Monday, March 12, 2012

Oh Really? (for The Deaf Edge)

Instead of leaving a comment under your recent blog I thought I'd respond via my own blog. One reason is because I know you do not like me. This much is evident every where. For as long as I could remember you, dating back to at least four years ago, you have spoken ill of me numerous times. One source told me you had a healthy disdain for smart men. Go figure. Not long ago somebody shared a link with me showing your conversation with Ridor9th in a closed thread, whining about me and my presence in the v/blog sphere. You told him that I was nobody. If you really believed that I was nobody then why bother mentioning me every where?

The real reason you don't like me is because you are intimidated by my debating skills. Forgive me for saying so but it's been quite easy to read and detect your fears. You tried vlogging at DVTV but your vlogs could never seem to hold its own grounds. But then who gives? People saw you for who you were and that in itself spoke in volumes. If I was nobody, as you claimed then my v/blogs would not have amounted to anything. Mind you, credibility is not something you earn in a classroom setting where you seem to spend most of your time. Credibility is something you earn by being amongst the people. A classroom means exactly that, a confined room therefore only the people in that room will know who you are. You will only know what a classroom might have to teach you. Go figure.

The real purpose of this blog is to debunk some of the myths you managed to spew on EHDI and Karl White. Call it a bunker bomb if you like... the debunking of your myths.

First, I agree with you on strategic mistakes made by AFA when they appeared at a local CI clinic and two oral schools when the school children were still there. Thank you for acknowledging this much. You have the right to support AFA and their rally at EHDI conference. However you're turning a blind eyes on a couple of things here. Your blog clearly demonstrated denial on your part. Here is why I said that.

In your blog you gave Karl White way too much power and credit. You kept noting his vested interests and benefit as the ultimate sin. This is a laughable notion of yours. Everybody in the professional field has their own vested interest and hope to benefit from them. You are no different. You are one of these professionals who have vested interest in something and you hope to benefit from it as well. How are you any different than Karl White? The real reason you are disappointed with Karl White and EHDI is because you are envious of their demographic advantages. They represent a very large group of people who have vested interest on deafness. Being envious is probably the least of your sin but it does not give you the right to demean or belittle them and the larger deaf (non signing) community they represent.

It was quite lame for you to lay the blame on Karl White and EHDI because they were heavily supported by Federal funds. Who are you to talk about heavy Federal funds knowingly how much Federal funds we (deaf and signing community) received through the years. I do not need to remind you of a research that was presented at Wisconsin's legislative floor from several years when they disclosed how much the government spent on a single deaf/signing person in a lifetime. An average of one whopping million dollars per deaf person's lifetime. Talk about medical services, interpreting costs, deaf education (cost of these deaf school facilities, staff, resources) as well as vocational rehabilitation, Gallaudet University, post-education costs, social security income and/or Social Securuty Disability Income, medicaid and medicares, welfare programs. The list goes on and on. Try and calculate the total amount of money we (deafies) received from the government. Compare that with what the government has given EHDI to date.

Karl White did not refuse the "D" deaf people stakeholders' participation as you tried to put it. That was untrue. There are deaf stakeholders in EHDI. If you didn't know that then I'm going to have to ask you why you didn't know. I thought research was your specialty. However you got one thing right. You said "refusing the Deaf stakeholders' participation in the issue network fully. That's right. Nobody is entitled to participate 'fully' since nobody is everything. EHDI is filled with specialists who are limited to their own professions. That is the way it works. You are a specialist yourself so surely you know I would not trust you on everything. I'd only trust you based on what you know, as in a specialist because after all you went to school to become a specialist. EHDI is full of specialists like you. This does mean you're going to have to learn to trust other specialists who are professionals in their own rights. I mean, common sense prevails here. Full participation? My eye....

You kept on referring to Karl White and his oral extremists as the perpetrator of public and non-profit administration field. Kindly tell me how different it might be when we look at you as the radical big "D" militant extremists who perpetuates deaf schools and their respective outreach departments? If you think about it, you are no different than them. You all have vested interest in your fields, all the same. The goal is the same... to benefit from it.

You claimed that there were only seven (7) registered ASL/Deaf centered presentations at EHDI. Just yesterday Karl White sent me a hard copy of registered ASL/Bilingualism presenters. The number was twenty-seven (27). And then I noted your choice of word, referring to the ASL/Deaf centric presenters. You see the problem here. You were looking for Deaf centered presenters. You are cherry-picking here, dismissing the rest of the ASL/Bilingualism presenters who were not Deaf centered. Now whose problem is that? Ours? Or is it pretty much your own. You decide what your standards are just like the rest of us will decide what we want our standards to be. I am content with ASL/Bilingualism presenters as long as they promte ASL/Bilingualism. But you? No. You wanted them to be Deaf centered presenters. A tad bit more integrity coming from you would be appreciated. There were twenty-seven ASL/Bilingualism presenters at EHDI conference. Not seven. Twenty-seven presenters out of over 120 presenters is a darn good figure, especially after the fact that we (signing community) only amount to less than 1% of the deaf population in America.

Now, whatever happen to your sense of appreciation? Didn't your parent teach you to appreciate little things? I sure hope they did.

I'd suggest that you contact Karl White if you're interested in securing a hard copy of registered presenters. I have my own copy here in front of me on my desk. I am not sure you would have the courage to ask Karl especially after making numerous ill statements towards him. Good luck with that.

Furthermore, you were aware of Karl White's email dated on March 1st, 2012. The letter was addressed to over 9oo EHDI participants. The letter ended up in numerous Facebook walls including this closed 'Deaf Community Action' group, which I believe you are part of. In that letter Karl mentioned his desire to share EHDI's stakes with Deaf people as well as AFA and DBC. He was open to the idea but yet what did you and AFA do? You continued to spread the lie. You continued to mislead numerous deaf people who didn't have appropriate education to know whether you were telling the truth or not. I saw how these people were manipulated in some of the rallies. They did not know any better but yet AFA leaders manipulated them and turned them into a group of angry people so that there would be bodies to count at their rallies.

Let's talk about imbalances in EHDI. It is supposed to be imbalanced. It's a reflection of deaf people as whole. Most of the deaf people out there simply do not sign. Gallaudet University's very own research confirmed this. There are millions of deaf people in America but yet Gallaudet University could only lay their fingers on between 300,000 to 400,000 signers in America. EHDI's structure reflected exactly that. EHDI is being realistic here. You are not.

If you still really believe in staging a massive protest then kindly address the matter with the appropriate person. The person you really need to talk to is God, Himself. Tell Him you're unhappy with the fact that he did not turn every deaf people into profoundly deaf people. Tell Him you're disappointed with him for creating hard of hearing people as well as people with moderate hearing losses. Tell Him you are sorely disappointed with him for creating inventors who invented all these technologies. Tell Him you are unhappy with people's variable opinions and views. Tell Him you hate independent thinkers.

And lastly, you might find this interesting. Karl White corrected me on something I said in my recent blog. I'm going to copy and paste it here. It's going to prove how wrong you were.

----Karl quoted----

In fact, about the only thing I disagreed with on your blog was the statement that:

"If I was in charge of EHDI and if I was so tired and sick of these ranting protesters who didn't know how to register themselves into meetings, I'd let them continue what they were doing as long as they continue to frighten the parents of deaf children. This would only work to EHDI's advantage."

I think I know what you meant, and I agree with the intent of what I think you meant. The reason I disagree with what you said is that we really do need the help of everyone to improve EHDI programs. So, what would really "work to EHDI's advantage" is if the protesters would decide to work together with the state-based EHDI Programs in a respectful way to educate parents of newly identified deaf children about services and options, and then work respectfully to help parents get the best services possible for whatever they choose. By ranting, bullying, threatening and disturbing, they only interfere with the process and make it more difficult for EHDI programs to help parents. That is sad.

----end quote----

Now kindly tell me what part you didn't understand. Better yet, explain it to God. And I'll apologize in advance if you didn't believe in God. If you didn't then it might explain why you're without logic.

26 comments:

  1. Karl quoted: "So, what would really "work to EHDI's advantage" is if the protesters would decide to work together with the state-based EHDI Programs in a respectful way to educate parents of newly identified deaf children about services and options, and then work respectfully to help parents get the best services possible for whatever they choose."

    Note the bold.

    For parents to choose? As in make an informed decision? Not gonna happen with AFA, DBC, and DHF on helping EHDI with that goal because they've been re-iterating that ASL must be (as in forced) incorporated even if it's over the objection of parents. Ask them this question. If parents were given all the options and we're duly informed of the choices with enough information to make an informed decision, would they accept and respect the parents' decision should they pick, say, SEE and CI, or hearing aid only with AVT, for example? Would they respect and accept parents' informed decision for the deaf/hh children? This has the making of AB2072 all over again except this time it's about EHDI on a national scale.

    Have them prove us wrong and have AFA, DBC and/or DHF attend the next EHDI conference and not show an ounce of protest, make implied accusations, make demands or have protesters outside of the hotel protesting on their behalf but instead be a part of the conference discussion by sharing information, ideas, suggestions and/or research results on a good faith basis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Barry: I have been following the topic of EHDI and the itty-bitty teeny-weeny protest with interest. So many people in the deaf blogosphere are intensely interested in outcomes for deaf babies.

    I'm a member of the national association for my field, and attend their conferences every year. There's always a call for papers soon after the end of an annual conference. Presentation proposals are reviewed by a "blind" panel, meaning the reviewers don't know who is presenting on what. The panel judges the worthiness of a proposal by criteria and content.

    I'm assuming Dr. Karl White is far too busy running NCHAM and EHDI to read every single presentation proposal himself. He probably has a panel of reviewers to do it. It's possible that a Deaf presenter did submit a proposal that was not accepted. But I highly doubt that the reason was that it was "too ASL-centric." That is laughable. Dr. White has shown by his words and actions that he would welcome participation by advocates of ASL/English bilingualism.

    It would be even better if prospective Deaf presenters knew something about early hearing detection and intervention. I know a lot of culturally Deaf people love ASL and think it works wonders for every deaf child. It's one thing to have an opinion, but quite another to have the professional experience, skills, and practice to share with the conference attendees.

    So, instead of targeting Dr. Karl White as the source of all evil and a kingpin of oralism: isn't it time for culturally Deaf specialists in the field of EHDI started putting out the word in a respectful, professional, and positive way? I've been waiting such a long time for it. Enough moaning and complaining about AG Bell, eugenics, and the sinister audio-verbal-medical complex already.

    apologies that this is long.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course Mike. Of course! Why did AFA, DBC and DHF ask for 50% of EHDI? They wanted to choke and immobilize on EHDI because they've been so effective in promoting all communication options.

    Like you pointed out on AB 2072... it had all communication options in it, including ASL but these radical militants didn't want the bill. They wanted the bill to be all about ASL or nothing at all. Who were they trying to kid? I wondered. Nobody's going to buy into their argument. They can only go down the drain from this point and on. They won't be able to recover from this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, supporters of AB2072 have done everything in their power to –marginalize- ASL users (and you know it's been going on for the past 100 years!). Assimilation into society or even enjoying life is not measured by anyone's ability to speak. I do not think you find that belief acceptable. AB2072 did not align the overall hearing-screening system to a more friendly approach. While some people felt the mention of ASL in this bill be looked at as a victory, the imbalance of information with ASL getting very short shrift that it basically was a rehash of the existing model of informing parents. This bill did not protect against biased information. We intervened as it did NOT go far enough to give parents and Deaf babies the information they deserve!

      The fight was ours, and it was up to us to overcome despite the best efforts of the special interests, and no longer be up for debate. Never again will we be duped by fine print that we put an end to predatory and deceptive practices. As we know, babies crawl before they walk and sign before they talk.

      Delete
    2. Tiny Jo, you are going to have to do better than that. Your fear for conspiracies is not valid at all. Marginalizing ASL users is not even the issue here. You said we know that it's been going on for the past 100 years. No, I don't know that and I know you can't prove it. I come from seven generations of deaf families. My deaf parents, deaf grandparents and deaf uncles & aunts never complained about it. They never said anything about lack of rights or lack of access to communication. They never said anything about oppression. In fact they all were very successful people. Some of them were successful business people. Many of them worked for the State. And most of them do not speak at all. So, kindly do yourself a favor and quit spewing myths that are not even true.

      AB2072 was exactly that but people like you marginalized it. It would have required all service providers to include information on ASL to the parents of deaf children. But no, you didn't want that. You wanted to remove all other communication options in favor of ASL alone. That was the original sticking point but you guys lost. They refused to let that happen. So what did you guys do? You had to save your faces by changing your tactics and cheered when the bill was thrown out. In reality, you lost, big time because the current law does not require the service provider to include ASL as one of the option. So what do you think they're recommending the parents right now? They are most definietly recommending a lot of things right now and I doubt ASL is one of them. If you choose to call it victory then so be it. ASL or nothing. You got what you wished for. You ended up with nothing and I hope you're happy. The fight was yours, like you said and you lost, miserably.

      You lost, miserably because the law does not mention ASL any where. The golden opportunity is lost thanks to people like you who did not know a good thing when you saw it.

      Delete
  4. ASL_HeartandSoul, I completely agree with you. Karl White certainly has his hands full with all that's going on. And yes, presentation proposals are reviewed by 'blind panel' based on the worthiness of their proposals. No doubt about that, It's not like Karl is in charge of everything and controls everything that comes in. He has numerous people helping him.

    And yes, it would be better deaf presenters started to act like they were part of EHDI. They are not helpful by just participating but says nothing out loud.

    I appreciate your comment and agree with what you've laid and pointed out. Thank you for that.

    Since you apologized for the length of your comment I shall apologize for the length of my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Something for The Deaf Edge challenging Russell:


    Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify factors predictive of successful English language outcomes in adolescents who received a cochlear implant (CI) between 2 and 5 yrs of age.

    Design: All 112 participants had been part of a previous study examining English language outcomes at the age of 8 and 9 yrs with CIs. The participants were given a battery of language and verbal reasoning tests in their preferred communication mode along with measures of working memory (digit span) and verbal rehearsal speed (sentence repetition duration). The degree to which students' language performance was enhanced when sign was added to spoken language was estimated at both test sessions. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to document factors contributing to overall language outcomes.

    Results: A substantial proportion of the adolescents obtained test scores within or above 1SD compared with hearing age-mates in the tests' normative samples: 71% on a verbal intelligence test, 68% on a measure of language content, 71% on receptive vocabulary, and 74% on expressive vocabulary. Improvement in verbal intelligence scores over an 8-yr interval exceeded expectation based on age-mates in the test's normative sample. Better English language outcomes were associated with shorter duration of deafness before cochlear implantation, higher nonverbal intelligence, higher family socioeconomic status, longer digit spans, and faster verbal rehearsal speed as measured by sentence repetition rate. Students whose current receptive vocabulary scores were not enhanced by the addition of signs also exhibited higher English language scores than those without sign enhancement; however, sign enhancement demonstrated in the elementary school years was not predictive of later high-school language skills.

    Conclusions: Results of this study support the provision of CIs to children at the youngest age possible. In addition, it highlights the substantial role that cognition plays in later language outcomes. Although the students' use of sign to enhance language skills during the elementary years does not appear to have a negative impact on later language skills, students who continue to rely on sign to improve their vocabulary comprehension into high school typically exhibit poorer English language outcomes than students whose spoken language comprehension parallels or exceeds their comprehension of speech + sign. Overall, the language results obtained from these teenagers with more than 10 yrs of CI experience reflect substantial improvement over the verbal skills exhibited by adolescents with similar levels of hearing loss before the advent of CIs. These optimistic results were observed in teenagers who were among the first in the United States and Canada to receive a CI. We anticipate that the use of improved technology that is being initiated at even younger ages should lead to age-appropriate language levels in an even larger proportion of children with CIs.

    http://journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/Abstract/2011/02001/Language_and_Verbal_Reasoning_Skills_in.6.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike, you're welcome to post your comments to theDeafEdge here because I know she has been rejecting our comments. I left a comment under her latest blog but she refused to post it. Once again, she hates smart men.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I went "huh?" when Deaf Pundit put down Valhallian in her "Seismic Shift" blog, saying that he insulted and disrespected her by behaving like he didn't know that she has a BS in public admin and her knowledge of how government works.

    In all fairness, Val didn't make any references to her education and government knowledge, he was trying to make suggestions, and they were valid ones, about Deaf working at state level thru EHDI. Val also may not have been aware of her qualifications. He did not personally attack her with name-calling, etc. Read his comments, did any of those contain put-down's, insults, or disrespectful remarks?

    Val was at the EHDI conference, not DP-- and he certainly has far more credibility than DP's BS, pun intended.

    Ann_C

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ann C, I went 'huh?' too when I saw how she responded to some of Valhallian's comments. She was trying to spin her way out but I thought she made a bigger fool of herself when she did. I thought Valhallian's comments were respectful but yet this touchy hot tempered Deaf Pundit character got the best of her. It's unfortunate because she kept on doing this to herself again and again. I've seen it happen before. She flares up her temper thinking or believing her academic qualification was supposed to pave the way for people to bow to her as if she was some kind of queen.

    And you are right, Valhallian didn't make any reference to her education, qualification or knowledge. Does not she know that two individuals with exactly the same education and profession are still capable of disagreeing? It happens all the time. Perhaps she went to school for all the wrong reasons, thinking a BA degree was going to automatically validate her views in this world. She clearly has a long way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ann,

    I asked myself the same thing, too. I've not saw anything what Valhallian said that was disrespectful. Saw no insults or insinuations. I think she got irked only because Valhallian said he was at the EHDI conference and not her. And saw how it went at the conference controverting nearly everything else on what was said about Karl and EHDI. Thus her smarmy comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Barry,

    Right, if a person disagrees with a commenter's view , all one has to say is "I disagree with your view, assessment, research, whatever..", and then state her reasons. To obliquely infer that the commenter disrespected her because he didn't acknowledge her credentials is way out there in left field. Did anybody see Val putting out his education pedigree under DP's blog article?

    True, two individuals with the same education and profession can disagree. Two people can also agree to disagree without flashing their degree credentials either, sheesh.

    Ann_C

    ReplyDelete
  11. haha, Barry, no need to apologize to ME about length. It's your blog, you can make it as long as you like. I have a "thing" about people posting long comments, when they might as well write their own blog instead of monopolizing yours. ya know? :)

    DeafPundit recently blogged about some practical suggestions for the next EHDI conference ("How to do a Seismic Shift in EHDI"). She encouraged d/Deaf people to attend, specifically those who work in EHDI to submit presentation proposals, and that effective leaders be involved in EHDI at the state level. Those were proactive and positive thing to say.

    I disagreed with Tactics 1 and 2. She said that AFA/DBC/DHF should continue to protest outside the hotel because it's effective. She said: "these people have no idea what the protestors are saying or what they’re going to do next. People don’t like dealing with the unpredictable/unknown quantities and they’re bound to make more mistakes as a result." huh?!? She must think the conference attendees are stupid. I'm sorry, but this comment reveals DP's contempt for all the professionals and specialists who were at the meeting.

    #2 is ridiculous beyond words. Does DP not realize how manipulative she sounds? Maybe she doesn't think that hearing parents of deaf children read her blog? Most importantly, exposure to ASL from birth is NOT a guarantee that a deaf child will become literate in English. Parent involvement is one of the main predictors of academic achievement - not ASL.

    DeafPundit did not always use to be so defensive and high-and-mighty. She used to be fairly level headed. Suddenly, it's like no one else can be right except her. A mature thinking person can handle competing or conflicting ideas. Mature people can choose a belief system but still accept that others have different beliefs without making them evil or - gasp! - wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. not only that, but she also rejected a couple more comments I made that were in no way shape or form disrespectful either. I'm still pondering whether or not she's woken up a sleeping giant ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. ASL HeartandSoul,

    Yes, DP used to be level-headed and I used to enjoy her blog articles. Her blogs have taken on an imperious tone recently, as in she can do no wrong. I don't think she realizes how she cuts off dialogue.

    Too. Bad. ;)

    Val, your comments under her blog were good ones. Since you were at the EHDI conference, how about resurrecting your blog to write your thoughts about it?

    Ann_C

    ReplyDelete
  14. I second that, Valhallian! Write a blog and I will come. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've always enjoyed reading Val's comments and responses. Same for JJ. Always insightful to read. Dis-ingeniousness isn't expected.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I really don't have more to say about Deaf Pundit's post since most of you already said what was on my mind. I agree, Val's and JJ's insights are worth reading and of course, DP doesn't like it when someone challenges her.

    On the 46% that she brought up, I'd like to comment on that.

    GAO report on the 46% DP mentioned was a number she manipulated. 46% is arbitrary. Actually GAO got its numbers from Gallaudet Research demographics, the annual survey of schools. The real numbers are:

    11% use sign language only,
    52% use speech only,
    35% use both speech and sign language,
    and 2% use Cued Speech.

    What dp did was combined 11% with 35% and said 46% use sign language to varying degree.

    Most in mainstream use both speech and sign language.

    Most in deaf schools use sign only.

    We don't know how many % of the 11 % are in deaf schools or mainstream or whatnots.

    Same applies to the 35%.

    However we do know:

    Out of those, 24.3 percent goes to a special or center school (deaf residential schools are included here), 57.1 goes to general education school setting with hearing student (this is mainstream), 22.7 are in self contained classroom in general education school setting (this is being in a class of deaf/hh kids, not with hearing kids), 11.9 in resource room (typically IEP kids are there for part of day, not all are deaf/hh kids), home = 3.1 and other = 3.9 percent.

    Source: http://research.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/2010_National_Summary.pdf

    DP used the 46% to show how much stake we have in EHDI. She's wrong. Just look at the numbers above.

    Out of the 35% that uses sign and speech only, they could very well include kids such as MKP's child and Aimee's child, those that go to oral schools but knows sign language.

    They could be SEE users, PSE users, TC users, etc.

    46% does not represent ASL/Bilingual kids.

    The number that represents ASL/Bilingual kids is really unclear. It could well be very low since special and center schools could very well include CID and St. Joseph.

    BTW.. Val, I hope you blog. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Candy,

    Thanks for bringing up the subject of the 46 percent in the GAO study, as DP put it. Nothing is as black and white, neat or clean, in these studies. There are way more variables than some ppl would like. ;)

    As I've said it before and I'll say it again, research reports are biased by the very questions researchers ask in the study/report and limited by the parameters placed on the study. There are always disclaimers at the tail end of these reports about "limitations" or factors not covered in the report. Any researcher worth his salt will tell ppl that. So, of course, ppl agree or disagree, depending on their biases, on these reports.

    "The number that represents ASL/Bilingual kids is really unclear. It could well be very low since special and center schools could very well include CID and St. Joseph."

    So, oral schools (considered a special or center school) bring down the ASL/bilingual representation number, as you suggest. If some oral deaf students who attend these oral schools use both speech and sign language (but not sign language during AVT/ speech therapy), that doesn't make them bilingual?

    Hmmm.

    Ann_C

    ReplyDelete
  18. I also find it odd that DP's source regarding rejected EHDI presenter proposal is afraid to come out and share his/her story.

    Com'on! If they really care so much about their 'cause' they'd come out and say something.

    The fact that this 'source' is afraid just raises a lot of red flags.

    The burden of the proof rests with DP, it's not on us.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi all,

    I just saw this comment thread. I didn't read the whole blog post because it was too long! (Sorry, Barry)

    As for the EHDI, I don't know anything about it..never been to a conference. I was only asking for evidence. It is my belief that if you are going to accuse an organization of ignoring ASL-Centric presentations, you need to have rock solid evidence at least.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have to back up J.J.'s assertion that he was asking for evidence and not causing trouble. That is is nature as he has done so in various blogs he commented in. The dis-ingenuousness can patently be seen in DP on how she responded in her desperate effort to avoid J.J's questions. If she cannot provide evidence that EHDI ignored ASL-Centric presentations then we can only assume one thing for her claim.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Exactly.

    I think EHDI at one point wasn't really giving ASL-Centric folks the time of the day. Things changed since 2007. I am not sure if Beth Benedict was presenting at EHDI prior to 2007, but I have seen a comment by her once stating that we need more deaf centric people involved. It takes time, we can't expect EHDI to be providing more ASL-centric topics overnight. I think they did better this year.

    If it wasn't for EHDI, we'd have many kids not being diagnosed early and many would be language delayed which is common prior to EHDI being formed.

    EHDI is godsend for many deaf/hh children in being diagnosed EARLY.

    There's no purpose in rallying/protesting Utah and Karl White. But DP and her group is more than welcome to since our constitution allows for that. We now know they want to rally/protest both Utah/Karl White and CDC. hmm Okay, that would be very interesting....

    Does that group really want EHDI to improve? Do they want to take over? Do they want ASL-centric person at the helm where they will dictate to parents that ASL/Bilingual is considered first?

    FYI Babbidge report of 1965 did not say that Oralism is a failure. Today oralism has made great stride with the use of technology. We need to still provide parents with all information and allow them to make the final decision. Unfortunately AFA does not see it that way. They, like the California's DNIA pdf document believes that all deaf/hh children must have ASL as their first language and then parents can add on other modality such as hearing aid, cochlear implants, etc.

    When one dictates to parents that they must give their child this language: ASL first and not consider other technology until LATER, it's not even a choice. Parents are not going to go for that, most won't anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So I finally got down to reading the post in question... and I must say that in light of DP's personal life, your "smart men" and "talk to God" lines were, well, out of line, no pun intended. If you are going to call them out on their illogical ad hominem attacks on Dr. White, don't engage in them yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tried to click on DE's website that you linked in your blog...it's no longer there.

    Hmmm....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hmmm... must be embarrassed about something.

    ReplyDelete