NAD’s Recent Actions Are Odd.
NAD’s recent actions are odd.
Â
When Canada had its protest against AVT’s policy against ASL, Â NAD was very quick to offer its support.Â
Â
There is a strong trend of deaf babies not being permitted to communicate in sign language while hearing babies are encouraged to sign. This baby signing phenomenon occurs due to the inability of all babies to use speech until they reach maturity. Sign Language enables these babies to express themselves until they are able to verbalize. Yet the deaf babies aren’t given the same opportunities to communicate in sign language while the hearing babies are enjoying multiple benefits of early language expression.
John Egbert, the founder of Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC)  showed up in a NAD meeting two months ago and requested support on the simple concept of deaf babies using ASL. To this day, NAD remained silent with the baby sign concept
Â
What is the big deal with this? OK in supporting another country in its fight for ASL among deaf children/toddlers but nada zero zilch support for linguistic rights of deaf babies in its own country? By the way, the lawyer representing our legal rights to free speech doesn’t imply that NAD affirms DBC’s main mission of baby signs. That is a separate issue.Â
Â
NAD is supposed to serve its members, but I am not seeing much of that. AGB states its role on oralism very clear, so did HLAA with its HoH position, and so forth.  NAD’s position remains somewhat unclear. The website of NAD supports ASL and Bilingualism, but …….Â
Practically everybody, both hearing and deaf, educated and uneducated,  finds the concept of hearing babies enjoying sign language designed and used by Deaf people, but yet the deaf babies routinely denied the same benefits very illogical.
 Yet NAD, an organization that represents signing members of Deaf Community, hasn’t offered its support on the concept of deaf babies signing.
 ”Scratching my head”
 Am I missing something here?
9/8/07: I need to clarify my position. I have a high respect for NAD’s advocacy efforts.
NAD has been doing a wonderful job in advocacy of telecommunications, captioning and ADA, among other subjects, for the deaf Americans. Its legal center handled many civil right violations successfully. As an institution, it has an excellent reputation. It stood along with Canada protesters about the importanc of ASL with deaf children and infants. It would be nice to see NAD provide support for the DBC’s baby sign project for ALL babies, both hearing and deaf. MZ
NAD’s recent actions are odd.
Â
When Canada had its protest against AVT’s policy against ASL, Â NAD was very quick to offer its support.Â
Â
There is a strong trend of deaf babies not being permitted to communicate in sign language while hearing babies are encouraged to sign. This baby signing phenomenon occurs due to the inability of all babies to use speech until they reach maturity. Sign Language enables these babies to express themselves until they are able to verbalize. Yet the deaf babies aren’t given the same opportunities to communicate in sign language while the hearing babies are enjoying multiple benefits of early language expression.
John Egbert, the founder of Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC)  showed up in a NAD meeting two months ago and requested support on the simple concept of deaf babies using ASL. To this day, NAD remained silent with the baby sign concept
Â
What is the big deal with this? OK in supporting another country in its fight for ASL among deaf children/toddlers but nada zero zilch support for linguistic rights of deaf babies in its own country? By the way, the lawyer representing our legal rights to free speech doesn’t imply that NAD affirms DBC’s main mission of baby signs. That is a separate issue.Â
Â
NAD is supposed to serve its members, but I am not seeing much of that. AGB states its role on oralism very clear, so did HLAA with its HoH position, and so forth.  NAD’s position remains somewhat unclear. The website of NAD supports ASL and Bilingualism, but …….Â
Practically everybody, both hearing and deaf, educated and uneducated,  finds the concept of hearing babies enjoying sign language designed and used by Deaf people, but yet the deaf babies routinely denied the same benefits very illogical.
 Yet NAD, an organization that represents signing members of Deaf Community, hasn’t offered its support on the concept of deaf babies signing.
 ”Scratching my head”
 Am I missing something here?
9/8/07: I need to clarify my position. I have a high respect for NAD’s advocacy efforts.
NAD has been doing a wonderful job in advocacy of telecommunications, captioning and ADA, among other subjects, for the deaf Americans. Its legal center handled many civil right violations successfully. As an institution, it has an excellent reputation. It stood along with Canada protesters about the importanc of ASL with deaf children and infants. It would be nice to see NAD provide support for the DBC’s baby sign project for ALL babies, both hearing and deaf. MZ
September 7th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Mishka,
Yeah right on! I am very concern about that! I wish that NAD will have more power to support baby signing in the first place.. Why??? I did volunteered at baseball camp for hearing impaired and happened stuck with the first day with 7 Deaf oral children and oral interpreter with no signing.
I did caught one 7 years old little cute girl with cochlear implant on the first day because I noticed that she was lost from communication skills then I felt bad that she was lonely and left behind.. So I did tried my best to keep her company if she wants me to sign or talk.. She told me that she wants to sign. So I did my best try to communicate by signing matching with her level of language. She seems improve and develop with cognitive growth with my signing communication. But but but I decided to stop volunteer on her oral camper team on the 2nd day of baseball camp because I do not want her hearing parents to be upset with me and blame on me for signing communication with her.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Strange….We expect that the NAD have expected AG Bell must treat others equally. Nevertheless, AG Bell did not follow the Equal opportunity laws. They are against the ASL and supports the AVT on deaf babies.
I truly think that the NAD is inquiring with AG Bell and could not speak for themselves about AG Bell’s AVT policy.
White Ghost
September 7th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Well, NAD has been odd with numbers of issues.NAD often walks on tight rope between NAD and Deaf community! Many times, NAD often supports some issues that matter to our Deaf Community, at sametime, NAD does not speak for our Deaf community but speaks the issues for itself! NAD never been in very strong position on that ASL and Bilingualism or signing baby! NAD knows it would be a long long battle to resolve, I would like to see NAD become more aggressive on tha issues, Remember that NAD is not a political organization but consumer advacate for the best qualifity of life for all of us that is what NAD does!
September 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am
NAD is supposed to be a political/advocacy organization for the deaf.
So far, I’ve only seen NAD talk about how the community needs to do more… well.. my question is then, ‘What the heck are we paying you to do, NAD?’
September 7th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I support ASL and bilingualism.
But…I’m wondering if it’s because DCB is not *really* clear on their mission, other than ASL and bilingualism.
I see some attacks on their website on oralism and some of its members being outspoken against CI. They are not focusing entirely on signing for deaf babies.
You don’t SEE AGB members bashing ASL people on their website – simply not advocating it.
Perhaps NAD doesn’t want to share of that “bad†publicity.
Not to mention they get donations from members who might also be members of AGB or feeling the negativity from the bashings on CIs? I would imagine a majority of their members are either CI or not culturally deaf people.
If DBC’s position was truly JUST about deaf babies learning ASL – that would have been a different story to bitch about not getting support from NAD?
Just playing Devil’s Advocate on this one.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The oralists and the auditory-verbal people have their AGBell organization to support them and fight for their right not to be influenced by the ASL groups. (snort)
What does the ASL group have fighting for their rights and for their babies to have all the options available, including ASL?
Not NAD. Its attempts to cover all the Deaf-HoH-parent interests is weakening its power to be a voice for the ASL Deaf community. It is attempting to include the huge AGBell organization in an effort to be comprehensive.
This is sad, because I remember when it was a strong voice for ASL. Fred Schreiber was one such strong voice, so was George Veditz. These past heroes would roll over in their graves to see how wimpy NAD is today.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I mean DBC, not DCB. Thanks.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I know of a facial expression in ASL: rolling eyes upward and then to right with mouth opening and shoulders dropping. There is no equivalent word in English. But I have experienced it many times when people asked about NAD. NAD has a completely different set of priorities that focuses on “getting together and moving forward.â€
September 7th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Sometimes it’s important to hold up a mirror. Thanks for doing this. Maybe someone will pay attention. Please do forward your post to NAD if you haven’t already.
~ LaRonda
September 7th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“When Canada had its protest against AVT’s policy against ASL, NAD was very quick to offer its support.”
Some deaf Canada people don’t mention about the protection. One person said it was not. true. It caused me to be confused. There is no proving.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:43 am
ChrisH… There was a vlog of NAD protesting at the Canadian Embassy about the AVT situation in Ontario.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:51 am
AGB’s AVT policies state that sign language impairs speech development.
In reality, supporters of pure oralism bash Deaf people who use sign language. They instruct oral deaf kids not to interact with deaf kids who sign. Just ask any student in the oral deaf education.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
A Deaf Pundit
Where is vlog of NAD protesting in Canada? You show me your proof.
You should go to Canada and find deaf community if they give you them information.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am
From my blog: NAD Got It Right!!
NAD Supports Deaf Children’s Right to Sign Language:
Remarks by NAD President Bobbie Beth Scoggins, read by NAD Chief Executive Officer Nancy J. Bloch at the rally.
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) joins with the Ontario Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, and the deaf and hearing community in Canada, the United States, and around the world to support the language rights of deaf and hard of hearing children in Canada.
Language is a fundamental human right. The Canadian government, through its establishment of anti-sign language policies, is denying the right of deaf and hard of hearing children to language.
Particularly egregious is the policy that parents may choose to obtain a cochlear implant for their child, or they may choose sign language, without the option of choosing both. Such a prohibition against choosing both is contrary to evidence based best practices, the right of parents to make choices for their children, and plain common sense. For the full article click on: http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=2724111
http://blog.deafread.com/mishkazena/2007/05/12/nad-got-it-right/
September 7th, 2007 at 11:21 am
AGB DO tell parents that they should avoid using ASL with Deaf children and they even keep telling them that using ASL would limit their Deaf children’s intelligence. It would be interested if you ask AGB people why don’t they use sign language with Deaf children and why did they mention that “AGB doesn’t use sign language” in its website.
Look at second paragraph under “volunteering at AG Bell”. Its URL address is http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?p=Jobs_at_AG_Bell
- Ron -
September 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Apparently they think they are doing the right thing by being collective? Is it effective? Should we break away from that model and form a new pro-ASL only org? Will this “us and them” stance work? Time will tell, apparently.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Hooray, MZ for bringing up the real good question why the NAD have been totally silent on the AVT therapy in our country, the good ole’ USA!
My understandings about some NAD members told the NAD staff and board members to take easy on the AVT therapy issue.
We have to realize that the NAD did give out very good advice to Amy Efron Cohen about the statewide audiological assessment board how we could accomplish much on the AVT therapy issue to fight off the proponents of baby signings ban for deaf babies with CI devices.
The DBC need to be a full-time organization with paid staff, not just another volunteer-based advocacy group. The DBC could take in grant money and other donations from corporations and bilingual groups and government.
NAD seems learned from the 90s controvesty on their organizational postiton on CI which many critics called their approach “alarmist”, not facts.
NAD need to be more gutsy and bold, but it have to be really careful with their public postitons due to potential lawsuits and group backlashs.
I recall that I mentioned how happy I have been with the NAD last two months after their responses to Amy Cohen Efron’s blog how to resolve the AVT therapy. One of the NAD member seems very upset about the NAD’s public remark to Amy. This individual could be affilated to the AGB organziation which he rebuke the AGB philsophy.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
September 7th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I suspect NAD is claming up because they are getting funds from AGB or its allies. That’s the only explantation I can think of for their silence on this important issue. I could be wrong.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I am more confused now. It is my understanding that NAD represents its members, but according to the comments here, I am getting the impression NAD isn’t acting on the behalf of the majority of its members. How did NAD become ‘collective’ and started working for everybody, not just for deaf people who sign? Did its members tell NAD to do that?
September 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
NAD’s historic mission support ASL. Why is NAD silent when AVT says ASL hurt deaf kids’ speech? That is a lie! ASL does not harm speech! Where is the proof?
How come NAD not protect ASL from being malingered by oral educators, speech therapists, and doctors?
September 7th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
NAD and DBC are two entirely different organiations. NAD is a somewhat respected group who has strong organization.
DBC is a group that sprouted out of nowhere and jumped without thinking about thier actions. DBC is not a credible group in the Deaf community, more of a collection of angry, self centered people. DBC seems to have been started by a guy trying to sell a book, who conviced ten people or so to make a seen at the AGB meeting
You are comparing apples to oranges and while doing so putting all deaf down.
Again, NAD is a somewhat respected organization, DBC is NOT.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I do not know where the NAD stands for. I felt
betrayed when the NAD had Jordan as a NAD 2006 keynote speaker and invited Fernandes to the NAD Conference last year (June 2006) after eyewitnessing the protest. Did any organisation Harvard’s President and American University’s
Dr. Ladner. They helped them exit quietly.
Is the NAD in essence a chameleon?
September 7th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
RLM,
Out of curiosity, what advice did the NAD provide to Amy Cohen-Efron? Would you care to share it with us here?
September 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
NAD has information about sign language for parents of deaf babies on its website at http://www.nad.org/signlanguageforparents.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Carl: the equivalent word to that expression is @@ or “DUH!”
There is a new sign now: hold up left hand D, bring right hand U and hit the D with it. Then turn the U on it side, as if falling over hard, bouncing it twice. This has been popular at RSD.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
angry… self centered
Attempting to demean a rapidly growing of college educated professionals, most with masters, educating the public the benefits of baby signs to deaf babies by using negative descriptive words appropriate for children, not adults. Nice…. NOT! …. Perhaps you feel threatened by the success of DBC embraced by the majority of Deaf Community.
Weak try on deflection
Again we go back to NAD’s failure to promote its own mission of ASL and Bilingualism, including Baby Signs aggressively. A mere statement in NAD website isn’t sufficient. NAD needs to go out and educate the public the benefits of sign language to deaf babies. Unlike AGB, AVT, and other organizations, NAD isn’t proactive on its outreach programs.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
To Julie C. #2 -
This is a different commentor… DBC is the result of not satisfied deaf professionals and grassroot deaf. If you could just provide us that NAD did something for our next generation, which I doubt very much, we would check these out. You know very much that NAD was a result of dissatisfied deaf people in their time. You are glorifying NAD, because of NAD standing long time now. DBC will stand for a long time and DBC will be glorified one day, perhap by you.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Yes, NAD was supportive of Amy Cohen Efron’s vlog which I thought was terrific. Yet, I am still puzzled why it is quiet about DBC’s baby sign project because it shows how deaf babies are routinely denied what hearing babies are enjoying. NAD was more than happy to support Canada’s protest. : /
I do want to emphasize how appreciative I am of NAD attorney, Rosalind Crawford in coming promptly the next am to ensure the deaf people’s rights to exercise free speech are protected. It was great seeing her.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Perhaps NAD has their own reason for holding back to give it some time to see how DBC is progressing. Please remember that DBC was just formed less than a couple of months ago and are in infancy stage. And no, they are not even angry people at all! I have met the members and they are awesome! DBC consists mostly professional individuals with diverse backgrounds who are able to function like a think tank where productive ideas and information have been shared behind the scenes. It takes time to develop an organization with strong mission and leaders who can be paid on a regular basis.
Please don’t make any judgement based on particular members (including myself) who happen to blog about their opinions that are not necessarily reflective of DBC’s mission. DBC’s mission have been clear as always, that is, which is to promote signing in deaf babies.
Julie, you are right, it is not fair to compare DBC to NAD since NAD has been a more than century old organization that pays leaders to do their professional jobs. DBC is an advocate group that consists primarily from v/bloggers who want to support deaf babies’ rights to have effective communication.
Please give it some time to allow DBC to grow and make an impression from time to time to work with NAD and other organizations serving similar interest to ensure deaf babies’ rights to signs. We will not win if we turn against one another or by putting down any organizations who may share the same goals.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Please provide us with the membership numbers of the DBC. Then if you could the numbers of NAD.
The question of why NAD is quiet about DBC project is easily answered. DBC went out to attack parents of children who they are responsible for, DBC members are not resonsible for these parents children. They did this agressively throwing all care to the wind. Education is one thing, jamming one’s own beliefs down someone’s throat is another. DBC will survive in the same small numbers until they realize they do not have the savy to effectively get thier point across, then will dissolve.
My suggestion would be to start over under a different name and a rational approach to educating [parents and letting them choose what they feel thier children need.
Another thing, I am not glorifying NAD, however am grateful for thier work for deaf rights. I am sorry you don’t feel NAD did anything for us!
September 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Bluntly, NAD isn’t exactly doing what Deaf Community wants. They do their own business. They used our money to spend on their own exiles unwisely.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Julie C,
Show us where DBC attacks parents. All I see DBC gently educating the public and AVT specialists by handing out leaflets demonstrating the benefits of baby signs hearing babies enjoy while deaf babies don’t.
Unlike AGB and AVT which state clearly that ASL HARMS speech development, scaring vulnerable parents. Yet I don’t see you criticizing AGB and AVT for promoting misconceptions. This shows me where you stand.
MZ, please block Julie. She is attacking DBC, making up stories, damaging DBC’s reputation.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Julie C.
You are engaging in the typical pattern of oppression, which is perpetuating a double standard against deaf people.
The DBC is simply engaging in an education campaign. For you to characterize an education campaign as “jamming one’s own beliefs down someone’s throat is another” is obscenely misplaced rhetoric on your part.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Julie,
Get your facts straight! Pay attention to what happened in the vlog entries posted at http://www.deafbilingual.blogspot.com and you can see very well who were attacked. Besides, we didn’t even see many parents but AVT therapists, audiologists, speech therapists and CI representatives marketing their booklets and conducting workshops.
It annoys me when a person jumps to conclusion especially when he or she is not there and not even bother to ask questions.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Julie C
Cease and detest from creating false stories about DBC. I don’t know who you are but obviously you have an agenda against Deaf people educating the public peacefully. Deliberately mischaracterizing DBC will not be tolerated here.
I happen to know that everybody in DBC acted properly during the social gathering events last July. It is thrilling to see many professional people of diverse backgrounds (deaf of deaf, deaf from deaf schools, deaf with oral and/or AVT backgrounds, mainstreamed deaf, hearing) working together to bring exposure of baby signs to deaf babies, just like their hearing peers. I have a high respect for the people working tirelessly for DBC and its mission of deaf baby signs.
To everybody else:
NAD has been doing a wonderful job in advocacy of telecommunications, captioning and ADA, among other subjects, for the deaf Americans. Its legal center handled many civil right violations successfully. As an institution, it has an excellent reputation. It stood along with Canada protesters about the importanc of ASL with deaf children and infants. It would be nice to see NAD provide support for the DBC’s baby sign project for ALL babies, both hearing and deaf.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
DBC is all ASL talk. There’s no real ‘bilingualism’ coming out of it.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Mishkazena,
Thank you so much for blogging on this.
Julie C.,
I am sorry you have such a (unfounded) negative impression of DBC. I tell you, DBC was every inch courteous at the protest last summer.
I had one of the most empowering experiences ever as a Deaf person working with and in DBC last summer. Nothing you say, Julie, will ever take that away.
DBC continues to grow every day, and we have yet to be a real membership organization yet. This is a social change thing- DBC wants to see ALL Deaf babies succeed, and ASL & ASL/English bilingual education is the BEST guarantee of that success. Julie, join us and you will learn that DBC is the opposite of what you painted us.
I love you, DBC, and will fight with DBC until ALL and every Deaf baby succeed in life!
DE
September 7th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
My great niece who is only 2 1/2 years old was using some sign language. I asked my sister how did she know them. She said, oh her Preschool teaches hearing kids some sign language. I laughed and said how ironic because deaf babies.toddlers, and children are not encouraged to communicate in ASL. I told myself that DBC is right all along that we need to fight together for children’s rights. As for NAD not doing anything about this and yes I am scratching my head too. I don’t understand why our country selected NAD Presidents for many years that do not speak up for our Deaf children rights and to preserve ASL. I realized now that they don’t care except for monies and status. NAD,DCARA and some other organizations need overhaul and select Presidents without using CI to fight for children rights and preserve ASL. Again it is up to us to overhaul and select strong leaders who will not be afraid to face our nation to speak up for Deaf children and perserve ASL. Why should we be afraid? AGB is never afraid and they are a powerful organization today. If NAD and other organizations are not cooperating then we need to stand behind DBC and give John Egbert full support. He can’t do this all by himself.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:10 am
NAD and DBC have very different objective! NAD is much older than DBC and DBC is just a new organiztion of campaign through education to the public what DBC is all about signing Deaf baby! DBC could become a political force someday! NAD only can make a policy through advocating, then bring that policy to Federal agencies to make a regulation while DBC does not make any policy but educate the public, Both of NAD and DBC are not the same functional basis at all. I can see a lot of Deaf community have a long way to learn about DBC’s role of public awareness through education. Give DBC to build the strength fundmental foundation of its own objective! NAD probably will support DBC someday in the future.
The defination of bilingual for Deaf has not been very clear yet, because many of Deaf people are not fluent in either English or ASL, even number of Deaf professionals are not insufficient to be called bilingualism. To me, they might consider English as Second Language, but unfortunately, they do not consider themselves as ESL. Too many issues about ASL or bilingualism, I have seen too many confusing because none of ASL has been recognized by US government as a linguistic minority! ASL is not part of LEP which means Limit Proficiency in English under the title 7 of Civil Right in the book! NAD might know all facts! DBC might not!
September 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Wow interesting subject! DBC is just trying to tell the world that it is nothing wrong to be Deaf who should learn sign language. AGB counterattacks almost anything that betrays themselves. This brings more idiots in: medical/edcuation professionals, scientists, AV therapists, AGB barking people, and many sucker hearing parents. Among dreamers will harm one to others.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Seems to me NAD leans more towards political advocacy in serving deaf adults rather than Deaf Education or issues relating to deaf children. I believe this is exactly why DBC was formed. DBC focuses on advocacy for deaf children, not adults which is NAD’s area. This is just how I seem understand how each organization represents and serves the community.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I noticed that some of NAD board members (President Bobbie and Nancy Bloch) went to Madrid, Spain for World Federation for the Deaf (WFD??? Is that correct?) about the same time DBC went on strike in Virginia. I would like to see what the NAD President Bobbie have to say about the DBC. Maybe we should not jump the conclusion about NAD’s action.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Cy, if so, why did they support Canada Protest against mandatory AVT without ASL? That involves deaf toddlers and children.
Julie, it’s been two months or so since John asked for support for the baby sign project. Nary a mention from NAD in support since then. Yet they were very quick to offer Canada Protest a statement how important ASL is for Deaf children and babies.
I see no controversy with the deaf baby sign. In fact, I think that is probaby the least controversial of all issues connected with deaf education, language, and communication, including AVT forbidding ASL. That is what I find NAD’s silence so strange.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Surprise me that President Scoggins to donate $25K from Bragg’s performance to WFD instead of supporting our own causes in our own country. Waste $$$!
September 9th, 2007 at 1:56 am
#44: The primary source I have received comes straight from the horse’s mouth. They say that donations go directly to both the NAD and the WFD. See a primary source below:
“The proceeds will help NAD and WFD efforts to bring about change in education, employment, health care and social attitudes toward health care and social attitudes towards deafness, especially in developing countries.” Source: http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=3266677
September 9th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I doubt that the NAD receive funds from the AGB organization and other oral proponents of the deaf.
NAD typically have been engaged in professional courtesy to work with the AGB and other organizations on the interest of deaf community, ex. captions within entertainment in general and accessibility issues.
My understanding is that the NAD recently have been blind about the latest AGB efforts on AVT therapy and other things. No questions about the AGB’s wide connections with powerful figures in social and political community more than we anticipate.
NAD is in strong financial position, but still have to tread on many issues carefully.
I am sure that the NAD people privately have been pleased with the concept of DBC protests and mass mobilization.
We MUST set up the mass petition to demand that the Gallaudet University not to sponsor the next year’s AGB conference thru finanical means. Gallaudet University need to demonstrate herself that the university will not tolerate any kind of exclusionary practices to deny deaf babies from the necessity of language acquisition and development. It’s time for Gallaudet University to execrise its rightful influence for the sake of deaf education. Don’t Gallaudet University want to deal with future deaf generation whose could not possibly complete the rigor demands of real higher education level? Please think about the long-term consquence of the AVT therapy to restrict deaf babies from being linguistically adjustable to lead productive and meaningful life, Gallaudet University.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
September 9th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Jean Boutcher,
Y could check out Amy Cohen Efron’s blogs. not vlog presentations which the NAD leadership send out e-reply to Amy about the statewide audiological assessment boards how we could make real difference with the AVT therapy issue.
RLM
September 9th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
NAD is not a powerful organization for the deaf. That being said, when has NAD ever really done much for the majority of the deaf in this country? They are very selective and they don’t have much money or clout.
DBC is probably the best thing that has ever happened. With this, perhaps more groups will be formed to advocate for other issues that is sorely need in USA for the majority of the deaf that have been deprived of support compared to what other minority organization gives to their people.