Over at The Orange Deafie Blog, Richard Roehm advertised a new mailing list focusing on Gallaudet University. In not so many words, its goal is to replace the now dysfunct GallyNet-L. I commented on the post, titled “Gallynet Insanity Worsens“, asking these following questions:
Why is the mailing list categorized under Health? Education would be better?
Why is the term “hearing impaired” used (twice) instead of “deaf” in the description?
Here’s my friendly disagreement. Categorizing this mailing list as “Health” is outrageously offensive. Almost every deaf adult knows the culture is linguistic, not one defined from the medical standpoint. This is backed by scientific research. Roehm replied to this question in the comments saying he “couldn’t find [the] education category when [he] was setting it up.” I myself went and set up a new group, and right there was “Schools & Education” in the parent category listing in plain sight. See the screenshot on the right. It’s interesting “Cultures & Community” was missed too.
“Hearing-impaired” is a term that is on its way out, thanks to the era of Politically-Correct speak. Agreement in the deaf community is widespread: we do not like the term “hearing-impaired” and we will make sure you know it. This is different from the ongoing issue whether all kinds of deaf people should be classified as “deaf” to reflect an united community, or each kind having its own label: “Deaf”, “deaf”, “hard-of-hearing” and so on to respect said subcultures, or using “hearing loss” as an umbrella term in hopes of avoiding offense to any group. These terms are still being debated; but “hearing-impaired” is a debate no longer: the verdict was written almost two decades ago: To use the term “hearing-impaired” is insensitive and is totally ignorant to the deaf community’s progression.
Roehm wrote in the comments in response:
The ‘hearing impaired’ is a much more descriptive term of the society we represent. And its more friendly to the grantmakers whereas ‘deaf’ sounds too militant and hostile to them.
The term “deaf” is NOT militant and hostile. It’s equivalent to “blind”. We don’t ever see the term “sight-impaired”, do we? To the hearing person (and the “grantmakers” Roehm mentions in the comments),”deaf” is completely neutral. Completely. And what grantmakers would the mailing list subscribers want to please? It’s not a listing to get money for Gallaudet. GallyNet-L was a mailing list by and for Gallaudet stakeholders. And being of Gallaudet stakeholders, the mailing list would not be categorized under “Health” and use the term “hearing-impaired” even once.
GallyNet-L’s act is one that will be difficult to follow and this new mailing list will not be the one that does.
Email This Post
Posted on June 12th, 2007 by tayler
June 12th, 2007 8:26 am
Good points. FYI, where I work (govt) does use “visually impaired” when referring to equipment for the blind and low visison individuals.
Granted, Hearing Impaired is definitely out but we still see that term from time to time.
One has to wonder….if writing grants, putting down deaf would impede getting grants just like putting down deaf in resume and not getting a job? Instead of changing the wording to fit “their” need, perhaps we need to work to change their thinking! Deaf is OK.
June 12th, 2007 9:20 am
Richard is too stupid or ignorant of deaf people and he doesnt deserve to be part of his so-called “fake” advocacy. He talks as if he knows everything or as if he knows how to help deaf people. He isn’t helping deaf society because he is very divisive.
You are totally right. Putting deaf related under Health is OFFENSIVE as much as labelling us “hearing-impaired”. The term “deaf” is much more acceptable. It doesn’t mean it’s militant and hostile. It’s just wrong.
If people thinks it’s hostile and militant, then why aren’t oral-supporters at AGBAD also labeled as “hostile and miltant” because they wanted to get rid of sign language by money and power? I’m not going blame everything by labeling anyone “militant” or “hostile”.
This has to STOP! Because enough is enough.
June 12th, 2007 9:32 am
The vocabulary of World Federation of the Deaf, National Association of the Deaf, and Gallaudet University is completely foreign to Richard Roehm. We, therefore, cannot change their vocabulary according to the world of the onle and only one Richard Roehm.
June 12th, 2007 10:00 am
Tayler, i totally agree with you. I’m on your side.
June 12th, 2007 10:22 am
Two points to you.
Zero point to Roehm
He’s a truly pathetic!
June 12th, 2007 11:24 am
Well, it is very obvious that Richard Roehm sees deafness as a medical problem.
If the word deaf is ‘militant and hostile’, then let’s ban the word blind @ @
June 12th, 2007 4:52 pm
Richard Roehm did exactly what he wanted, generate conversation. You folks need to learn a lesson here, the less said of what he is doing, the less he has to say. He keeps doing what he does well to generate traffic to his site.
On another subject, Crab Theory —- you guys just played the game, trying to pull him down with this comments and guess what? Richard Roehm just won the game.
End this conversation for once and for all, anything about Richard Roehm and sooner or later, he will realize no one cares what he has to say.
Wake up, folks.
June 12th, 2007 9:35 pm
At the suggestion of a number of stakeholders, I’ve decided to move it to a new category that’s less offensive to the stakeholders.
Richard
June 13th, 2007 10:41 pm
Taylor,
I dont really appreciate you using your rss feed aggregator to inflict scourge upon me and other good name deaf folks.
This afternoon I was visited by a bunch of high school students who will be constructing ocdac a rss feed aggregator for their community service requirement and since youre pushing heavily to the 2 percent of the community I’m going to be taking up the rest.
Richard
June 14th, 2007 2:39 pm
My name is spelled Tayler.
Scourge? It was your mailing list that “inflicted scourge” upon the deaf and Gallaudet community, and when I commented on your blog, you didn’t take any action. So thus this post. You changed the mailing list’s category because of the post, not the comment. Next time, I’ll know it’s not worthwhile commenting at your blog, and instead write a post. Additionally, it took you approximately 12 hours to publish my comment. Thank you for publishing it.
This is called action. And it was based on my opinion. This is America, just as you can write your opinion on your blog (and several of those published by DeafRead), I can too. If you’re telling me I’m not supposed to share my opinion, then what makes me think your feed aggregator won’t practice censorship? As you’ll see, when you announce your aggregator, DeafRead will publish it.