CI--Deaf or Hearing?

[jillio]

I agree with this too. Inclusiveness nearly always works better than exclusiveness, especially if what you want to do is make changes in the greater society for the benefit of a small number of people within that larger society.

As someone pointed out, there are no (profoundly) deaf members of Congress, yet the ADA was passed that required captioning and other services. We have CCs today because of the hard work of a lot of hearing people who made it happen.

Right now, there is a lawyer out in one of the western states - Colorado, I think - who is practically a one-man band in terms of bringing suits against the major motion picture distributors to get captions more widely available in movies.

Deaf, hoh, and small-d deaf - and even many hearing - will benefit from accommodations put into place due to the efforts of people all working toward that common goal.

I don't see the point in continually emphasizing the slicing and dicing of the "just exactly how Deaf ARE you?" perspective. No one is entirely divorced from the society at large. Changes can't happen without getting the support of influential people in government, education, all the spheres that affect daily life.

The changes that are needed and that are proposed are not for the good of the wider society. That is the whole point. They are for the good of the Deaf community. Nor is it so much about accommodation. There are already Federal laws to cover that. We are talking about a change in attitude that will lead to a change in policy, and validation for the cultural and linguistic minority that is known as Deaf. The ADA is a general legislation regarding right to accommodation for all disabilites. And the way that it is worded has often created a double edged sword for the Deaf, and the deaf.

No offense, but it is expected that you would agree with that post. You and the poster are both looking at the topic from a hearing perspective. That same hearing perspective is what has created so many negative social, educational, and work related consequences for the Deaf.

 

[jillio]

Closed Captioning was made for by the NAD and before the ADA.

Right.

 

[Beach girl]

The changes that are needed and that are proposed are not for the good of the wider society. That is the whole point. They are for the good of the Deaf community. Nor is it so much about accommodation. There are already Federal laws to cover that. We are talking about a change in attitude that will lead to a change in policy, and validation for the cultural and linguistic minority that is known as Deaf. The ADA is a general legislation regarding right to accommodation for all disabilites. And the way that it is worded has often created a double edged sword for the Deaf, and the deaf.

That's exactly what I meant when I said "for the benefit of a small number of people within that larger society."

 

[posts from hell]

Right.

And not to mention there's a separate law in place that requires CC, and it aint the ADA.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Personally, when I think of militant, I think of extreme radicals. Like people who break into labs to set free the animals kinda of radical or people who bomb abortion centers.

But if someone were to call me a deaf militant in the media simply because I was vocal about being anti-pediatric CIs, then my attitude would be "if my speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves gets me labeled a deaf militant, then fine, I'm proud to be one." This is a perfect example of what the hearing world sees as a negative - a deaf person speaking up in concern for babies getting implanted - is a positive for me. When I claim the label deaf militant and make it a positive, then it is. But not because I'm a militant person by nature but because I took what was meant to be derogatory and make it a symbol of power and strength.

I don't think it's militant to be an activist. I don't think it's militant to speak up and demand to be heard. I don't think it's militant to become political. I don't think it's militant to lobby, to spread awareness, to propel movements and actions.

But the hearing world does evidently. And it's very unfortunate because then they can use it as an excuse to brush us off. Like my fight with this parent on youtube. He proudly bragged his CI kid is mainstreamed and "hearing". I told him that he should be aware that deaf kids in mainstream is not always a success and that he should be aware that she's not a hearing person, she's deaf. His attitude was immediately to call me a loser, a liar, etc etc etc even though I told him I am deaf and was mainstreamed. I knew he immediately saw me as one of those "deaf militants" and that's when I realized there's no point in having a rational discussion with him because he's put up that big wall. I don't understand, I really don't understand why the hearing world does not listen to what we're saying about deaf issues. WE ARE DEAF and yet we don't know what we're talking about? And when we insist we do, we get branded as militant.

It's very demeaning, disrespectful and offensive. So that's why when drphil liberally uses that label in nearly every post he makes, it's like a slap in the face like everything I went through, everything I worked so hard for was for naught, was meaningless, insignificant like I'm a nobody.

So the more he keeps using that label, the harder I'm going to be on him because I've had enough.

 

[jillio]

That's exactly what I meant when I said "for the benefit of a small number of people within that larger society."

In order for that to occur, a Deaf militant polical figure will be necessary. It is the only way to switch the perspective to the Deaf perspective. To maintain the hearing perspective of the majority in regard to Deaf issues is not progress and it will not lead to change.

Why do you think DPN ocurred in 1886?

 

[posts from hell]

Funny thing, I was actually approached by a lady who was toting a cochlear corp shirt today.....

She did not know any sign but tried to "help" as she thought I was incapable.

I had to laugh.

 

[jillio]

Personally, when I think of militant, I think of extreme radicals. Like people who break into labs to set free the animals kinda of radical or people who bomb abortion centers.

But if someone were to call me a deaf militant in the media simply because I was vocal about being anti-pediatric CIs, then my attitude would be "if my speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves gets me labeled a deaf militant, then fine, I'm proud to be one." This is a perfect example of what the hearing world sees as a negative - a deaf person speaking up in concern for babies getting implanted - is a positive for me. When I claim the label deaf militant and make it a positive, then it is. But not because I'm a militant person by nature but because I took what was meant to be derogatory and make it a symbol of power and strength.

I don't think it's militant to be an activist. I don't think it's militant to speak up and demand to be heard. I don't think it's militant to become political. I don't think it's militant to lobby, to spread awareness, to propel movements and actions.

But the hearing world does evidently. And it's very unfortunate because then they can use it as an excuse to brush us off. Like my fight with this parent on youtube. He proudly bragged his CI kid is mainstreamed and "hearing". I told him that he should be aware that deaf kids in mainstream is not always a success and that he should be aware that she's not a hearing person, she's deaf. His attitude was immediately to call me a loser, a liar, etc etc etc even though I told him I am deaf and was mainstreamed. I knew he immediately saw me as one of those "deaf militants" and that's when I realized there's no point in having a rational discussion with him because he's put up that big wall. I don't understand, I really don't understand why the hearing world does not listen to what we're saying about deaf issues. WE ARE DEAF and yet we don't know what we're talking about? And when we insist we do, we get branded as militant.

It's very demeaning, disrespectful and offensive. So that's why when drphil liberally uses that label in nearly every post he makes, it's like a slap in the face like everything I went through, everything I worked so hard for was for naught, was meaningless, insignificant like I'm a nobody.

So the more he keeps using that label, the harder I'm going to be on him because I've had enough.

Nor do I see any of that as militant. It is simply asking for the same thing that the hearing population takes for granted: the right to determine the way that issues affecting you will be handled.

 

[Beach girl]

Legislative history of Closed Captioning:

Closed captioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Legislative development in the U.S.
Until the passage of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, television captioning was performed by a set-top box manufactured by Sanyo Electric and marketed by The National Captioning Institute (NCI). Through discussions with the manufacturer it was established that the appropriate circuitry integrated into the television set would be less expensive than the stand-alone box, and a Sanyo employee provided expert witness testimony on behalf of Sanyo and Gallaudet University in support of the passage of the bill. On January 23, 1991, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 was passed by US Congress.[22] This Act gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) power to enact rules on the implementation of Closed Captioning. This Act required all analog television receivers with screens of at least 13 inches or greater, either sold or manufactured, to have the ability to display closed captioning by July 1, 1993.[25]
Also in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.[23] The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations or commercial facilities. Title III of the ADA requires that public facilities, such as hospitals, bars, shopping centers and museums (but not movie theaters), provide access to verbal information on televisions, films or slide shows.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded on the Decoder Circuity Act to place the same requirements on digital television receivers by July 1, 2002.[26] All TV programming distributors in the U.S. are required to provide closed caption for Spanish language video programming as of January 1, 2010.[27]
A bill, H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, was passed by the United States House of Representatives in July 2010, and was signed by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2010. The Act requires, in part, for HDTV-decoding set-top box remotes to have a button to turn on or off the closed captioning in the output signal. It also requires broadcasters to provide captioning for television programs redistributed on the web.[28]]"

 

[jillio]

Funny thing, I was actually approached by a lady who was toting a cochlear corp shirt today.....

She did not know any sign but tried to "help" as she thought I was incapable.

I had to laugh.

What was she trying to help you with? Getting a CI? These are the attitudes that are still so prevalent. It amazes me that people still deny audism despite the obvious existence.

 

[GrendelQ]

You appear to be a tad bit confused regarding what Beo is describing and refering to.

It appears you overlooked a question: since your daughter's school is expanding and growing, do you have any numbers regarding increased enrollment over the past few years and/or retention numbers?

And yes, we definately see things differently. I approach these issues from the perspective the Deaf have taught me to use for their benefit.

Maybe I do misunderstand Beowulf's description, and he wasn't referring to someone who would engage in a dialogue on a large scale, the kind someone could reach in a public office:

There are different types of militants. In short, I wish there was a firebrand in office, someone who knows exactly what kind of responses his/her statements would make. That way, compromises could be made, and that comes through dialogue. There is no dialogue now.

But even so, I don't see how limiting the scope, narrowing the community in which a Deaf militant should have a role would make for an more effective advocate. I'm not sure what you are getting at, though -- are you just arguing for argument's sake?

On your other question, yes, the school is pretty excited about the continued upwards trend, and has just completed a new $6million early education complex to address the growth, an unusual situation, especially given the trend towards closings and dropping enrollment elsewhere. It's a private school, but if you reach out to someone here they may be able to share enrollment data that's vetted for the public. I do know that they featured the number of this past year's graduating class in the local papers: 3 strong .

 

[posts from hell]

in order for that to occur, a deaf militant polical figure will be necessary. It is the only way to switch the perspective to the deaf perspective. To maintain the hearing perspective of the majority in regard to deaf issues is not progress and it will not lead to change.

Why do you think dpn ocurred in 1886?

1886? 1989?

 

[posts from hell]

Legislative history of Closed Captioning:

Closed captioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Legislative development in the U.S.
Until the passage of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, television captioning was performed by a set-top box manufactured by Sanyo Electric and marketed by The National Captioning Institute (NCI). Through discussions with the manufacturer it was established that the appropriate circuitry integrated into the television set would be less expensive than the stand-alone box, and a Sanyo employee provided expert witness testimony on behalf of Sanyo and Gallaudet University in support of the passage of the bill. On January 23, 1991, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 was passed by US Congress.[22] This Act gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) power to enact rules on the implementation of Closed Captioning. This Act required all analog television receivers with screens of at least 13 inches or greater, either sold or manufactured, to have the ability to display closed captioning by July 1, 1993.[25]
Also in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.[23] The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations or commercial facilities. Title III of the ADA requires that public facilities, such as hospitals, bars, shopping centers and museums (but not movie theaters), provide access to verbal information on televisions, films or slide shows.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded on the Decoder Circuity Act to place the same requirements on digital television receivers by July 1, 2002.[26] All TV programming distributors in the U.S. are required to provide closed caption for Spanish language video programming as of January 1, 2010.[27]
A bill, H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, was passed by the United States House of Representatives in July 2010, and was signed by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2010. The Act requires, in part, for HDTV-decoding set-top box remotes to have a button to turn on or off the closed captioning in the output signal. It also requires broadcasters to provide captioning for television programs redistributed on the web.[28]]"

Two separate laws, like I said.

 

[jillio]

Legislative history of Closed Captioning:

Closed captioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Legislative development in the U.S.
Until the passage of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, television captioning was performed by a set-top box manufactured by Sanyo Electric and marketed by The National Captioning Institute (NCI). Through discussions with the manufacturer it was established that the appropriate circuitry integrated into the television set would be less expensive than the stand-alone box, and a Sanyo employee provided expert witness testimony on behalf of Sanyo and Gallaudet University in support of the passage of the bill. On January 23, 1991, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 was passed by US Congress.[22] This Act gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) power to enact rules on the implementation of Closed Captioning. This Act required all analog television receivers with screens of at least 13 inches or greater, either sold or manufactured, to have the ability to display closed captioning by July 1, 1993.[25]
Also in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.[23] The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations or commercial facilities. Title III of the ADA requires that public facilities, such as hospitals, bars, shopping centers and museums (but not movie theaters), provide access to verbal information on televisions, films or slide shows.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded on the Decoder Circuity Act to place the same requirements on digital television receivers by July 1, 2002.[26] All TV programming distributors in the U.S. are required to provide closed caption for Spanish language video programming as of January 1, 2010.[27]
A bill, H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, was passed by the United States House of Representatives in July 2010, and was signed by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2010. The Act requires, in part, for HDTV-decoding set-top box remotes to have a button to turn on or off the closed captioning in the output signal. It also requires broadcasters to provide captioning for television programs redistributed on the web.[28]]"

You might want to use a reference other than Wiki. The NAD website is easy to access.

 

[Shoshana]

I went out for the day, come home and find like 10 new pages on this thread

I read like four pages and have to admit I was lost, So I just wanted to tell y'all and thanks for the entertaining discussion

 

[jillio]

I went out for the day, come home and find like 10 new pages on this thread

I read like four pages and have to admit I was lost, So I just wanted to tell y'all and thanks for the entertaining discussion

Take your time and read it at your leisure. I'm sure it will all be clear. Especially after your recent experience with the hearing disability services personnel.

 

[posts from hell]

What was she trying to help you with? Getting a CI? These are the attitudes that are still so prevalent. It amazes me that people still deny audism despite the obvious existence.

She actually, from my direct observation, thought I couldn't interact with the hearing world finding out what time the bus arrived.

Then I immediately ignored her when her patronizing attitude started.

 

[Shoshana]

Take your time and read it at your leisure. I'm sure it will all be clear. Especially after your recent experience with the hearing disability services personnel.

HAHA thanks

At 9:00 pm my brain starts going into "sleep mode" and I have hard time absorbing and processing the data

After all of that was there ever a CLEAR definition of Deaf militants?

 

[jillio]

She actually, from my direct observation, thought I couldn't interact with the hearing world finding out what time the bus arrived.

Then I immediately ignored her when her patronizing attitude started.

How ignorant of her.:roll:

 

[Smithtr]

I will more research comments reading more lots of deaf and CI