Deaf As (in ASL) “Hearing in the Mind”

Referring to the sign, “hearing” in front of the forehead which we’ve seen in the signing community to describe:

a deaf person who may not be culturally deaf or

a deaf person showing no desire to be part of the deaf culture or signing community

a deaf person who does not advocate or assert for the rights of deaf signers

In other words, it’s small “d” instead of capital “D.”

I used to live in California for 20-plus years, from 1983 to 1994—nine years in Northern
California and eleven in Southern California. I came across a wide variety of deaf individuals of various age groups and ethnic backgrounds. California has large populations of Latinos/Latinas and Asians, much more than I was accustomed to see when I was growing up in New York City. In addition, there are many mainstreamed programs for the deaf and hard-of-hearing students
as well as some oral-education-based schools that they vastly out-numbered the
state schools for the deaf currently in existence—only a couple (based in
Fremont and Riverside).

Especially through my former jobs both as HIV/AIDS community educator with Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. and as a deaf adult literacy instructor at the Goodwill Industries of Long Beach and South Bay, I met many deaf, older students and adults of various
backgrounds. I came to learn that many of them went to mainstreamed programs though no fault of their own; their parents enrolled them. Many of them do sign but they were first exposed to Signing Exact English (that alone is enough to make my stomach churn), and eventually they moved on to American Sign Language according to their own pace and amount of interaction with other native signers. Because of such enormous amount of diversity among the deaf people in California, such labels like “hearing in the mind” and small “d” versus big “D” do not apply nor fit them. Based on my observation during my twenty-year residence in California this kind of sign, “hearing in the mind” is rarely, I repeat rarely used!

When I accepted temporary employment at the Laurent Clerc Deaf Education Center (inside the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School building on Gallaudet University campus) in the
fall of 1999, I was shocked, really shocked, to see somebody using this sign, “hearing in the mind.” I hadn’t seen this kind of sign in a long, long time. This also shows that I had lived in California for so long that this sign kind of disappeared from my signing vocabulary and way of
thinking.

With the protest that occurred at Gallaudet last May, a new term, deafhood, came up on the “scene” or “radar.” I couldn’t help thinking that if we want to embrace deafhood, we need to get rid of the sign, “hearing in the mind” because it carries negative connotation in most cases. It’s counter-productive to use if we want unity in the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. I don’t mind seeing this sign but only in rare occasions and within very good reasons. In other words, use it to describe but not to attack and oppress. Using it to describe would help me to
effectively work WITH the deaf individuals who may not have or not yet developed a strong sense of “signing community.”

There are many deaf individuals who didn’t grow up in the signing community (living in different types of environments), thus having very different ways of thoughts and responses. Sometimes I find the differences in their perspectives acutely refreshing! This we should welcome and embrace.

One last case in point here—I’m a fourth-generation, culturally deaf person and sometimes my
way of thinking and perspective are advanced or not so common in the signing community. Does that make me “hearing in the mind”? I’d say “yes,” but I never abandon deaf culture and the signing community because they are a big part of my growing up years and my current environment. I simply choose (or try to) the middle ground.

How Wired Are You?

this is a copy of the response I submitted on www.ridorlive.com when he and other respondents mentioned about deaf people with CIs who seemed to pretend to be something else besides being deaf or put on attitudes and yet still having one foot in the deaf community.

"...I’m a 4th generation deaf myself and I have a CI. Been using for 3+ years. To make a long story short, I call CI nothing more than a glorified and expensive hearing aid. I chose it because I had expected better out of it; it didn’t come out as I thought it would be. Yes it’s helpful especially at work (I work in a hearing environment), enjoy some music and sometimes when watching movies. But it was/is not a boost as I originally envisioned. BTW, I had worn hearing aids all throughout my school years until I went to college. In other words, I’ve had auditory experience but I never reject deaf culture.

Choosing to have a CI was to add or broaden my horizons/experiences, not to diminish deaf culture or deafhood. There is indeed a few exceptions like myself (and 4 other 2nd/3rd generation deaf CI users) that I never pretend to be hearing, never expected to use a telephone and yet chose to have a CI. The world is basically designed for 5 senses, not 4. Strictly speaking for myself, there’s no harm in wanting to experience what is like to have the 5th sense. That has nothing to do with acceptance or rejection of deafhood. To echo the actor Ben Affleck’s words that he once said in an interview, “I’m not responsible for your successes or failures.” In other words, having a CI is a personal decision.

But when it comes to hearing parents deciding to hear-ize their deaf children through CI and deprive sign language, that’s where I draw the line. Of course I become uncomfortable with this. I do cringe when I see toddlers and very young children with CIs. That’s a strong part of deaf culture/deafhood in me which I respond to.

(Below is a couple more paragraphs I added here on my blog, not in the comments box on ridorlive)
I once tutored a hearing couple who has 3 children, the eldest daughter being deaf and has a CI. They were open to both choices. (at that time I didn't have a CI but got it about a year later). At first, the father insisted that I teach SEE. I was caught off-guard and naturally I wasn't enthusiastic myself. (SEE does give me the creeps, by the way) I told him I don't teach SEE. I drew a line across. to demonstrate the continuum. At one end of the line, I wrote below "ASL" and the other end, "English." I also added some more words in between like "PSE," "SEE," "Cued Speech," and "fingerspelling." I told the parents that it's entirely up to them to move in either direction along the continuum. (Later on over time with them, I discovered what the father said about SEE was that he actually thought it was PSE. I explained that PSE and SEE are two different things. He was leaning toward PSE, not SEE after I had clarified the difference) After several weeks of lessons (I used "Signing Naturally" book developed by Ken Mikos, Ella Lentz and Cheri Smith), the father finally came to realize that ASL does make sense. I felt it was important not to cram down their throat but let them, especially the father, to realize that on his own. And it paid off. Soft-pedalling sometimes is useful rather than playing hard-ball about teaching ASL.

About less than 2 years ago, I met a young mother with a newly-implanted toddler. It was extremely an uncomfortable sight for me. I didn't want to antagonize the mother. She knew I come from a deaf family myself and that I have a CI. I simply told her that the best way for her child to learn is to read, read, read books. Based on my experience in the paragraph above, I did not want to drag her into the controversy of sign language vs. oralism, deafhood vs. audism. I felt it was best to let her and her husband (he was already occupied with somebody else a few feet away from us) to travel their own path and come to their own realization (I hope) that they may need to include sign language to go hand in hand with the CI.

Take your pick but wire your battles wisely.

ODE OF THE FLAMING QUEEN

Now is the 25th year of AIDS plague. A crying shame that it hasn't gone away yet. Below is a poem I had written 16 years ago about my friend, Tom Saavedra who passed away of AIDS at the age of 30 in 1990.

Ode of the Flaming Queen

To bid our beloved friend away on his bon voyage
To the far-reaching and wondrous Shangri-La
over the rainbow where the angels greet
and friends joyfully reunite
Express what you may, in grief or solace
Hallelujah! Rejoice in his pleasure
of the everlasting journey,
befitting of the flaming queen with such pizzazz!

A man that loved men as a queen would
With unwasted and unbridled passions
“To be true to thine own self” and
“How dare you presume I’m a heterosexual”
were his credo
An unabashed queen of his own crystal design,
to shock, mock, titillate, and dazzle with glee
Disarming forthrightness sparkled with winsome regality
twinkles in his eyes bespoke, “life’s such a banquet”
Feast adorned with adventures and style
befitting of the flaming queen

The queen’s royal virtues-
to listen to the drummer and
to march to his own beat, wherever it went with him
With his spirited charisma to touch upon us,
his charitable heartbeats to warm over,
his soulful resonance to uplift,
Through him, old coats of muted hues we shed
New beats we light up and to march along
His grace to guide, we soar like butterflies
toward a rising star awaiting our reach
with his Pied Piper’s fife, joining in concert,
we radiate in triumph
Through him, one and all,
we blossom eternally

The guardian angel for life’s little losers
a shining, sturdy beacon of
honesty, faith, courage, inspiration and lively humor
Praises and admiration in homage
from the queen’s folks and,
the people living across the borders
Wearing one crown, yet in many-splendored colors,
The flaming queen as
a comic - outrageous and artful without being coarse,
a leader - defiant without being revolutionary,
a teacher - impartial without being superior,
a friend - the miracle of brotherly love

the generous queen cultivated the garden
that stretched over the boundaries
Bloomed with fruits and sustenance to bestow
the noble queen gone on his trek, return none
If to sow, reap and share his gifts,
His legacy in perpetual bounty shall return
Memories and his essence—the treasures in our hearts,
If within thine folds choose to nurture,
shall live on with brilliance
As decreed by the flaming queen

Of more years carefree and fathomless what might come forth
My lifetime with the queen suddenly a vexed finity
Seven years of friendship now a measured memory
What comfort take to thy searching heart
Friendship knows no age but its precious prize
Times we shared runneth over
Peace and fun be with him everlasting in Shangri-La

Shipboard in his ritzy finery
amidst the sprinkling confetti and undulating streamers,
With the shimmering waves and playful mists to roll by
Sailing toward the amber sunset and to beyond
on the wings of the ocean’s breeze,
on his never-ending vacation
on the royal flagship
befitting of the flaming queen

To Swing or Not to Swing

Never underestimate the power of popular culture. We always associate Tarzan with swinging on the vine, starting with the 1932 movie, Tarzan the Ape Man with Johnny Weissmuller (himself an Olympic swimming champion). This image has had permeated and embedded in our cultural psyche in the forms of sequels, spoofs, TV commercials, other movies (i.e. George of the Jungle), greeting cards, comic books and the like. A long time ago, I was watching a 1918 (silent) movie called Tarzan of the Apes with Elmo Lincoln in the title role. And to my shock, Tarzan himself was NOT a vine-swinger. Rather, he was a tree CLIMBER! We see him mostly climbing on the tree branches. The only shot I ever saw him with a vine was JUST when he landed on the ground and letting go of the vine from his hand. The vine itself was barely seen at the right side of the movie frame!

I never read the original novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, thus unable to know if the author did write about the part of vine-swinging or tree-climbing. According to the Internet Movie Database, this 1918 version is most faithful to the novel than others. It could have had something to do with limited technology or stuntwork during the filming (although the cast and crew spent almost a full year in the jungle). Or, whatever possibilties did or did not occur back, no shots existed in this 1918 film of Tarzan swinging on the vine in full view. To swing or not to swing, draw your own vines.

A Civil Issue in regard to Gay Marriage

I'm performing archery shots, refining my aims at the target. Then a heterosexual individual walks up to me, admiring my abilities. Pointing to the target, I say, "this is marriage." As I shoot the first arrow to the target, I say "For starters, I'm a registered Republican voter myself. Please don't gag yourself if you're not a member of the Republican Party. Can somebody tell me why gays and lesbians should not get married? To rephrase, what is the real civil reason why the gays and lesbians can not marry?

This individual shows some obvious signs of ambivalence and starts to speak but I shoot the 2nd arrow right to the target. I continue, "Many arguments against sex-sex marriage abound, mostly based on emotions and limited perspectives. A couple of probably most common arguments here--

• If using the Bible or religious beliefs that marriage is only for and between a man and a woman, that is a moral or religious issue. That I can accept but not necessarily agree

• If using the issue of sexual and familial reproduction, that is a biological reason. That I can accept

I won't argue on the grounds of human rights because it's already old. What I'm asking for a reason--that is--a civil (or government) reason why gays and lesbians cannot marry. "

I continue to shoot the next arrow and contend,

"Access

is not only a privilege but a right. The desire for legality of same-sex union is about access to the very institution of marriage and its inherent benefits endowed by the government, if not society. By denying the rights of legality of such union is tantamount to:-

• unlawful obstacles to access and
• monopoly of the institution of marriage itself. "

I can see this individual is starting to listen but not giving any confirmation. I keep speaking,

"Economics

Married couples enjoy certain tax benefits that single people don't. If a heterosexual male or female choose not to marry, then he or she isn't entitled to the tax benefits. At least, nobody prevents them nor put any obstacles between this heterosexual individual and marriage. When a gay or lesbian couple wants to get married but is not allowed to, they're forever denied the tax benefits. That is preventing them the access to tax benefits, thus creating economic inequality. If gays and lesbians marry and with the same tax benefits, they would be in a more eviable position to contribute to the overall economy in this country. Politics tend to follow after economy, and such economic inequality is indeed a political issue."

This individual begins to hem and haw. Taking advantage of this, another arrow flies off and I proceed,

"Status of Gay and Lesbian Taxpayers

Only counties, not cities nor states, can issue marriage licenses. Gays and lesbians do pay taxes and part of that go to the county government, including county services and employees. Since we pay county tax, we're not able to access to the rights of getting a marriage license. That's economic inequality, too."

This individual shifts weight nervously. Zing!, another arrow goes straight to the target. I keep articulating,

"A Basic Definition of a Republic

The United States of America is not only a democracy but as well as a republic. Don't forget that word is used in the pledge to the flag--"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands..." The definition of a republic states that an individual or a group of individual has the full freedom to one's or its own personal beliefs and practices. It also means that that particular set of beliefs cannot be imposed on another. Others are granted the same freedom from being imposed of other beliefs or practices. In other words, they're "equal" under the sun. This was a practice created and system used by the ancient Romans. In short, monopoly of marriage as dictated by the government or society is an antithesis of a republic as dictated by one specific group over another."

This individual shows beginning signs of loss for words. I pull out another arrow and shoot. I assert,

"Primogeniture

basically spells out the exclusive right of inheritance; specifically : a right to take all the real property of an estate belonging under English law to the eldest son or eldest male in the next degree of consanguinity if there is no son of an ancestor to the exclusion of all female and younger male descendants."

To punctuate with a short and quick pause, another arrow flies right to the target. I go on speaking,

"In the old, old, old days in England, the right to vote was based on ownership of land or real estate. And oftentimes it is passed on to the next generation, of course, to the eldest male offsprings, thus keeping the power INSIDE the same family line over any others who possibly wanted to supplant with newly-acquired power. In other words, people without land in the old days had no power to vote or engage in politics. If gays marry to each other, they would not be able to produce a male heir. And when they die without a male heir and their lands were up for grabs by others. That means the power is shifted from a family line without a male heir to another family line with a heir. This is solely and the only reason why gays weren't allowed to marry--not over religious, moral, social nor economic reasons--but for political reasons.

"When the United States was founded and broke away from England, our country rejected primogeniture because it conflicted with the Constitution that we established. Such tradition like this was abolished and a new kind of social system was taking place. It also changed to any single freeman without any ownership of real estate properties to be able to produce a single vote. In other words, to produce a male heir is not a requirement to exercise the right to vote. This concept was absolutely revolutionary even in the late 1700's."

This individual looks amazed at my knowledge of bits of history here. I shoot another arrow and it lands at the center of the target. I proceed to verbalize further,

"Since primogeniture has never been and is not a practice here in the United States, it's then not grounds to use 'tradition' as a civil reason to prevent the legalities of gay marriages. Traditions were broken or completely altered with women winning the rights to vote and the legalities of inter-racial marriages. Why should gay marriages be any different?"

This individual draws back slightly and remains silent. After another arrow flies off, I hold forth,

"The U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution rightly spells out the roles and functions of our government and bestows the rights of the citizens. It's never originally drafted to restrict or prohibit a certain individual or a certain group (that was why the amendment to ban liquor never worked and eventually repealed). To introduce and institutionalize an amendment to ban same-sex marriages clearly is unconstitutional. The recent judical ruling declared sodomy laws in seven states to be unconstitutional, therefore any other amendments or laws related to not giving legal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples will fall under the category of "unconstitutional," plain and simple.

This individual starts to speak but my shooting the arrow cuts off. And, I continue to express,

"The American Psychiatry Association

In 1973, this association removed homosexuality from its offical list of mental illnesses. To quote this from the History Channel's website, "In its 1992 position statement on homosexuality, the association endorsed the repeal of all legislation criminalizing homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. Affirming that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities,” thus not grounds for civil reason why gays and lesbians cannot marry. "

Realizing that I best continue my focus on the target, I draw another arrow and shoot. As before, it reaches the black center of the target.

"Supreme Court's Actions

Also from the History Channel's website: "The [Supreme] Court took its boldest step toward recognizing gay rights in 2003, when, in Lawrence v. Texas, it explicitly overruled the Bowers decision, declaring that Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today." The majority opinion, which threw out a Texas anti-sodomy law, declared that homosexuals’ right to liberty “gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.” By denying the rights of marriage to gays and lesbians is blatant governement intervention.

This individual shows less and less signs of squirming but doesn't say. Best to keep talking and shooting the next arrow, I advance,

"Same-sex Marriages And/or Unions in Other Nations

I understand the feelings of qualm especially connected to a pioneer or trailblazer whenever introducing a new and untried societal practice. But the United States of America is in good company as there are about twenty-four, I repeat, twenty-four other nations in the world that already granted various forms of legal recognition of and benefits to same-sex marriages or civil unions, including the Holy Land which is known as the State of Israel. "

At the last few words, this individual's jaw starts to drop. Groping for words to speak up, I merely look straight in the eyes and then turn back to the target to shoot the next arrow. I enunciate,

"Other Points

Developmentally-disabled individuals can marry each other whereas gays and lesbians with far more and higher mental faculties cannot. Developmentally-disabled adults have absolutely civil rights to marry over us? Illogical at best and discriminatory at worst.

• How would gay/lesbian marriage affect heterosexuals in general?
• Would gay/lesbian marriage cause more divorces among the heterosexuals? (oh, come on--the divorce rate among the heterosexual already is shameful to begin with).
• Would gay/lesbian marriages create any undue influence toward heterosexual families?
• Would gay/lesbian marriages cause children of heterosexual parentage to become runaways or conduct in other forms of delinquent behavior?
• Do gay/lesbian marriages create any influence upon a heterosexual relationship to have financial difficulty?

I don't care to run into a litany of problems which may amount to babble, the answer would be a resounding no to the questions above."

True to form, my next arrow reaches its perfect target. This time I permit this individual to speak. Saying to me, "I realize you really shoot well." And, I respond, "that's because you did not or have not interfered. You didn't even stand in between me and the target. If you had done so, I would have put down my bow and arrow as you don't want to find an arrow sticking in your chest. Without any interference, I could shoot well from any position, standing up, from sideways, while jumping up, standing on my head. If you were shooting the arrows yourself, I would not stand in between you and the target. Who are the heterosexuals to interfere our ability and rights to play as well as to marry of our own choice? You don't own this target as much as I. The same for the institution of marriage."

Shooting my last arrow and it arrives at its most central destination as I intend to, I add my final words, "This is simply why I pose a question of a civil reason why gays and lesbians cannot marry their same-sex partners." Putting down my bow and quiver, I declare, "I rest my case." Bull's eye!

Taking Back the Destiny

This is my first blog ever. I’ve never read any blogs until the protest at Gallaudet occurred. Now it’s almost like a lifeline for me to keep myself abreast of what’s been transpiring on the Kendall Green. Perhaps the protest may be a good thing for several of us, that is, to appreciate the existence of blogs (of course it all depends on the content).

This protest did catch me by surprise but after all, I’m not amazed over this uproar. Given the poor choice of words such as “Jane is not deaf enough” or “she doesn’t say hi,” and any other seemingly ranting on the students’ part, please remember the students are young adults themselves, not as sophisticated yet as older adults like myself (I’m pushing 50) in presenting facts over emotions. In this regard, this is understandable but not necessarily encouraged. However, it’s a good opportunity for them to learn to analyze and articulate facts behind their reasoning and action. My intents here are to try to crystallize what they really mean. (As a footnote: I later learned that "not deaf enough" was uttered by a single individual or two, not shared by a group, which unfortunately picked up by the media)

It’s about taking back the destiny. You (meaning the deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals of various ethnic backgrounds) and I are too well familiar with oppression from the non-deaf public, which I don’t need to elaborate further. However, some brief history lessons should help illuminate here. We all know about the establishment of the first school for the deaf in Hartford, Connecticut, American School for the Deaf (ASD) in 1815. The graduates of ASD eventually became educators themselves and established about ten more schools for the deaf in other states (forgive me if my math is a little off). Surviving letters and other records show high literacy skills. The infamous conference in Milan, Italy in 1880 decreed that the deaf could not teach the deaf (think destiny). As a result, many deaf teachers lost their jobs and the hearing people took over. We went through a hundred years of abysmal level of education that neither supported nor benefited a great number of deaf individuals. However, the numbers of deaf individuals graduating from Gallaudet grew over time and because of this went on paths of higher education to acquire masters and doctorate degrees. With experience acquired through the jobs, we now see more deaf individuals with MAs, Ph.Ds, and Ed.Ds and moving up to higher levels of management, directorship and positions. The DPN protest was the next step in taking back the destiny that belongs rightfully to the deaf individuals.

Years ago, I read a challenging question in the “Ask Marilyn” section of the Parade, a Sunday supplement, and I still remember it to this day. I do see some relevance of this question to the protest. The question a reader posed was—“which is more difficult to heal—a broken heart or a broken spirit?” Surely this kind of question can foster a lively debate but fortunately because it was a Q-&-A column, we didn’t have to wait this long to find out what the “A” is. Marilyn vos Savant, this said columnist (and genius) already provided the answer—spirit. She explained that “spirit can heal a broken heart but heart cannot heal a broken spirit.”

With the next presidential candidate, I can safely sense the students want a leader to move up to the next level, that is, to the destiny they are yearning for. Though I know Jane Fernandes through very minimal professional contact, I haven’t been on campus long enough to make a sound judgment of her performance on campus. Yet from what I read and learned, it seems that in the students’ eyes and souls, Jane obviously doesn’t fit the bill, hence their extreme disappointment and anger. I don’t know exactly how many people (students, faculty and staff) are involved but they are tired of feeling being dispirited and disheartened. They could not afford to let their spirits break down. The selection was very difficult for those directly affected to swallow. In essence, the students and others’ desire for the destiny was thwarted. Coupled with low spirits and heavy hearts, they may have felt they reached a breaking point. Again, it’s hard for me to ascertain the true numbers of people involved because I live far away from Washington, D.C., thus not being able to have a little more reliable pulse of the situation.

Social unrest, social changes, civil rights movements all give birth of messy beginnings. Look at women’s movement for the right to vote, blacks’ civil rights movement, the rebellion of gay men (Stonewall, New York City) in 1969 to demand equal respect and rights, the Free Speech Movement by the students at the University of California Berkeley in the 1960’s in their protest against the Vietnam War, etc. It has had taken time to achieve the desired results and a smoother sailing. The protestors at Gallaudet aren’t that much different—the lockdown of Hall Memorial Building, though not exactly my style—right or wrong, is messy. I can’t say if it is really necessary. Only time will tell.

Again referring to another reading material that I came across--an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times covered a survivor of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings in 1947 under McCarthyism that targeted the movie industry in Hollywood (if my memory serves me right, he was one of the Hollywood Ten who refused to answer questions during the hearings). He was asked how he felt "now" with the hindsight of what had occurred during this dark period. He replied, "do not look for villians. They are not out there." This powerful, sobering yet humbling remark nearly took out my breath.

Granted that destiny comes from within of an individual, an individual or a group of individuals needs the heart and spirit hand in hand to achieve this. By their attempts to “take back the destiny” where the deaf can run their own show or be in control, they are attempting to restore, repair, or like in the “Ask Marilyn” column mentioned, to “heal” the spirit and the heart. To keep the focus on this struggle for, as the FSSA stated in its website, "social justice" with resonant spirits and dedicated hearts in the right places--rather than to look for and single out villians for they may "not be out there"--may effect the kind of the rightful destiny that those on Kendall Green (and probably the rest of the world) are searching and desiring to grasp and hold on.

The protest might be a starting point of healing, though on the face of things the appearances seem to indicate otherwise. Yet, it’s not too hard to understand, if not to empathize. Again, only time will tell where the scheme of destiny lies in the matters of the heart and spirit.