Disqus - Latest Comments for Dianrez

Re: Honolulu, Hawaii news, sports & weather - KITV Channel 4

Dianrez — Sun, 30 May 2021 12:24:29 -0000

Besides choosing to learn language from a native speaker of that language, you are also learning the culture. It is a culture born of lifelong experience coping without hearing. Of living with discrimination by others, by the way the environment is set up, by limited access to television, the internet, and by choice of schools or colleges. And by limitations placed by employers in hiring and in advancement. This means even teaching ASL is limited by hearing people capitalizing on it when Deaf teachers are more qualified.

Re: When Deafness Is Medicalized: Inside the Culture Clash Over Cochlear Implants - by James McWilliams

Dianrez — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:02:53 -0000

The statement about medical professionals taking a more sociological approach to deafness in children is an important one. There is so much emphasis on hearing in itself that can overtake common sense. As a result, we are seeing people with hearing devices still unable to understand situations they are in, missing entire ideas in speech, and missing normal social interaction. Hearing devices do not make normal hearing. Adding sign language brings more comprehension and opens up the fascinating Deaf community and its lively interactions as well as accessibility by using interpreters in challenging situations such as college and public lectures, etc.

Re: Indiana Restaurant Owner To Be Deported Friday

Dianrez — Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:16:23 -0000

This is based on a technicality. Every case deserves study of the merits and weigh the common good as well as the individual benefit. This is especially true in this one. It would be a loss to his family, his employees and his business community to deport him.

Re: Why a proposed cut in Medicaid terrifies the parents of a severely disabled son | Marketplace.org

Dianrez — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:39:38 -0000

I see no mention of Disney World in this story.

As a retired former social worker, I am familiar with hundreds of disabled people on Medicaid who need it to be independent and as healthy as possible, and the actual costs resulting from cutting them off Medicaid are incalculable. Many will be thrown on welfare, many will have family members quit work and also go on welfare to care for them, many will die and their loved ones embittered against the System and the politicians that created it. These are costs that will impact all taxpayers in many ways.

Re: Couple seeks apology from American Airlines after insensitive message left on luggage

Dianrez — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 01:38:59 -0000

It can be unintentional. However, continuing to use these terms encourages ignorance. It is like continuing to use ethnic insults or the "R" word for the developmentally delayed...it just perpetuates ignorant beliefs.

Re: Couple seeks apology from American Airlines after insensitive message left on luggage

Dianrez — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:37:37 -0000

I am a Deaf person. The correct terminology is "deaf", not "deaf and dumb" or "deaf mute". These two terms are considered demeaning and insulting by today's deaf people, because of their connotation of speechlessness, inability to communicate, and lack of intelligence. To use these terms betrays one's ignorance of the community of Deaf people who consider themselves a cultural group, and the wider population of people with all levels of hearing, all of whom are capable of communicating in sign language, speech or both.

Re: With A Little Moxie: What to Say (When You Hear My Daughter Has Down Syndrome)

Dianrez — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:32:30 -0000

Aww, I'd say, How delightful, tell me more about Moxie! And don't leave out the squeezability. To me, DS people are exciting in their ability to push their frontiers and viewpoints once we get inside their world. Please keep on writing about her and her growing awareness of the world that we all share.

Re: Indiana School for the Deaf vs. Hear Indiana

Dianrez — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:30:03 -0000

I found out quickly when we had our Deaf baby that the REAL experts are in the school for the deaf, not in audiological clinics, not in public schools with deaf programs, not in consultants. I had the vantage point of having been a special program child, mainstreamed student, and ultimately a School for the Deaf graduate.

Why did I not pick the School first thing? Because I am a professional myself and wanted to see the state of the art as it is today, not wanting to overlook any improvements since I was a kid. I did my due diligence carefully: visiting two other programs and the university audiology program several times first.

My feelings are the same as Michele Westfall's: the School offered my child and us parents more than the other programs did. The School gave me far more parent support, audiological services, home visits, consultation and overall community during the first two years of my child's education.Taking the outreach program out of ISD is the ultimate in folly, and a very wasteful one. Not only will it cost more money, it will go to less experienced people, perhaps with exclusively oral and mainstream biases, and cost more through time lost in the child's education and parental false starts.

Re: Notes from a Helicopter Dad

Dianrez — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:17:42 -0000

Attaboy. That bit about discussing a child in front of him and his peers is right on and you were astute for addressing it. Perhaps a bit heavy for a first time, but teachers of preschool and elementary school kids do need to be aware of the cost of stamping on a child so early.

Re: AG Bell is in the past

Dianrez — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 03:12:35 -0000

Much as we would dearly love to see AGBell bite the dust altogether, it is going to survive because there are people who stubbornly believe that deafness can be cured, can be educated out of children, can be electronically mitigated out of existence--in short,those that believe in making it go away and that the child becomes virtually the same as any other "healthy" baby.

Such denial is vigorously encouraged by the industries that make up AGBell's membership. In this way, it is an evil institution. There are more arguments for this: it causes families to fall apart along communication lines; it promotes audism in the community; it lobbies for the financial benefit of its staff and its professional and corporate members. Like many inherently evil institutions, it has a veneer of benevolence: it helped many hard of hearing and deaf children to become "oral successes" and exploits them to validate its goals for all deaf children despite tremendous costs to their families, society and the well-being of deaf adults.

Forming a parallel "800 pound gorilla" organization to combat AGBell is a pipe dream, unless one can come up with an equally weighty membership of doctors, audiologists, teachers, parents, benefactors and lobbyists. And a bequest equivalent to their endowment of several million dollars. Let's not forget the backing of multi-million dollar industries that depend on this parallel organization for their clients.

So, how to fight AGBell and its widespread offshoots? The same way that people are doing by gathering in Occupy movements to fight Wall Street and its network of banks, big businesses and financial lobbyists. It will require a massive groundswell of Deaf and all allied people to raise public opinion against AGBell and limit its influence going forward. It means involving our colleges, our Deaf clubs and teams, the Deaf community, all parent groups, all schools, interpreter organizations, all friends, in making the public aware that oppression is happening in the community. And through them, asking for what we need: equal respect, equal opportunities, chances to contribute, and equal participation for mutual benefit.

Re: Could you close those hatches?

Dianrez — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:02:12 -0000

As a deaf person, it was news to me t hat it's considered polite to say something like "good morning" before making a request of people like bank tellers, secretaries, etc. In my working life, brevity and getting to the point quickly is the standard procedure. Something to think about, though, and it makes sense to recognize the other as human first before anything else.

Re: Cued Speech and ASL—Why I Use Both

Dianrez — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:29:19 -0000

Whether a practice is unethical has to stand both on philosophical argument and practical evidence. One can argue that AVT by its restrictive nature, like pure oralism, is unethical because it limits input to the child's weakest sense. However, the fact that successful AVT graduates or oralists exist (and are not shy about being publicized) tends to confuse people.

Straddling the fence and hedging by saying "different methods for different people" is one way to escape an ethical decision. Whether it should be made in the first place would demand a different argument: covering all bases. That is, educating medical people on the ability of the child to learn multiple language approaches and the dangers of restricting him to one method that may turn out to be the wrong one.

An analogy might be drawn regarding nutrition: giving the child a varied diet rather than one restricted to a certain philosophy of eating is safer and healthier; besides being better adapted to a future of wider choices.

Re: Cued Speech and ASL—Why I Use Both

Dianrez — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:28:06 -0000

How we learned language is highly individual and different methods may work best for different individuals.

However, what seems to be most important is that the IDEA of language is instilled early: that things can be represented in the abstract by symbols. A doll can be represented by the sound of "doll" or the sign C-on-the-face, or as D_O_L_L fingerspelled or the more abstract cues that symbolize lip, tongue position and voice. Or it can be shown by the mouth. Or it can be force-fed by amplification and electronic means. Or it can be represented by letter shapes made in pencil on paper.

Whichever gets through to the deaf baby is important...also whichever is most likely to be consistently reinforced by the parent. What most parents don't seem to understand is that at this early age, it is difficult to determine what effective abilities the child has...so employing more than one approach is safer than restrictive approaches such as AVT.

Once the idea of representing object ideas by a form of language is established, it can be developed further in many different forms and even different languages. We can argue the merits of each till we are blue in the face, meanwhile the child is soaking up all the forms he can access.

Re: Cued Speech and ASL—Why I Use Both

Dianrez — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:01:55 -0000

Appreciated the comparison of cued speech with ASL, even though they are completely different like apples with oranges.

Another advantage of ASL should be mentioned: it allows for full and deep communication of more concepts in less time (maybe even faster than in spoken English) that far outstrips all other communication methods used in deaf education. It makes the others seem slow and laborious. Cued speech might be better compared with the Rochester Method in some ways. The Rochester Method uses pure fingerspelling and shows English patterns better, although it does not always show sounds of speech.

Re: From Sesame Street to Self-Discovery

Dianrez — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:48:58 -0000

Absolutely right. Sesame Street would do a wonderful thing by including Deaf children, for the same reasons as they do Hispanic or Black children. Are you listening, Sesame?

Re: The YouTube Video You Don’t See

Dianrez — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:32:58 -0000

A bit nettled by the suggestion that the writer could go through the comments and pick out those who had implants fail or didn't wear hearing aids. Although this comment was made sarcastically, it is true that hearing people tend to think this way. For the record: this commenter is profoundly Deaf from birth, briefly wore hearing aids of both types, and like the writer, shortly stashed them in drawers. Point made: it is possible to have good English without hearing.

Re: The Problem of Speaking

Dianrez — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:23:52 -0000

Beautifully said, Elena! It provoked me to muse on how cosmopolitan and "politically correct" people are trying to become..."hearing impaired" indeed. Much as we hate the word, perhaps we should recognize it as a misguided attempt to be PC and redirect it.

An example: my youngest has a close friend who is not only of a different race, she is also transgendered. My doubts about their friendship were resolved when she (now he) said: "Cut out this African American crap. I'm black. Get used to it."

That's how we should treat this issue. Direct. Unembellished. No bones. "Cut out this hearing impaired crap. I'm deaf. Get used to it."

Re: THE NAD, THE AFA, AND TWO BELLS

Dianrez — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:41:18 -0000

The approach should focus on exposing and neutralizing the people and agencies who outrightly say that children should be trained to rely only on their hearing and lipreading skills. THAT is a wrong, WRONG aproach that has proven to be harmful to more children than it has helped.

Medically, parents have a choice: to implant or not. We are about educational methods, not medical choices.

Exclusionary methods need to be outlawed. Parental choice isn't the issue; deliberate limitation of a child's input should be legislated out; just as it is illegal to teach bigotry to children instead of a democratic attitude.

Parents still have the choice what to use at home, but they need to be freed from the emotional manipulation and falsehoods by oral and aural only proponents.

Meanwhile, the children get the advantage of a multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach in the nursery schools and enlightened professionals who give parents guidance in these methods.

The day is coming when doctors, clinics, audiologists, teachers, et. al. will be educated in comprehensive philosophies, but it cannot come too soon. The groundswell of people speaking up can try to hurry it along.

Re: Jamaican Skin Bleaching… Parallels with Cochlear Implantation?

Dianrez — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:20:45 -0000

Another analogy would be limb-lengthening surgery considered by parents of dwarf children. Bones in the child's limbs are cut through and pulled apart on steel frames a millimeter at a time for up to a year to add as much as 2 inches to the child's height. Besides being invasive and risky, this is a value-driven operation--parents want to give their child the advantages of height in an average-sized society.

Like Deaf people questioning the validity of CI surgery, Little People question the validity of limb lengthening surgery and point to society's nonacceptance of short-statured people. Vanity may or may not be part of this.

I'm disappointed that people would attempt to refute these analogies on technicalities when thought should be given to the VALUES that life or body-changing procedures exposes in our society. These imposed values impact our own lives to degrees not often acknowledged. If being deaf is a primary disability, then values about hearing becomes a secondary disability that drives a desire for change.

Re: Raising a Deaf Child

Dianrez — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:36:20 -0000

Michele is 100% right. I too raised a deaf child, as well as his hearing twin sister and an older hearing sister. Basically, one must understand the totally visual nature of the deaf child...he may have enhanced hearing, but it would be a mistake to rely on that especially in the early years when auditory training is largely incomplete. He may never use his hearing for serious communication in many cases.

As with any child, one must limit his physical range at an age when he won't understand the seriousness of running into the street or turning the knobs on a gas stove. The two year old is safer in a fenced backyard than in the unprotected front yard, but at six he will have enough language to understand. Michele's child was trained to stay within her visual range, but mine had a stubborn streak and was always getting out of bounds or testing my limits...so physically structuring the environment kept him alive for the present.

Reverse psychology works tremendously well with deaf children just as with hearing children. The ASL is simple: "Me car away. You stay. Bye." (breaks eye contact). Same with the stove: "Touch HOT! Mama cry. Ow, OW! No touch. Mama happy."

I see an early understanding in your child that he is different and this is why he doesn't mix with other children. He already has a communication difficulty and is avoiding the same difficulty with other children. Give him the opportunity to mix with other deaf children and to use his beginning ASL with them. It does wonders. When he develops enough oral skills to communicate, he will already have confidence from interacting with other deaf children to make the transition to hearing children. In the meantime, build on his visual nature and reinforce this in positive ways to keep him looking at you for guidance.

Re: 4201: What’s Really Been Won?

Dianrez — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:25:55 -0000

So far, my take is that 90 percent was restored and that another 10 percent would be paid by the local school boards. There was nothing said about weighing the allocations differently, so my thought is that it would remain as it was before. We just have to wait and see what interpretations come this week.

Re: 4201: What’s Really Been Won?

Dianrez — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:39:14 -0000

I believe the celebration is because the funds were restored that WEREN'T THERE in the original proposal. Even if the funding stream is changed, that's still something to heave a sigh of relief.

What the funding stream could mean is that the school is no longer directly paid to the schools, but becomes contingent on the local school boards' evaluation, IEP process, and authorization, and could take longer to disburse than presently. It is an additional step that some think could threaten the existence of the schools.

What we need to know is if this is true, and build in safeguards and reserves so that it goes smoothly and that no child is kept out of the school of their choice.

Re: Involuntary Membership (or, Lets Be Raised Hearing!)

Dianrez — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:40:57 -0000

From personal experience, I agree with this blog writer. A deaf child cannot be raised hearing. There are too many ramifications to call it false.

Re: What Crime Was Committed? (Discrimination Video)

Dianrez — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:31:05 -0000

In a discussion elsewhere, I learned that HR personnel are given training programs that teach how to be selective without using discriminatory language. An example of this is in the video above: an HR person telling the manager to write "not a fit" on the application rather than "Deaf".

Many companies require applications sent online, and these online applications frequently have quesionnaires. Some questions directly impact deaf applicants, such as "I have ..... oral and written skills" being answered as a range from 1 (poor) 2(fair) 3(good) and 4(excellent). Computers then screen these applicants and automatically send rejecion letters within minutes.

Clever HR people are in demand, as shown in their salary ranges and the number of advertisements for their positions. They must be familiar with various laws on discrimination and protected categories of people and satisfy the managers that they send applicants to.

A strategy is to bypass HR people if at all possible and meet the supervisor of the job opening directly and let them see your qualifications. Another would be to require quotas and affirmative action periodically since each generation of personnel needs to be exposed again to the potential of deaf employees.

Re: Deaf Progressivism: Barb's Kitchen Talk: Italian Lasagna (Part II)

Dianrez — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 01:53:05 -0000

What you are proposing is a behaviorial definition of audism, rather than a psychological definition. One is observable, the other is inferred as one cannot see into the mind.

It is a better way to look at the problem, because we can point to the behavior or acts of audism and change them. When people are behaving in a non-audistic manner, the mind often follows, theoretically.

It is also easier to enforce by law, as the law only looks at behaviors, not attitudes. I think you could publish this as an addendum to Tom Humphries' thesis and propose a behaviorial definition with concrete examples that are observable and measurable.