the beginning because they were slighted in some way as soon as they got in the restaurant. Then there’s the guest who is in a hurry to get out of there, when everyone knows that seafood takes time to cook, otherwise they’d risk the chance of getting food poisoning. I never know when I’ll get a good tip or I’ll get ripped off.

After a while I found my groove at Red Lobster. My 30-day review came along and the manager indicated that I was doing really well, even though there were a few areas I could improve on (pre-bussing the tables and wrapping up leftovers). This positive review pleased me and I continued on serving. Imagine that, a profoundly deaf individual doing well as a server at a high-volume restaurant.

Yet most people at work don’t view me as a deaf person. They just treat me like any others, with a few exceptions here and there as we have a few ignorant people who make idiotic gestures or state they know sign language when they don’t even know how to count numbers in ASL. All the servers are expected to walk hot food out, regardless of whether it’s theirs or not. Often someone will scream my name and ask “Aaron, walk this to table ## for me, will ya?” Of course I have to make sure I get the number right because there’s nothing like walking up to a table and hearing the words “I think you have the wrong table.”

I’ve had quite a few customers ask me where I’m from. The most recent question was today with my last table of the day. This woman, who was with her husband, asked me if I was Irish. I responded “No, but I’ve had people ask me that before.” I then went on to tell the condensed story that I’ve told over and over again where I was born deaf, learned Cued Speech, and received the cochlear implant at 7 years old. Yada yada yada.

Not one week goes by when someone asks me where I’m from, yet the responses are different when they learn of my story. I think the most humorous one was when I served a mom and her teenage daughter. The mom seemed to act as if she was on uppers, while the teenager seemed to be normal. You gotta love dysfunctionality. Anyways, she expressed her astonishment and said “well congratulations! That’s so incredible that you’re working here.” she went so far to offer to shake my hand (I shook it of course). In my head, I was just marveling at how ignorant she was and how common this response is. Is it really that big of an accomplishment to be a deaf server?

It doesn’t faze me that we have people out there who act this way, yet it reminds me of how there’s a lot of misconceptions about deafness, especially when it comes to spoken language. Historically deaf people have been viewed as having the inability to express themselves orally (in a clear fashion). That’s not the case anymore. With advancements in education and medical technology, more profoundly deaf people find themselves having the ability to communicate clearly through spoken language. At the same time they’re finding more success in fields where before now deaf people would have had much difficulty communicating with hearing people.

The more people realize that deaf people can communicate on the same level as hearing people, the less they will treat and view us differently.

Did AG Bell (or AGBAD) Succeed?

I just got home from work in time to watch the last quarter of Super Bowl XVII.

My girlfriend said she didn't see the Pepsi Commercial. I im'd one of my friends, and he said he didn't see the commercial. Did anyone see the commercial? My buddy linked me to this website http://sports.aol.com/nfl/superbowlads

I'm curious to whether what the deal is for picking commercials to air during the Super Bowl. I know that the Patriots didn't use all their timeouts in the fourth quarter, but was that really a factor in whether the "silent" Pepsi Commercial was to be aired?

Obviously there's been a lot of buzz about Pepsi's "silent" commercial, yet they aired two others (Diet Pepsi Max - "What is Love?" and Pepsi - "Justin Timberlake"). Perhaps star power won out over the anonymity of the actors in the "silent" Pepsi commercial?

I've always liked Pepsi my whole life, after all I grew up drinking it in my home state North Carolina. Commercials really never played a factor anyways in my decision making when it came to which pop to drink.

Assuming that this "silent" commercial produced by EnAble (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffrq6cUoE5A) was never aired, would this affect deaf people's choices in what they want to drink? I doubt it for a large majority of the deaf community. After all we're not that shallow, are we?

By the way, I saw the commercial and I thought it was funny. I just didn't really see the connection between Pepsi and the commercial. In fact I never really saw any Pepsi products. Perhaps that's why they didn't air it.

- EDIT -

According to ITACANUSAAL the commercial did air, but BEFORE the Super Bowl. Does that really count as a "Super Bowl" ad? What was Pepsi's real intentions in the first place anyways?

NAD’s New Position Statement – Revealing the NAD’s state of mind?

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?