What happened after the passage of the ADA

BY JESSICA THURBER

Instead of looking back at 2010 for all the deaf-related things that have been accomplished, I thought I would share with you this timeline of key events occurring after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. Credit to the Maryland Governor's Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (MDODHH) for the information included in the image.

Click above to enlarge image

Which event do you consider as having the most impact on our growth as a deaf community? Share your thoughts!

Have a safe and a happy new year!


Feel free to re-post the timeline. Just be sure to credit Deaf Politics and MDODHH.

ABOUT JESSICA THURBER
Jessica Thurber graduated from Rochester Institute of Technology in 2006 with a BFA in Graphic Design and is the founder of Deaf Politics.

Deaf Education: Numbering our flaws

BY JONATHAN HENNER


This is an article about numbers. It does not purport to be anything else. I will delineate numbers that varying researchers spent quite a bit of time gathering, and then I will discuss them briefly and draw connections to the potential political consequences of having the numbers listed define our reality. It is my personal opinion that the energy of our community is wasted on dithering about identity politics, such as whether or not an individual is little “d” or big “D”.

The focal point of the deaf community’s discourse should be the numbers listed below and their devastating impact on all of our futures. Our education is poor; our prospects are poor, and the path ahead is even bleaker. Blue-collar opportunities given to our predecessors are no longer available to us. Fortune is a lovely combination of the right amount of language acquisition, with the right amount of support, and the wherewithal to choose a field accommodating to the deaf. At best, we toil in obscurity while hearing people use our work to advance in fields rightfully ours. At worst, we scrap with the government bureaucracy of our colonizers for meager checks and benefits.

The numbers that brick our paths are not new. I’ve seen them bandied about in intense discussions. The numbers hang there, unchained and improperly defined; they are wasted opportunities to seize the crux of the deaf community’s failure to educate itself and unbind our prophesied failures. My hopes are that having some numbers listed with points to sources will provide a foundation for future discourses, on this site and elsewhere.

---

The numbers hang there, unchained and improperly defined; they are wasted opportunities to seize the crux of the deaf community’s failure to educate itself and unbind our prophesied failures.

---

I have organized how I present the numbers in the following ways:

• Numbers about English Language Acquisition
• Numbers about Educational Policy, Educational Research and the Teachers of the Deaf
• Numbers about Reading
• Numbers about Employment

For brevity’s sake, each category will have up to five facts.

Numbers about English Language Acquisition

• Deaf children acquire English vocabulary at 60% of the rate that hearing children do
  
• By age 12, the English vocabulary levels of Deaf children lag 4 to 5 years behind their hearing peers
• Implanted deaf children score lower on English vocabulary assessments such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test than their hearing peers
• English Vocabulary acquisition among users of constructed sign systems (e.g. SEE, SEE II, MCE) is less than half of their hearing peers

Discussion

This section could have easily been called Numbers about English Vocabulary Acquisition. But, English vocabulary acquisition is an enormous aspect of language acquisition. High English vocabulary abilities correlate strongly with increased reading ability. A lack of English vocabulary can hinder deaf high school graduates in college and beyond. Oral proponents would do well to note that even implants do not contribute to superior English vocabulary development, and neither does use of simultaneous communication systems.

Numbers about Educational Policy, Educational Research, and the Teachers of the Deaf

• More than 10% of all teachers of the deaf lack the proper certificates and credentials for their positions
  
• An assessment of two volumes (over 50 articles) of the American Annals of the Deaf, the nation’s oldest journal of deaf education research and policy found the following:
  

1. No article covered math and science research for the deaf population
2. Almost as many articles covered speech and language use (6) as reading and writing and literacy needs (8)
3. Only 2 articles covered technology use and work skills among deaf children

• In 2006, the ratio between deaf education graduates and deaf students was 1 for every 56
• Sign language comprehension among hearing teachers of the deaf, when measured in “Understands Signs as well as English” ranges from 15% to 35%
• Only 45% of teachers of the deaf are considered to “sign well”
  

Discussion

Think about the jobs your deaf friends have, if they are lucky enough to be employed. Off the top of my head, most people I know are employed in VRS Outreach, Group Homes, Deaf-related Social Services, and as Teaching Assistants. The majority of deaf educators are white, hearing women with inferior visual language abilities. Educational policy for the deaf is dictated by hearing administrators and hearing researchers, many with shaky grasps of visual language and limited knowledge of the challenges faced by those they purport to support and nurture.

The focus of educational research remains speech, language, reading and writing, whereas the skills required by our workforce: math, science, and technology, are often ignored or left on the wayside. Meanwhile, the number of teachers available for a growing population of deaf students remains critically low.

Numbers about Reading

• The average deaf person graduates high school with a 4th grade reading-comprehension level
• 20% of deaf high school graduates possess a reading level at or below the second grade
• Reading levels among the deaf school population are 5 years behind their hearing peers

Discussion

For all our emphasis on reading and writing research, and language acquisition among deaf children, the numbers still sicken. 20% of our community reads at or below the second grade level. Our average reading comprehension remains at the fourth grade. How can we be expected to work and function in society when we are barely literate; when the peers we depend on to rally against audism and work with us to develop appropriate policy lack the ability to read a newspaper cover to cover?

---

How can we be expected to work and function in society when we are barely literate; when the peers we depend on to rally against audism and work with us to develop appropriate policy lack the ability to read a newspaper cover to cover?

---

Numbers about employment

• 60% of deaf high school graduates are considered ill prepared for college
• Approximately 50,000 deaf people collect some form of social security disability benefits
• 90% of deaf people are under or unemployed
• 60% of deaf adults are unemployed

Discussion

The end result of all our failures to ensure a proper language environment for deaf children and manage educational policy for deaf education is thusly—only 40% of our community is working. Those who are lucky enough to have jobs are underemployed, or paid insufficient wages. A vast number are on welfare. We have no purchasing power. We cannot donate to political powers. Our associations barely scrape by and have to beg for money. Our ability to protest businesses that fail to serve our needs are limited.

Conclusion

How many of our community activists collect welfare? How many are content to produce videos and artwork and columns and never progress past goading others into action? Hearing researchers in deaf education and deaf policies often bemoan the fact that there aren’t enough deaf people in their field. When so many schools and programs for the deaf lack qualified teachers, an extremely small number of deaf people are entering the field. I would argue that as a community, we have more value than teaching hearing people our language, and selling VRS products to our community. We are better than cannibalizing our intellectuals for not being deaf enough, or for not following a particular form of deaf epistemological philosophy. We should be shoring our best, those who were lucky enough to graduate high school and college, into deaf education and deaf-related research fields. Perhaps it’s too late to do much for our generation, but if we heed the numbers, future generations of deaf children can be spared our failures.

Those are numbers worth counting on.


Note: Information was taken from various of sources. For a list of sources, please email Jonathan Henner at jhenner@gmail.com.

ABOUT JONATHAN HENNER
Jonathan Henner is a graduate of Illinois State and Walden Universities. He is currently an Ed.D candidate at Boston University.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal: What’s really at stake

BY OCTAVIAN ROBINSON

Recently, there has been furor in the news over the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue—commonly referred to as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). This 1993 legislation was a compromise that resulted after lengthy public debate and congressional hearings about allowing military service members to engage in same-sex relations. DADT basically states that a service member can engage in same-sex relations as long they don’t tell anyone and the military can’t ask about or pursue those suspected of engaging in same-sex relationships. This past week, the House voted to repeal DADT by a vote of 250-175. Yesterday, the Senate has also voted to repeal DADT although a Republican threat of a filibuster earlier threatened to derail the Senate vote. A number of prominent Republicans dug their heels in, including former Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain who vowed to mount a filibuster and has argued vehemently that Congress should not repeal DADT.

Some say history has been made with the Congressional vote to repeal DADT. Before we begin celebrating this momentous hallmark in civil rights and expanded citizenship for our gay, lesbian, and bisexual citizens, we should consider the ramifications. The larger question remains also: why did it matter so much to politicians such as Senator McCain that this repeal not happen? Why did President Obama not simply issue an executive order as President Truman did in 1948 for the desegregation of the armed forces? What direction does the repeal of DADT take us?

The larger question remains also: why did it matter so much to politicians such as Senator McCain that this repeal not happen?

Resistance to change: African-Americans versus homosexuals

During World War II, General George S. Patton declared “I don’t care what color you are, so long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sonsabitches” in an address to African-American troops. Patton didn’t particularly care for African-Americans but in time of war—soldiers were soldiers. After the war, in 1948, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which effectively desegregated the U.S. military. One month before President Truman’s executive order desegregating the military—a poll showed that 63% of American adults supported the separation of African-Americans and whites in the military—only 26% supported integration. A survey the following year of white military personnel revealed that 32% of service members opposed racial integration in any form—and 61% opposed integration if that meant African-Americans and white service members would be required to share sleeping quarters and dining facilities.

In a marked contrast, a recent study in the Washington Post shows that 70% of active-duty and reserve forces “saw little or no problem with ending the 17-year-old policy.” Essentially, 70% of service members are fine with the repeal of DADT. Top military brass, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, have expressed support for the repeal of DADT, testifying to Congress that the repeal of DADT “will have no lasting ill-effects to military readiness or unit cohesion.” Democrats on the left and a number of moderate Republicans have expressed support for the repeal of DADT in its current stand-alone form.

Top military brass, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, have expressed support for the repeal of DADT, testifying to Congress that the repeal of DADT “will have no lasting ill-effects to military readiness or unit cohesion.”

Imperial presidency

Why doesn’t President Barack Obama just issue an executive order? He is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The answer may simply be that he fears legal challenges to his executive order for exceeding authority granted to the President by the Constitution and it would simply be better if the repeal came about through the legislative process rather than the judiciary—which top military personnel have stated will present more challenges and difficulties for the military as opposed to an Act of Congress.

An executive order issued by Obama would have most certainly faced a lengthy legal challenge and dragged through the judiciary. A judicial decision either way would have taken months, if not years. While waiting for the judicial challenges to go through, the military and its accompanying welfare state would have confronted monumental challenges—challenges that Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have both stated would be quite difficult for the military to manage.

Harry Truman had the benefit of serving as president in a time where the American people had entrusted the executive branch with expanding power in wake of the Great Depression and World War II. Obama is hampered by American distrust of executive power due to abuse of presidential powers by former Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon. Since the unauthorized escalation of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, the American public has been increasingly resistant and distrustful of a powerful executive branch. Such an executive order from Obama would have been political suicide not to mention a judicial nightmare for the military. Everyone agreed that the best way was through the legislative process.

Worthy citizens: The military welfare state

Why did some Republicans vehemently and rigorously resist the repeal of DADT despite support of the military leadership, the White House, military service members, the left, and a significant portion of the American public?

The answer: the approval of DADT paves a much easier road toward federal recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage. Such recognition also extends the benefits of a military welfare state to a large class of citizens that were previously excluded. With the admission of openly gay and lesbian service members, Congress and the military now face the mammoth task of restructuring the entire Military Welfare State, portions of the New Deal state, and will ultimately be forced to confront the question of legalizing and/or recognizing same-sex marriage on the federal level.

It pays to be straight and to bear (or at least attempt) children

When the U.S. government first established the New Deal State in the 1930s and the G.I. Bill at the end of World War II, the government was in essence establishing a welfare state for a certain class of citizens. A welfare state assures a “base” standard of living for a particular group of people. The regulations that govern the benefits of the New Deal State and the G.I. Bill was the government’s way of determining who were “worthy” citizens and who were not.

Those policies demonstrate quite clearly that married mothers are worth more than married women who did not have children. Married women who attempted to reproduce citizens were worth more than single women. White people were worth more than African-Americans or any other minority group. The G.I. Bill established a Military Welfare State that assured a certain standard of living for those who had served honorably in the armed forces. The standard of living assured by the G.I. Bill was far greater than the standard assured by the New Deal.

The structuring of the G.I. Bill and the distribution of the benefits under this program showed that the government valued above all married, white, male, heterosexual citizens and discriminated against African-Americans, homosexuals, and single men. Through the distribution of these benefits, the government decided which citizens were “worthy” and which citizens were not.

Modern-day military regulations and distribution of military benefits continue to emphasize the value of heterosexual relationships that produce children in cohesive family units. One example of this is that the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not consider spousal rape a crime. The military prohibits enlisted service members below the rank of Sergeant from living off post unless they are legally married. Only those who are legally married receive benefits such as health care, military housing, shopping privileges on base, which is tax-free, separation benefits, and housing allowances.

Those regulations along with the distribution of the benefits under the G.I. Bill (which provides financial assistance for vocational training, college education, purchasing homes, starting small businesses, health care, and so on) reinforce the idea of white, middle-class, and heteronormative families. The military rewards those who marry, produce children, and maintain families, in part because they represent the American ideal of reproducing citizens and in part because those family members and children provides the military with collateral. Such collateral encourages soldiers to stay in the military much longer and spares the military the trouble and expense of recruiting and training new soldiers.

Judgment Day: Entitlements, welfare, and marriage

The Repeal of DADT ensures that homosexual service members and their partners are now entitled to those military benefits including benefits administered by the G.I. Bill.

Now that DADT is repealed the government will be required to re-assess all of its military regulations including how, when, and to whom they should extend the benefits of the military welfare state. The military now has to determine standards for recognizing relationships and granting said benefits to partners of service members.

If the same policies or standards are applied to same-sex relationships that are applied to heterosexual relationships and a legal marriage is required in order to obtain basic military benefits such as shopping on base, housing allowances and separation pay, and so on along with wider federal benefits as assured by the G.I. Bill—it brings up the thornier question of legalizing same-sex marriages.

Also, if homosexual relationships are legally recognized by the military, it is not a far leap to pushing for reform and access to New Deal benefits for homosexual/bisexual citizens. Once the federal government recognizes and extends federal benefits on this scale through the New Deal state and the G.I. Bill, it creates a much more powerful impetus for the state and our legislative body to extend legal recognition to such unions.

In other words, the repeal of DADT brings us light years closer to federal recognition, at minimum, of same-sex unions and eventually same-sex marriage. That, my friends, is the next step and the true motivation behind the conservative right’s resistance to the repeal of DADT.

Same-sex marriage and extending federal benefits via the G.I. Bill (and ultimately the New Deal) for homosexual relationships are the bigger political questions that our conservative politicians, particularly those who depend on the support of the Moral Majority, wish to avoid. They, including Senator McCain, understand that. Those politicians are keenly aware that the party base, the Moral Majority that came to power in the 1980s and put Reagan in the White House, still carries tremendous political power as evidenced by Sarah Palin’s recent popularity.

The last thing those politicians, including Senator McCain, wants to do is antagonize the conservative right and appear that they did not fight the homosexual evil until the very end. After all, it was feminism and the gay rights movement in the 1960s that created this political surge that carried the GOP into sustained power for the first time since the 1920s and continue to be the same issues that matters to the party base that they depend on to stay in office.

With thanks to Emily Ott for supplying me with the information on modern-day military benefits and regulations.

The historical background in this article about the benefits and distribution of New Deal and G.I. Bill programs is derived from the following works: Margot Canady's "Building a Straight State: Sexuality and Social Citizenship under the 1944 G.I. Bill” from The Journal of American History and Alice Kessler-Harris' In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th Century America.


ABOUT OCTAVIAN ROBINSON
Octavian Robinson graduated from Gallaudet and is currently a Ph.D candidate at Ohio State. He lives in Ohio with his Weimaraner and three angry felines.

Full version of Why Marlee Matlin should be President is now available

The full video version of Glenn Lockhart's article, Political theater: Why Marlee Matlin should be President is now available (instead of being split up into parts).



Note: Glenn is currently working on adding a caption file to the video.

Two-party system? How about three? Or four? Five?

BY ADAM NADOLSKI

Credit: Matt Bors

Competition breeds contempt

Democrats and Republicans. Republicans and Democrats. There are no other parties involved in the national, state, and local level with actual power, even though the lion’s share is out there for individuals to choose from and support. Green party, Constitutional party, Libertarian party, Prohibition party, and Modern Whig party, amongst others, are examples of all such parties that have independent views as to what they believe is right for America and its future. Why aren’t these parties given more attention?

Look at Washington right now. Cooperation is lacking, venomous barbs being shot left and right, efforts at actual progress usually end up in media-filled hate spats immediately following said attempts. Where’s the focus on the issues? Where’s the focus on finding common ground? Where’s the focus on actually striking a common bond between individuals as human beings and not some power player perched atop their little Miss Muffet’s tuffet shooting muffins laced with arsenic? There used to be a time when a politician was a respected public individual who had the American Dream at heart combined with respect for the common man instead of being a muttered term under one’s breath packed together with curse word or two.

Is perception reality?

With these two parties in complete control of Washington and ultimately, the nation, how can this country progress and move forward if neither party can actually come to bipartisan agreements? What benefit is there to political grandstanding and encouraging the ideology that each political party’s philosophy is the right one and not the other? Progress is being held back by several things: media and linear thinking.

All you Michael Moore and Glenn Beck lovers out there, rejoice! You’ve marked an excellent period of history in which mass media has held an unbelievable amount of sway over American opinion, only spurred on by increasing media outlet opportunities. Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Digg, Huffington Post, FOX News, CNN, and various opinion websites—all of which is a fraction of information held by the unparalleled power of the internet. Yet a handful of websites hold sway over opinions of the voting republic. Savvy website designers, researchers, and internet marketing specialists have definitely recognized the fact that only a portion of American people vote, making it easier to segment and target “problem areas.” Targeting such areas leads me to my next point: linear thinking.

Being able to reach, educate, inspire, and lead any number group of Americans in any said cause has become easier than ever before. Wins and Losses has become the standard by which an American politician is measured, in which cooperation is lost. Politicians either vote for or against specific measures and years later, the same decision is dragged through the mud by opposing candidates during elections in efforts to smear an otherwise excellent politician who gets things done.

Case in point: Democratic House representatives who lost to Republican candidates based on voting solely "Yea" on the new health care plan. The total record of a candidate, their moral standing, their willingness to work with other people in congress, everything that makes up who they are is insignificant. One decision made in good faith affects a person’s entire political career. Refusal to see the other side’s point of view and an unwillingness to reach across the aisle puts empty ammo into the machine gun that is media, encouraging uninformed and misinformed Americans into voting on a whim.

Inner strife leads to change

Something’s gotta change. Instead of America being right all the time, why not look at other countries for examples of positive change?

“Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Taiwan and Sweden are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies.” —Wikipedia, Multi-Party System

Or even within our own country? In fact, look at the Tea Party! Well, perhaps not the best example, but an example nonetheless, a party that held sway in media, influencing votes during recent midterm elections. So, I ask you: What about changing government itself? I’m not asking for a complete destruction of the constitution and all its amendments but, rather, a tweaking. Allow for other parties to express their opinion as to what should happen in America? Instead of going to the ballot box on election day just to end up thinking, “Well, I like candidate three and four, but knowing that they don’t have a chance in hell of winning, I’d better vote for the lesser of two evils.”

“Well, I like candidate three and four, but knowing that they don’t have a chance in hell of winning, I’d better vote for the lesser of two evils.”

Granted, having a two party system has its advantages. In having two opposing viewpoints, common ground needs to be found in order to make progress, thus encouraging centrism. However, with the proliferation of media and enhanced abilities to make or destroy a person’s reputation, there’s no focus on the human side. A person’s soul, what drives them, motivates them, common decency, all of those things are being lost. A fascinating read, Mr. Avlon, raises the point of human interaction being lost in changing times. With this in mind, it’s also worth noting that a two-party system encourages a simpler government, less chance of figurative chasms opening up between the parties and better economic growth with political stability. Then again, look at Washington and, to a greater degree, the nation.

Diversity abounds

Back in 1776 when America first started, there were approximately 2.5 million Americans (not counting the abomination that is slavery as well as Native Americans.) Today, there are over three hundred million Americans. Quite the jump in the last 235 years, which also leads to a proportionate rise in the amount of differing opinions amongst Americans. Over time, there have been political parties that have risen and fallen, but two staying powers have endured the test of time: Republicans and Democrats.

To tame the cat and mouse games happening in Washington, new parties need to be formed. New work dogs are needed in order to strive towards and encourage actual, tenable change towards fair consideration of all Americans and their viewpoints. So, what’s wrong with forming a new party that has actual legs in Congress, there to provide more solutions and ideas towards collaboration and successful advancing of causes important to small groups of Americans? (A deaf political party? Have some mulled cider on that one, friends.)

If America can choose from tens, hundreds of different kinds of cars, phones, even toilet paper, why can’t they choose from more than two political parties? In addition to this, Wikipedia’s description of multi-party system benefits state it best, “If there are multiple major parties, each with less than a majority of the vote, the parties are strongly motivated to work together to form working governments. This also promotes centrism, as well as promoting coalition-building skills while discouraging polarization.”

Sounds a lot like the opposite of Washington right now.

The only constant in life is change

With what’s happening in congress right now being extremely disheartening, acting out is the only way to cause change. When paired with a determination to not fall back into old habits, new ideology is formed for the better. And when cause happens and is supported, effect shall take hold. In making this change happen, grassroots efforts are needed. Taking 15-30 minutes a day put forth in speaking to people, finding out their feelings about politics, and encouraging them to think independently. Pairing that with resources that drives unbiased education helps as well. Helping a person see the wisdom in being able to form their own opinions instead of being led by what other people say on television, internet, radio, magazines, and whatnot helps tremendously.

In addition to simply being unafraid to talk about it, believing something will change overnight with only limited effort is just half-assing it. Taking on a bricklayer mentality and doing it brick by brick (ideas) supplied with loads of cement (action) leads to the betterment of a person and group. In encouraging grassroots campaigns for the formation of a new party, encouragement of campaign finance reform is needed as well. You can do this by writing a letter to your local representative, calling for action on campaign finance reform. Ask friends to help out!

For every action, there is a reaction.


ABOUT ADAM NADOLSKI
Adam Nadolski is currently pursuing a degree in Marketing at Rochester Institute of Technology and working at a local restaurant in Rochester. He enjoys live music, fresh, delicious foods, and challenging himself to thinking differently.

DOJ seeks public comments on many deaf-related issues

Information is from HLAA, CCAC, and MDODHH.

Department of Justice

On July 26, 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a notice that it is considering changes to its regulations to require movie theater owners and operators to show captioned movies. DOJ is inviting written comments from members of the public. Comments sent by U.S. mail must be postmarked and electronic comments must be transmitted on or before January 24, 2011.

The DOJ proposes to require movie theater owners and operators to show films with closed captioning. DOJ proposes to limit this requirement to no more than 50 percent of the films shown, and DOJ is willing to give owners and operators up to 5 years to get to the 50 percent mark.

DOJ is seeking comments in response to 26 questions. Click here to access the entire document with all the questions. You can reply to some or all of the questions. We suggest at a minimum, that you respond to DOJ Question #1:

1. DOJ is proposing that the percentage of movie screens offering closed captioning be set at 10 percent after one year and increased 10 percent a year until 50 percent is reached. Does this approach provide a proper balance between providing accessibility to consumers, on one hand, and giving owners and operators time to acquire the necessary equipment, on the other hand?

We need you to let the DOJ know that 50% in five years is not enough.

More on filing public comments

The Department of Justice has scheduled three public hearings on four Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), which seek public comment on the possibility of revising the ADA regulations to address accessible web information and services, movie captioning and video description, accessibility of Next Generation 9-1-1, and accessible equipment and furniture. The ANPRMs were published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2010, and the comment period for them closes on January 24, 2011. There will be a hearing held at the United States Access Board in Washington, D.C. on December 16, 2010, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. There will be another hearing for January 2011 in San Francisco, CA, at a date and location to be announced in the near future on the ADA website.

For additional information, including the procedures for registering to comment at the hearings and for requesting special accommodations, click here for the advance text of the Department's Notice of Public Hearings.

You may be wondering, "What exactly is 'public comment' and what is its purpose?" Many federal, state, and local agencies request the opinions, experience, and expertise of constituents when making changes to policies and plans, goals and objectives. Submitting public comment is important because it is an opportunity to affect policy that touches daily life. A call for public comment invites any member of the public, including individuals, communities, and organizations, to influence policy-making in a very concrete way.

Though writing public comment is relatively easy to do, too few people take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself. The first step is finding requests for public comment. You can do this by monitoring the Federal Register.

The second step is writing the comment itself. Base your comment on your qualifications to respond, whether they are personal experience, organizational advocacy, vocational or professional background, or specialized knowledge. If the call for public comment requests that you provide specific information, then provide that first. Be sure that your comment has a narrow focus, evidence and analysis supporting your opinion, public support of your view, and resolutions or alternatives (if applicable). Finally, be sure to review and revise your comment to ensure it is taken seriously.

Click here to submit public comments, and encourage others to do the same!

Quote of the day

It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen. —GEORGE E. MACDONALD

Vlog of "Why Marlee Matlin should be President", Part 1 of 5

Vlogs are by Glenn Lockhart.

For a text version of the vlogs, go here to read his article.



Watch Part 2.
Watch Part 3.
Watch Part 4.
Watch Part 5.

Political theater: Why Marlee Matlin should be President

BY GLENN LOCKHART

We’ve all been there as a deaf 11-year-old, being told by an adult: “Yes, you can someday be President of the United States!”

Maybe some of us have even started telling that to 11-year-olds. I have two deaf nephews still far from their 11th birthdays and I truly believe that, for them, the sky can be the limit. But will I tell them that they can someday become our president?

There are two possible broad motives to this: First, it’s about them: We want them to know the highest office is achievable for them. We don’t necessarily want them to become president, just to see another deaf person take the office and know incontrovertibly that they could, too. Thus, we want to inspire them.

Second, it’s about us: We want one of our own representing us or our interests in government. It’s a government for and by the people, and we need to assert our participation. Understanding us isn’t enough; having lived as we are living should be the minimum. Thus, we want empowerment.

For both reasons, I nominate Marlee Matlin. Whether we’re talking inspiration or empowerment, she has the necessary quasi-credentials.

Marlee Matlin

Hollywood

If we’re talking inspiration, let’s not get carried away. Let’s do what really counts... make a blockbuster movie! It’s what shapes perceptions.

Marlee is bankable—she has an Oscar. Also, she was on 17 episodes of “The West Wing” (which was called “The White House” in Israel and Japan). That’s Oval Office cred! She could reprise a West Winger without doubt from the moviegoing public just as Dennis Franz has been a cop on 27 different sitcoms and movies. She could even be typecast in President roles until the end of her career just as Clint Eastwood remained in vigilante characters until the end of his acting days.

Marlee is from Chicago. To start, we could see about financing from fellow Chicago native Oprah Winfrey, head of Harpo Productions and the face of the most successful media story in our history. A billionaire activist, Oprah is also a transplanted Southern Californian and well understands the power of opportunity.

But to what effect would a movie have? Marlee already has an Oscar and 24 years later we’re still giving out the empty assertion that we can become U.S. President. The crucial difference is that this time Marlee wouldn’t be portraying a janitor, the “Children of a Lesser God” role that won her the Oscar.

Look no further than Dennis Haysbert, the Allstate spokesperson who was President David Palmer on “24.” Google his name and Barack Obama, and you’ll get his assertions that his character helped matters for Obama, that the fictitious President David Palmer “painted a picture of just how America would be if a black man were in charge, and that viewers liked what they saw.”

'...the fictitious President David Palmer “painted a picture of just how America would be if a black man were in charge, and that viewers liked what they saw.”'

I personally believe that it isn’t enough that you know a black person; you have to see the person “cast” in a different light. Let me share a movie that doubled as a teachable opportunity: I grew up spending hours everyday at a friend’s house with a live-in autistic uncle but it was when I saw “Rain Man” that something finally... clicked. Every time I had been with the autistic uncle in the same room, I ignored him; I couldn’t show the same indifference during a two-hour depiction that crammed in a lifetime’s narrative. I was 13 at the time and on my way to making sense of the world. That night I called my friend on the TTY and said of his uncle, “So that’s him, and that’s what he can do.”

So, that’s what I believe a movie with Marlee as U.S. President could achieve for us.

Washington, DC

If we’re talking empowerment, let’s go all the way. Do what really matters... run for the Oval Office! It’s where you steer policy.

Marlee is, once again, from Chicago. In campaigning, we could see about stumping from fellow Chicagoan and President Barack Obama who, as America and history have witnessed, is all about setting a new precedent. That he has twice waged successful campaigns as an upstart—to the Senate then to the U.S. Presidency—tells us Marlee as president is not out of reach. Yes we can. Change.

However, Obama was a senator and in 2008 became the first legislator in 40 years to accede to the Presidency. Nixon, another lawyer-turned-Senator was the last to do this. Obama and Nixon’s administrations sandwich those of four state governors and two vice-presidents of the U.S.

Not only that, Marlee’s main opponent—either as the Democratic Party nominee or in winning the GOP nomination—will probably be Sarah Palin, who has executive experience as governor of Alaska.

Strategy is never scientific and Obama would say he proved otherwise, but our best chance might be to... first make Marlee governor!

Incidentally, she lives in California and their road to State Governor is well-paved for this: Outgoing governor Schwarzenegger and, of course, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan parlayed their Hollywood careers into Sacramento politics. So if you’re on IMDB.com, Californians just might elect you into office.

Also, neither has an Oscar so that just might put Marlee on top!

Acting versus taking action

Whether Marlee gets to the White House only in the movies or by way of Sacramento, this is worth mentioning—Marlee won’t be “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That is, you won’t find naivete among her baggage. She has put her relative celebrity to our advantage:

• She has repeatedly testified before Congress on landmark legislation affecting the deaf community: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 21st Century Communications Act. Her testimonies have spanned 20 years.
• Last July her speech was one of several that opened for President Obama’s commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This took place right on the lawn of the White House.
• She currently serves as a trustee at Gallaudet University—which as a federally funded institution has three members of Congress serve. This means tri-annual contact, most notably with fellow Californian U.S. Representative Lynn Woosley.
• Marlee was a spokesperson for a national Get Out The Vote campaign, although I cannot find for what year. Also, she stars in "Baby Wordsworth," part of the "Baby Einstein" DVD series in which sign language is taught to infants and toddlers, possibly winning her their votes in 2030 and beyond!

Okay, I reached throughout that last bullet. However, given her longevity, Marlee has unquestionably grown savvy: She serves as a spokesperson for the American Red Cross; appeared in ads for AOL and Apple; and was an invited lecturer to Google. The list goes on, really, and her extended media exposure has made her into a potent torchlight.

Marlee has long advocated, and more recently for us and our issues. But where does she go from here, especially with 60,000 followers on Twitter?

Inspiration or Aspiration?

If Marlee wants to keep on acting, I hope she wins a second Oscar. But not so much if it means again portraying a janitor. That only allows us to tell 11-year-olds, “See, you can be in the movies!”—something we already are saying.

If she wants to produce, great! She tried this in the late ‘90s for Lifetime and recently pitched My Deaf Family, a pilot on my nephew’s first cousins (it’s a small world!—and why I’ve hyperlinked to it!) that networks didn’t pick up. At some point it’s not improbable she could cast a deaf actor as President.

If she does neither acting nor producing, then she could endlessly reprise her spots on Dancing With The Stars and Celebrity Apprentice... or dare we suggest that she maybe go for public service, thereby really making a go for reality TV?

I have eight years before my eldest nephew turns 11, but you don’t hold back on encouragement. My brother and his wife sternly and admirably raise him day-to-day so when I visit he looks to me for complicity with domestic misdemeanors. He will eventually realize I’m not that cool and begin to look beyond his deaf family for additional role models. I hope among them will be the U.S. President.

I’ll not meander any further: What do we hope to achieve when we kneel eye-level to a deaf child and say, “You can grow up to be President of the U.S.”? Do we want these 11-year-olds to defiantly claim any ambition as within reach or to actually strive to become CEO of a country?

Just imagine: Marlee as U.S. President, either on the silver screen or in the White House.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Vlog(s) can be viewed here.


ABOUT GLENN LOCKHART
Glenn Lockhart is 4th generation deaf and lives on both coasts, with family in his hometown of DC and while doing copywriting and project management for Convo Communications in San Ramon, CA. He graduated from Gallaudet then the Cronkite school at Arizona State. Friend him on Facebook.

Creating systemic change, Part III

BY ERIN ESPOSITO

There are so many important components of systemic change. The first part of this series discussed how to prepare oneself for advocating, educating and lobbying. The second part of this series focused on the importance of having the courage to act, the skill to communicate one’s convictions, and the ability to successfully connect. The third and final part of this series addresses the role of community accountability in creating systemic change.

You are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem

Eldridge Cleaver, leading member of the Black Panther Party during the Civil Rights Movement, once said that we are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem.

How often do we see or hear people identifying, complaining, expressing frustration or concern, with regards to a social, political or legal issue or challenge? How often do we see or hear people actually taking the next step, by doing something about it? Chances are, more often than not, we see people partaking in the former far more than we see them acting the latter. This is where community accountability comes into the picture. Either we are a part of the solution or a part of the problem.

38 States and 2 years later

When I graduated with my B.S. degree from RIT, in 1996, my first professional job was that of a Recruiter with the NTID Admissions department. I traveled to 38 different states over the course of two years—going to countless mainstreamed and residential programs to talk with deaf and hard of hearing high school students about NTID/RIT.

I vividly recall several school visits where I would be asked by the teacher to “ignore” a few of the deaf students in the classroom because they were not “college-bound.” My blood was boiling. I could hardly believe that an educator of the deaf would have the nerve to say that to me, but more importantly, that they deprived their own students of hope. These teachers, I was adamantly determined, should have their teaching credentials revoked!

Another time, I remember walking into an inner city school in the heart of Detroit, Michigan, at 7:30am, only to be shocked by what I was seeing: one line for female students, one line for male students—both lines were going through respective metal detectors, followed by individual body frisks by security officers. As much as the notion of students going through metal detectors and being frisked irked me, nothing compared when it dawned on me that all of the students were Black. I, again, was livid! I thought to myself, “This is 1996! What about Brown vs. Board of Education?! That was in 1954—this is 42 years later—and we still have segregated schools?”

I have so many more stories to share, but my point here is, I would often call my parents and share these stories with them. They could sense my frustration about what I perceived to be the dismal state of Deaf education and social injustices transpiring. My father would keep telling me, “Erin… you have two choices: either you can be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.” It finally dawned on me that I would only be contributing to the problem if I didn’t do something about it. Lo and behold, I submitted my letter of resignation after two years as a recruiter and enrolled into graduate school to get my Masters degree in Deaf Education.

I would end up becoming a high school English and Social Studies Teacher at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont (CSDF) for almost four years. While I was at CSDF, I helped set up the Advanced Placement program and taught two AP classes—this was, in my mind, a way to create and contribute to systemic change (on a school-wide level). I opted to be a part of the solution, instead of a part of the problem by helping raise the bar on education within the field of Deaf education.


Community accountability

There are countless social, economic, and cultural issues which affect us all. A few examples of issues that either directly or indirectly impacts us are: domestic violence, captioning access, and racism.

When we see one person verbally, emotionally or physically abuse another person and we don’t hold the abuser accountable for their behavior, we are only helping perpetuate the problem of domestic violence in our society.

When we see companies like Netflix not caption their movies, but we don’t call, write or contact them to express concern and frustration about the lack of access with the absence of captioned movies, we are allowing them to continue to deny us our basic rights to equal access.

When we see one person make racist comments or participating in behavior which only reinforces the stereotyping or bias against a specific ethnic group and we don’t call them on their derogatory comments or behaviors, then we are, basically, permitting such unhealthy and divisive acts.

To respond to certain actions, we are holding people responsible for what they’re doing or what they’ve done and expecting a different result in the interest of the greater good. This is community accountability in systemic change.

Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.


ABOUT ERIN ESPOSITO
Erin Esposito is the Executive Director of Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Victims (ASADV) in Rochester, NY. She is also the current Chair of the NTID Alumni Association Board of Directors.