My Response to NAD on Audism.

To National Association of the Deaf;

I just went over NAD's letter to Merriam-Webster, Inc. I did not find any new information or argument in the letter. Rather, the letter in itself was nothing more than a recommendation of same old points that were made and argued, for and against by the sign language community.

However, here are some of the boiling questions for the Board of Directors and Members of NAD who saw themselves as the nation's premier civil rights organization in the United States of America.

How do you begin to explain and prove somebody as an audist? What good is a term, like audism, racism, sexism, and ageism when we're unable to legally prove it 99% of the time? In this nation we're innocent until proven guilty. We simply do not pose the power to know one's true intention behind every action people make. It's like putting ourselves into an endless chase, knowing we'd never be able to legally prove 99% of the case.

For that reason, people will throw each other around in a reckless way, knowing it would be very difficult for anybody to prove the accusers wrong since the accusations can not be proven "right" in the first place. It is the inability to prove something that will spur recklessness, every time.

In case I'm not making myself clear here, I call you an audist in a reckless way just because it is so easy. Just because I could do it knowing that there would be no way for you to prove that I am wrong and that I have made a false accusation. The notion in itself will spur recklessness on people's part. It's human's nature so why mess with it in the first place? Why give them deaf people the tool that's extremely difficult to prove either way? Why create a tool for the deaf people knowing it would only lead them to an endless chase?

Now let's put it the other way around. Let's say, audism is extremely easy to prove. People won't be so reckless about it because then it'd be easy to prove that their accusation(s) are wrong or false.

One other point I would like to make. In that letter NAD defined itself as nation's premier organization with interests represented at the national level. National level? True representation? This is highly argumentative and not a proven fact. It would not be difficult for one to employ a civil attorney and dispute this particular argument. It'd be relatively easy to prove that NAD is a membership based organization, essentially amounting to nothing more than an elite club of the deaf. I made such argument in Idaho and got the Governor to agree with my view, limiting IAD to one seat with ICDHH (Idaho Council of the Deaf and HH), leaving the rest of the member seats to public at large.

In short, it won't be difficult to discredit NAD and put them in their rightful place if one decides to employ a civil attorney to file a complaint on 'false representation'. Such incident is not far fetched as some people would think. I've been keeping my eyes peeled on NAD because I knew it would not be long before they are going to try and over step their boundary and claim false representation over deaf people at large. This NAD letter on audism is one example and I find it quite alarming.

I dare NAD to tempt its fate with the people. My sleeves are already rolled up.

Regards,
Barry Sewell