The impotency of the National Association of the Deaf

BY OCTAVIAN ROBINSON


A response to Joey Baer's open letter

Joey Baer recently created an open letter to the NAD regarding Governor Daniels’ appointees to the Board of the Indiana School for the Deaf. In short, he wondered what action the NAD was going to take. So far, on Twitter, Facebook, and the NAD website, there has been no response.

In the past, Bobbie Beth Scoggins, President of the NAD, has commented that the NAD could not be all things to everyone and that the states [organizations] would have to take the lead in effecting change rather than rely upon the NAD to do the ‘work.’

To address Scoggins’ comment that the NAD could not be all things to everyone: I imagine I understand why the NAD has not responded. Pedagogical methods in deaf education is a highly polarizing issue and the NAD seems reluctant to take a position that might favor a particular method above another. However, I believe that the NAD can and should have responded to Governor Daniels’ appointments by framing their response in a way that highlighted the issue as one of exclusion. The exclusion of input from the very population that Governor Daniels’ decision affects the most is simply inexcusable. The exclusion of the deaf and hard of hearing community in this decision making process reeks of paternalism and political cronyism. These two points can be used effectively to appeal Governor Daniels’ appointments without wading into a pedagogical debate.

The second portion of Scoggins’ comment centers on the most effective sites of deaf activism. History supports Scoggins’ position. The majority of changes throughout the 20th century that benefited deaf people came from state and local action, not national action. Preserving deaf people’s right to marry; the right to drive; the right to insurance; the right to education for deaf children, the right to an interpreter in court; protections from employment discrimination; labor bureaus; and so on forth happened because of the activism of state organizations. To continue to gain greater rights and access to citizenship for deaf people, it is crucial that state and local organizations remain vigorously active and to be proactive about creating opportunities to act for change rather than reacting to circumstances. State organizations, especially in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and California were largely responsible for expanding deaf people’s access to citizenship and equality during the first half of the 20th century. States have been, for a long time, and continue to be where change takes place. States serve as laboratories for social policy for the federal government (and not just in terms of deaf-related legislation). For this reason, it is important that state organizations be powerful, active, and engaged in any and all political processes available.

Although state and local action are the primary drivers of legislative successes, this early activism happened because of effective leadership on part of the NAD. The NAD took advantage of correspondence and the silent press [deaf newspapers] to mobilize the rank and file, coordinate state and local activism, tie the activism of state and local organizations to the goals of the NAD, and provided crucial resources to local and state activists. The NAD may not have had its officers ‘on the ground’ and at the scene of every legislative fight but it acted as a leader. That leadership is absent today. Part of this is because the NAD has backed away from divisive political rhetoric that shaped the NAD during its early history. Part of this is because the NAD is poorly organized and is not structured in a way that encourages a cohesive approach to achieving the changes we desperately want to see take place: especially in the arenas of employment, education, and communication.

In terms of leadership, one of the most important strengths of the NAD throughout most of its history were its Calls to Action. Those Calls to Action mobilized the rank and file across the country, motivated hundreds of local and state leaders to take action, guided those leaders in creating effective strategies, and developed a coherent agenda that best served the interests of the deaf community as a whole. Those Calls to Action also served as models of success to state and local organizations that wanted to emulate the legislative successes achieved in other communities and states across the country.

The NAD has failed miserably in this regard. Most glaring is its failure to use social media efficiently. Their Twitter and Facebook accounts are filled with pretty bits of public relations and self-laudatory remarks. There are no CALLS TO ACTION. There is no clear sense of leadership—no clear sense of agenda, objectives, bringing issues to our attention, and so on forth.

Readers, compare the NAD’s Twitter account to those of the ACLU, NAACP, and other premier civil rights organizations. When something goes down in a state or a locality, those organizations tweet about it-without necessarily taking a political position. When things went down in Indiana regarding the ISD board, the NAD didn’t peep although it could have done so without taking a political position. In this day and age, timeliness and efficient use of technology matters more than ever. We shouldn’t wait so long for the NAD to respond.

The NAD’s resources are admittedly limited. They may not be able to take on all campaigns for expanding our access to citizenship in all localities but it is their job to lead, direct, mobilize, and inspire.


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.

Why are we not politically active?

BY MARVIN MILLER

This video is part 1 of 2. The second video should be posted in a week or two. Keep an eye out!



TRANSCRIPT:
Hello, I thought I'd take this as an opportunity to do a vlog for Deaf Politics. I want to talk about my meeting with someone from the Indiana Governor's office today. We had an intense discussion and a lot of educating had to be done. It wasn't a passive meeting and we butted heads a few times. Lots of clarifications were made, and we took turns presenting our points. That experience taught me an important lesson: We can do it. We can go up to legislators. We can meet and talk. We can do all of that. But a problem arises, why don't we do it? Why aren't we?

One reason could be is that we're all busy. We keep saying we should and then we end up doing nothing. Obviously that's not the only reason. There are other reasons.

As a community, the level of training and leadership, not just for the youth but adults as well, are very limited. Resources, especially, are scarce. We are starving. Famished. And as a result, we become emaciated. How come? I'll explain. All of this is due to years of war. Oppression caused by oralism. Is this war over? No. Oralism is still happening. You can notice it when comparing deaf schools to mainstream programs. And because of mainstream programs, we lose deaf people to the system. This means the deaf community becomes smaller. There are times when deaf people discover the community later rather than early. And oftentimes, they arrive traumatized and new to the whole thing. They learn to adapt and the rest of us already here, we try to support them with what little time we do have. Because of this, we have even less time to have proper discourse on critical issues. We're weak in this area.

Third reason? Money saved up for the future. This one is extremely important. The truth is that our community is poor. For example, Indiana Association of the Deaf has about $50k in balance and if you divide that with 125 years of existence, we basically set aside $300 something each year. That's what we've been doing. This is how we got to where we are now. Is that good enough?

I don't think so. This is something to think about. All of our hard work with many good people over the years and what do we have to show for it? I am touched and affected by this realization.

Now let's talk about politics. Politics is important, yes. But, first, we need to invest in ourselves. What does that mean? It means we need to make hard choices. For example, suppose I am a person who struggles financially, lives in a trailer or a cramped apartment, owns an old car, and I want to have a nice house and a fancy car, I want, I want, I want. How does one get from point A to point B? I have to make decisions. I could go to college, get training, work hard, or set up a business, and work even harder, save up, and make the decisions to cut spending. Save money over time. There's a long list of things we have to do to get the things we want, to be able to travel and see the world and whatever else we desire to do. In the beginning, it's hard to be able to do all you want so we do one or two for now.

As time goes by, your earnings and savings increase. This means what? You have more freedom to do the
things you've wanted to do. Your horizons broaden. This principle applies to the current situation with the deaf community. We are now struggling with finances and investments in ourselves are subpar. So we need to start now. Prioritize, make plans to save money and build a surplus. Let's look at our capabilities to solve problems. Right now, maybe one per year but with the surplus built over time, we can tackle so many more. We need to start now. We gotta start somewhere.

Thank you.


ABOUT MARVIN MILLER
Marvin Miller is president of Indiana Association of the Deaf, and he is a board member of The Deafhood Foundation. He is father of four Deaf children currently attending Indiana School for the Deaf.

Netflix: Make films accessible for the deaf and hard of hearing

BY SEBASTIAN ST. TROY

I started the petition because I recently lost the majority of my hearing and discovered the many challenges the deaf and hard-of-hearing face every day, especially in terms of entertainment access. I've been a long time subscriber to Netflix and when I discovered how little of their content had subtitles (CC and subtitles used interchangeably), I did some research into Netflix and what they were doing or had promised to do to provide equal access. I also researched various laws, including H.R.3101 and ADA.


Although Netflix has been working to improve access by the inclusion of subtitles, there remained limited ways to search their content, not to mention that now with limited access I still had to pay the full subscription rate. Thus, the beginnings of the petition.

Now there is a civil action lawsuit against Netflix regarding this same issue by Don Cullen and The Weston Firm in San Diego. Believing that consumer activism can affect corporate policies faster than our legal system, I'm now working with Change.org to promote the petition in hopes that through the voices of many that Netflix will improve access. Here is what we are requesting of Netflix through the petition:

1. Display "with subtitles" (or other clearly identifiable mark) below the movie/TV show name on all displays of content selections as a stop-gap measure until ALL movies have CC or subtitles.
2. Netflix to provide detailed search functionality of content with subtitles, not just a simple listing of such content.
3. Upon implementation of such, advertise heavily in the deaf and hard of hearing communities informing us about the implementation success.
4. Netflix to provide a "limited access rate" (or a substantial discount) to any person who is deaf or hard of hearing until ALL content provides equal access, which can be accomplished through a simple legal certification process of your choosing. Perhaps through a direct email address for any deaf or hard of hearing customers to prove such status.

Check out the petition here. I look forward to seeing your signature!


ABOUT SEBASTIAN ST. TROY
After obtaining a dual degree in Architectural and Landscape Design from Louisiana State University, he joined the U.S. Air Force. Years later, he began to lose his hearing and this inspired him to become active in deaf-related campaigns. Currently, he lives in Austin, Texas with his family and works as the founder of Architecture Energy Initiative.

Deaf Slavery in America

BY OCTAVIAN ROBINSON


Don’t give your money to deaf peddlers or panhandlers. Not even if you really like their trinkets. Not even if their plea for help tugs at your heart and purse strings. Chances are, they’re slaves—illegal immigrants being exploited by ‘Beggar Kings’—a term originally coined by deaf leaders in the early 20th century.

The History of Anti-Peddling Attitudes

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the deaf community pursued an aggressive campaign against Beggar Kings who exploited undereducated young deaf men and women. Deaf leaders charged that those ringleaders of peddling rings were exploiting young deaf men and women who did not possess much in way of intellect, education, or vocational skills. Beggar Kings were believed to have kept as much as 70% of what their peddlers earned, forced their peddlers to live in substandard housing, work long hours, and subjected them to beatings and unwanted sexual advances.

Deaf leaders wrote to the FBI and the IRS, accusing Beggar Kings by name of criminal acts such as tax evasion and trafficking in young women for immoral purposes in violation of the Mann Act. The campaigns against deaf slavery in the 1940s and 1950s were born of earlier campaigns against imposters, hearing panhandlers pretending to be deaf, during the first part of the 20th century.

---

Deaf leaders charged that those ringleaders of peddling rings were exploiting young deaf men and women who did not possess much in way of intellect, education, or vocational skills.

---

Those early campaigns against imposters were driven by self-preservation. Deaf people believed that chronic underemployment/unemployment and attacks on sign language based education methods were a result of the public’s impression of deaf people as a class of dependents. Leaders in the deaf community believed that imposters were directly responsible for this impression. The anti-imposter campaigns of the early 20th century combined with the anti-peddling campaigns of the mid-20th century combined to create a lasting attitude of condescension toward peddlers that persists to this day.

Modern Day Deaf Slavery

The issue of modern deaf slavery came to light when, in 1997, two deaf peddlers entered a police station in New York City and beseeched the police to help them. They revealed stories of regular abuse, beatings, torture by stun guns, rape, and exploitation. They were not allowed to go ‘home’ unless they had earned $100 for the day’s work. The police then raided a two-bedroom apartment in Queens and discovered 57 terrified men, women, and children imprisoned in crowded, filthy quarters.

Deaf slavery is still a problem in the United States. CNN recently posted a brief uncaptioned video about deaf slavery in America as part of its Freedom Project. The Freedom Project is a yearlong focus by CNN that centers on the problem of slavery and human trafficking. The video was uncaptioned and presented a rather sanitized version of deaf slavery. The darker details were revealed in the late 1990s when the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times published a series of articles that exposed the gruesome details of deaf slavery taking place in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and even small towns like Sanford, South Carolina. Similar stories were also published in Western Europe describing the exploitation of illegal deaf Eastern European immigrants.

The odds are likely that deaf peddlers and panhandlers we encounter these days are being exploited and subject to beatings, torture, rape, unwanted sexual advances, false imprisonment, and forced to live in inhumane conditions. Those people are disenfranchised and living in fear. They are powerless because of their illegal immigrant status and feel unable to seek help from law enforcement authorities. They also confront linguistic challenges because many lack fluency in their own native languages, the languages of their adopted country, and are often illiterate. Many also live under the threat of bodily harm being committed against their loved ones if they break rank.

---

[Deaf peddlers] are disenfranchised and living in fear. They are powerless because of their illegal immigrant status and feel unable to seek help from law enforcement authorities.

---

In the late 1990s, mainstream media and the deaf press covered stories about deaf illegal immigrants being exploited but since then have remained largely silent.

Contemporary Attitudes

Apparently forgetting the news coverage of modern day deaf slavery in the 1990s and in response to persistent attitudes of condescension toward deaf peddlers, some people in the deafhood movement have recently insisted that in the spirit of fraternity we ‘support’ deaf peddlers by buying their wares and to not look down on them. Peddling trinkets and panhandling for a living is certainly an individual’s prerogative and be far from it for any of us to judge what a person chooses to do for a living.

However, we must remember that when we ‘support’ deaf peddlers, we are most likely supporting Beggar Kings who are exploiting and enslaving our deaf brethren. Peddling and panhandling are fine. Supporting exploitation and enslavement is not.

Report suspected cases of slavery or human trafficking to law enforcement authorities.

Check out these articles:
Deaf L.A. Peddlers Say They Know N.Y. Sellers
For Deaf Peddlers, Both Opportunity And Exploitation
Deaf Peddlers Were Tortured With Stun Guns, Enforcer Says


ABOUT OCTAVIAN ROBINSON
Octavian Robinson is currently a PhD candidate at the Ohio State University. His dissertation centers on the anti-impostor and anti-peddling campaigns conducted by the American Deaf community from 1880-1953.

Trumping birtherism

BY JIM MCCARTHY

The aliens are landing

The so-called "birther" movement is an odd one. Generally composed of fringe conservative extremists, this group of people is vehemently certain that the current President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, is in office illegally.

Their rationale for this is that he isn't an American citizen. He just isn't, they insist. It's obvious.

From the plains of Kenya

The birther argument is nebulous at best, kludged-together at worst. Not only was his father not an American citizen, but he spent most of his formative years in Indonesia as the adopted son of an Indonesian citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that anyone born on American soil is an American citizen, guaranteed. Let's take a look at Section 1, which is the most (but not the only) relevant clause:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The history of this amendment only makes its dragging through the mud by birthers all the more interesting: It was enacted in response to the Dred Scott case, in which the Supreme Court held that black people couldn't be citizens, in defiance of the already-passed Civil Rights Act of 1866. The addition of this amendment was essentially a slap in the face of the Court, delivered from a Congress intent on ensuring that the Civil War really was over.

Birthers hate the Fourteenth Amendment. There are a lot of reasons for this.

---

The Fourteenth Amendment to to the Constitution states that anyone born on American soil is an American citizen, guaranteed.

---

They're coming for you

In general, the birther movement appears to be a natural outgrowth—or side-tumor—of anti-illegal-immigration sentiment. Of course, when one says "anti-illegal-immigration," one really means "anti-Mexican." Our southern friends are notorious in some circles for creeping over our borders, sneaking into our beds, and stealing away in the penumbra dawn with our jobs.

It's why a wall is being built along our border with Mexico, why there are armed vigilantes roaming the great southern wastes a-horseback, and why Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County is what he is.

It is also, interestingly, why the state of Arizona passed a law last year making it legal for law enforcement agents to demand proof of citizenship upon suspicion of illegal activity. By which one means, of course, looking Mexican.

Unfortunately, all of this is complicated by the simple fact that it is, in fact, possible to both look Mexican and be an American citizen. And you don't even need to be a wizard to accomplish this. One of the most common ways of pulling off this magic trick is naturalization; the second most common is, of course, being born here. And a lot of Mexicans are born here. They get called "anchor babies."

Anchor babies really bother these guys.

Run, white boy, run

The vein of xenophobia that runs through our culture is undeniable and has a lot of basis in history. It's not just that we enslaved black people; we also purged the world of the scourge that is the American Indian, told the Irish that they Need Not Apply, convinced the Chinese that we just needed them to build us a railroad or two, and gave the Japanese an internship or two.

All of this with a clause in our Constitution that says that these people, if they were born on our fortunate soil, are citizens and equal to everyone else under the law.

So it's not really surprising that now that a proud Nubian is President of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment suddenly becomes a lot more relevant for some people. The reasons why are the stuff of pure speculation; who can say? Maybe they're afraid the brown people are taking over. Maybe they secretly envy his prowess on the basketball court. Maybe they're afraid their wives will watch the State of the Union and wonder to themselves if it's true what everyone says about black men.

Either way, this amendment is key to the birther argument; specifically, the first sentence. Let's take a look at the moving parts.

You'll wish you hadn't been born

It starts off by talking about people who have been born or naturalized in the United States. This is pretty straightforward. If the United States owns the land you were born on, it owns you.


Since Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, an American state, the conclusion is obvious. But the birther objections to this particular point run along two very different tracks and are peculiar in two very different ways. They are generally mutually exclusive; no birther currently extant (or at least covered by the media) appears to subscribe to both. It's usually one or the other.

Objection one: He was actually born in Kenya. The thinking behind the idea that Ann Dunham and the first Barack Obama would have gotten pregnant, spent eight idyllic months in the South Pacific, then flown halfway around the world in the last month of incubation so that their child would be born in Africa is puzzling at best.

This was 1961, mind you—even in those primitive days, it is safe to assume that Hawaii would have been a far superior place to give birth.

Objection two: Hawaii wasn't an American state at the time of Barack Obama's birth. We all know that Hawaii was awarded statehood in 1959 along with Alaska—it's the fiftieth star on our flag. So it's not that these people are completely ignorant of history.

No, they mostly figure that Barack Obama actually wasn't born in 1961. They think he was born in 1958 or some such year prior to Hawaiian statehood. This is one of the primary drivers behind the calls for a birth certificate.

Naturally, this is pretty dumb, mostly because Hawaii was an American territory for 60 years before statehood; it might not have been a full-fledged state, but its residents were legal American citizens, much like Puerto Rico today.

Your boss is on the phone

The other part of the first sentence is actually fairly significant: " ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... "

What this means is that if your parents were agents of a foreign power in any capacity at the time of your birth, you are not eligible for citizenship even if you're born on U.S. soil. This applies to, for instance, children of diplomats and foreign heads of state.

The general thinking in this case is that the President's father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and its colonies. Therefore he was an "agent," though of what government, I can't figure out. Which kind of makes me a little excited; I'm an American citizen—does this mean I get to traipse off to Canada and apply enhanced-interrogation techniques in order to figure out why poutine is even possible?

The smarter birthers note that the senior Obama was a governmental economist for Kenya, which means relatively little in the bigger picture. He wasn't working for the Kenyan government at the time of the President's birth; he was going to college on a scholarship offered by a program that allowed bright young Africans to pursue Western education opportunities.

Those sound like some pretty good bootstraps right there.

Unfortunately, it all means, to some, that the President's an anchor baby. And we all know how folks feel about those.

He says quit or be fired

When all else fails, birthers often point at Obama's time in Indonesia. His mother, an anthropologist, had fallen in love with a Javanese surveyor and once she'd graduated with her B.A., moved to Jakarta with her kid in tow. He was six years old at the time.

He was ten when he came back to Hawaii. Stories abound about what happened in Indonesia: had his stepfather legally adopted him? Had he therefore lost his U.S. citizenship? Was Barack Obama an illegal immigrant?

The answer, of course, is no. Legally speaking, once you have your citizenship, there are only two ways—and I do mean only two ways—you can stop being a citizen of the U.S.:

1. Fraudulent naturalization. This barely counts, because technically speaking, once your fraud is found out, a declaration is issued that you were never a citizen in the first place. It's like an annulment, only without the Grey Goose and Vegas.
2. Voluntary relinquishment through a renunciation process specifically established by the State Department. Given that the kid was six when he moved to Indonesia, one wonders if, even had he gone through the process, it would have been valid. I don't think so.

But all of this ignores the key document: the birth certificate.

Your papers, citizen

Why is the birth certificate so important?

Generally speaking, it's central to the argument that the President was not born in the U.S., which is the central argument of the birther movement. It's easy to forget this, because when you try to pin them down, they end up wriggling their way through pretty much everything else in this post. When they're calling in reinforcements that have only the most tenuous relationship with the original point, you start to suspect that maybe things aren't quite kosher here.

But I'm drawing a line between this particular movement and the anti-illegal-immigration legislation passed in Arizona, as well as all the other things we hear about coming out of the Southwest. Looking at history, it's fairly typical: We don't handle difference well.

It's all over

So now that President Obama has released his Certificate of Live Birth, therefore proving conclusively once and for all that he is, in fact, not an alien from Mars—or worse, Kenya—or worser, Mexico—things are pretty well settled, right?

In this age of Photoshop, you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise. Hit up Google—I don't feel like offering links to this nuttiness—and you'll find people talking about the "layers" in the electronic copy released by the White House conclusively proving its fakery, to say nothing of Orly Taitz and her ilk claiming that because the words "birth" and "certificate" in "certificate of live birth" are switched around, it's not actually a birth certificate.

Whatever.

You're in trouble now

The funny thing is that technically, the birthers are correct. Not that he's ineligible for the Presidency, but that his citizenship constitutes some muddy waters.

It's more than just the fact that his father was not an American; it's the fact at at the time the President was born, the senior Obama was a citizen of the United Kingdom and its colonies.

UK citizenship is automatically conferred upon the children of male UK citizens, regardless of where they're born. Therefore, Barack Obama II was born a dual citizen, of both the United States and the United Kingdom. Some birthers argue that this automatically revokes the "natural-born citizen" clause in Presidential qualification; others say it's a load of hooey.

The point is moot in the best way, though; when Kenya won independence in 1963—two years after he was born—Obama's UK citizenship was converted to Kenyan citizenship.

So yes, the President was a Kenyan citizen. I hope you noticed the "was." The Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood, so when Obama turned 23 and failed to renounce his allegiance to the U.S. and swear an oath to Kenya, he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

---

...the President was a Kenyan citizen. I hope you noticed the "was." The Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood, so when Obama turned 23 and failed to renounce his allegiance to the U.S. and swear an oath to Kenya, he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

---

I'm sure he's real bummed about that.

So keep it down

In general, the entire movement is irrational, easily-refuted, and, in some cases, irreversibly out to lunch. Unfortunately, there's no telling them that.

Was the President doing the right thing when he knuckled under and released his birth certificate last week? Probably not. What most people forget is that he already did this—three years ago!

They didn't shut up then, and they're not going to shut up now. This makes his decision fairly puzzling, until one considers the fact that a particular candidate for the GOP nomination—whether or not you take this person seriously—has made a lot of birthery noise in recent weeks. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named now has some credibility, since he's forced the President to respond, but one wonders how the game will play itself out before next year's election.

Either way, birthers are like that old guy mumbling to himself on the subway. Just ignore them and maybe they'll go away.

Maybe.


ABOUT JIM MCCARTHY
Jim McCarthy is a deaf graduate of Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of South Florida and is currently a student in the School of Life and Human Folly (SLHF).