BRIDGING THE COMMUNICATION GAP: EDUCATING, INFORMING, AND
UNDERSTANDING THE DEAF COMMUNITY
Patricia A. Boyd
B.A., California St ate University, Sacramento, 2008
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Gender Equity Studies)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
© 2011
Patricia A. Boyd
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
BRIDGING THE COMMUNICATION GAP: EDUCATING, INFORMING, AND
UNDERSTANDING THE DEAF COMMUNITY
A Project
by
Patricia A. Boyd
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Sherrie Carinci, Ed.D.
Date
iii
Student: Patricia A. Boyd
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the Project.
, Graduate Coordinator
Deidre Sessoms, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Teacher Education
iv
Abstract
of
BRIDGING THE COMMUNICATION GAP: EDUCATING, INFORMING, AND
UNDERSTANDING THE DEAF COMMUNITY
by
Patricia A. Boyd
Statement of the Problem
Both Deaf men and women in Sonoma County are not adequately serviced in
equal portions as the hearing community when it comes to Health and Human
Services, especially, the little to no services and resources regarding domestic violence
and sexual assault resources for Deaf woman and their children. Agencies such as law
enforcement and fire officials have little to no training with regard to the Deaf
population and Deaf culture. As a result, they feel unsafe and misinformed. “The lack
of interpersonal violence education for Disabled women and their providers and lack
of emergency back up providers have been identified as key obstacles to maintaining
their safety” (Powers, Curry, Oschwald, Maley, & Saxton, 2002, p. 2). Consequently,
both Deaf men and women are underserved, which leads to not only unequal
treatment, but segregation. The hearing community in general does not understand that
the Deaf community comes from a culture that has their own community, belief
v
system, and language. The hearing attitude and mindset of seeing both Deaf men and
women as “handicapped,” “disabled,” and “broken” may account for not only why the
Deaf are ignored, marginalized, and oppressed but for how they are serviced because
the hearing community play a critical role in the teaching of how the Deaf are viewed
and served in society.
Consequently, the Deaf are seen as a disabled group rather than a cultural
linguistic minority, and that encourages the biased terms often used that allows the
continuation of oppression, discrimination, and marginalization. The way both Deaf
women and men are viewed can effect how they receive Health and Human Services,
information, and resources from agencies including law enforcement and the fire
department. As long as the hearing continue to see the Deaf as “broken,” they will
continue to try to fix them. Other factors have also led to a gap of inadequate services
and the lack of availability to information and resources for both Deaf men and
women in Sonoma County.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this two-part project is to
1. educate the hearing, especially federal, state, and county agencies such as
the law enforcement and fire department in Sonoma County by developing
and distributing a four-fold brochure to be used as a “one-stop shop”
educational tool, and
vi
2. the creation of a PowerPoint presentation on Deaf culture and a list of
resources and services for domestic and sexual abuse for Deaf women and
their children.
The brochure consists of information on Deaf culture, effective communication, and
ways in which the hearing population can better serve the Deaf community. The
brochure also provides a list of services and resources available to Deaf victims of
violence. It explains the success of a recent town hall meeting in hopes other cities
will implement informational town hall meetings to bridge the communication gap as
well. The brochure mentions that the implementation of town hall meetings and
forming advisory committees was an opportunity to bridge the communication gap
between the Deaf community and local agencies.
The development of the training brochure was designed by using samples of
brochures designed by the CSUS Students with Disabilities office at California State
University, Sacramento. It refers to Deaf agencies who service the Deaf such as Deaf
Counseling Advocacy & Referral Agency (DCARA), Deaf Hope, Norcal, Deaf Hood,
and Disability Services and Legal Center and by using the anti-oppression
methodology approach. Throughout the process of gathering information and
resources for the brochure and generating enthusiasm for the town hall meetings, the
Deaf community was actively engaged in volunteering to be leaders in their
community in hopes they will continue to motivate and encourage others to
participate. The PowerPoint consists of information on Deaf culture, audism, myths
vii
and misconceptions about the Deaf, ADA law, and information and statistics on
domestic and sexual abuse, including resources. The use of anti-oppression
methodology was critical to the development of the brochure content of and the
implementation of the town hall beings and forming advisory committee.
Project Description
This project is based on samples of brochures from the Disability Services for
Students with Disabilities at California State University, Sacramento, Disability
Services and Legal Center in Santa Rosa, and Disability Rights Advocates Agency in
Sacramento and created as a one-stop educational tool. The brochure was developed
for both the Deaf community and hearing community for easy access to resources for
the Deaf community and an educational tool for the hearing community. Along with
the four-fold brochure, a PowerPoint is also available for training agencies and
organizations such as domestic violence agencies, shelters, organizations, District
Attorneys, and law enforcement on Deaf culture, audism, hearing privilege, and
available resources and services for Deaf women who are victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault. The PowerPoint presentation is based on information
provided by Deaf Hope and National Online Resource Center on Violence. The
instructor, brochure, PowerPoint presentation, and other materials comprise the
training portion of this project. The type of educational information, services, and
resources enables both the hearing community and the Deaf community to be educated
on culture, services, and resources. The hearing will gain an understanding of Deaf
viii
culture and audism and the Deaf. Deaf women will have a list of resources in case a
dangerous situation arises such as domestic violence or sexual assault.
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Sherrie Carinci, Ed.D.
____________________________
Date
ix
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to all of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community
Member’s in Sonoma County without which I would never have recognized how you
struggle every day with discrimination, humiliation, and exclusion. The Deaf
community has inspired me to make a difference in our world. And last but not least,
Dr. Carinci, without your persistence, patience, and support and the constant reminder
to always go back to the “funnel,” I would still be struggling to find my way. Your
direction and guidance has led me down a path that has changed my life. Thank you.
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my wonderful supportive husband, Bill without
whom none of this would be possible. His unconditional, and never ending financial
and emotional support has been an inspiration and I am truly grateful for all that he
has sacrificed and contributed especially driving me to class from Sonoma County to
Sacramento for the last five years. I would also like to recognize my three children,
Kim, Maryann and Ryan, including their spouses, Michelle Hamilton and Terry
Hagerman who constantly gave me their unconditional love and support. And last but
not least, my terrific grandson Michael who inspires me everyday by the way he faces
the challenges and obstacles life presents with determination and optimism that he will
succeed in college and be and do the best he can. You will always be my “Mikie.”
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication..................................................................................................................... x
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Project ....................................................................................... 4
Statement of Problem ....................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Project................................................................................ 8
Theoretical Basis for the Project ...................................................................... 9
Methodology of the Project ............................................................................ 12
Limitations of the Project ............................................................................... 14
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 15
Organization of the Project ............................................................................. 21
Background of the Researcher ........................................................................ 22
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................. 24
Introduction .................................................................................................... 24
The History of Deaf Communication in the United States ............................. 24
Actions Speak Louder Than Words: “Audism” ............................................. 29
Misconceptions That Continue to Oppress the Deaf ...................................... 30
Myths That Continue ...................................................................................... 32
xii
Inclusion: Not Always a Good Thing ............................................................. 34
Deaf Children and Deaf Victims of Violence Have a Commonality ............. 36
The Deaf Community and Domestic Violence .............................................. 37
Self-identifying ............................................................................................... 47
Cultural Minority: Deaf Children Can Pave the Way for Others ................... 48
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 50
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 53
Introduction .................................................................................................... 53
The Target Audience ...................................................................................... 54
A Content Analysis of a Training Guide as a Visual Guide ........................... 54
Summary......................................................................................................... 56
4. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 57
Discussion....................................................................................................... 57
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 66
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 69
Recommendations for Further Study.............................................................. 70
Reflections ...................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A: Brochure ............................................................................................... 72
Appendix B: PowerPoint Presentation ....................................................................... 75
Appendix C: Resources for Deaf Women Victims of Violence ................................. 86
xiii
Appendix D: Evaluation Form ................................................................................... 98
References ................................................................................................................ 103
xiv
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Deaf, by nature, have a fighting spirit and it shows with regard to the Deaf
community in Sonoma County, California. Recently, the Deaf community in Sonoma
County united and voted unanimously that public safety was their number one issue
with law enforcement. They want to bridge the communication gap with law
enforcement by educating and informing them of the culture and language difference,
which also includes teaching the law enforcement community how the Deaf
communicate and the many ways they obtain information.
The Deaf community, including Deaf women who are victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault, has struggled with accessibility issues and inadequate
services, information, and resources suited for their needs for centuries. According to
Nosek and Howland’s Applied Research document (1998), generally speaking, there
is a serious current and long standing shortage of services for disabled women who are
victims of violence. However, when narrowing the problem down to counties, or more
specifically cities like Santa Rosa, California, it being the largest city in Sonoma
County, there is a noticeable shortage of the above services.
According to the “Census Bureau Quick Find” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010),
there is an estimate of 154,212 residents living in Santa Rosa not including the Deaf
community’s because the Deaf are not counted in the census; they go uncounted and
unseen. The census issue causes a problem for not only Sonoma County, but for the
2
country as a whole when trying to estimate the Deaf count population to determine
how to service this community. According to the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), one of a few national surveys that regularly collect data
indentifying the American population of persons with hearing loss or Deafness, fewer
than 1 in 20 Americans are currently Deaf or Hard of Hearing. In round numbers, in
the U.S., there are nearly 10,000,000 persons with some degree of hearing loss and
close to 1,000,000 are functionally Deaf (Mitchell, 2005). Hence, some Deaf and Hard
of Hearing have profound to severe Deafness.
Cities, states, and counties with an understanding of and appreciation for the
Deaf culture, language, and customs will be able to bridge the gap of inadequate
services of unequal portions between the Deaf and hearing communities faster than the
areas without a strong foundation in Deaf culture. Unfortunately, when comparing
cities and counties such as Sonoma County and the City of Santa Rosa in California, it
is clear they both need improvement when they are compared to cities such as
Rochester, New York and Nashville, Tennessee, which have many more Deaf friendly
resources available (Berke, 2010). Sonoma County has had a long history of Deaf
oppression and marginalization, and, as a result, both the Deaf men and women have
had unequal portions of inadequate human services in Sonoma County. Consequently,
Deaf women and their children who are victims of violence suffer due to the lack of
resources are feeling fearful, isolated, and unsafe.
3
To become a “Deaf friendly city” such as Rochester and Nashville and close
the gap between the two communities, an education-based, hands-on approach can be
developed. Education can influence the hearing people’s perceptions, societal
attitudes, mindsets, myths and misconceptions, and perceived notions the hearing
population have of the Deaf. Education can close the gap of unequal treatment in
services, resources, and information. First, however, the hearing must understand how
their perceptions and behavior can affect the Deaf community adversely in order to be
able to take responsibility for their actions perpetuating the oppression and
marginalization of the Deaf community. To become a “Deaf friendly city” does not
mean the Deaf and hearing need to co-mingle. What it means is that the Deaf would
have equitable services to the hearing population and would be allowed to make their
own decisions and choices.
On a local level, DCARA, a Deaf advocacy agency in San Leandro, California
who serve the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community, stated as of May 27, 2010, there
are a total of 227 Deaf and Hard of Hearing people living in Sonoma County. The
breakdown is as follows: 125 Deaf, 31 Hard of Hearing, 22 Late Deafened adults, five
Deaf-blind, three mentally developed disabled, and 42 others who did not identify
themselves in the sub-categories. This total is of those DCARA served and the rest of
the numbers are underestimated.
This project, the development of an educational training brochure and
presentation, includes available resources for the Deaf community. The purpose of this
4
project was to (a) educate the hearing population on Deaf culture, and (b) foster
interest in the hearing community through teaching methodologies and strategies to
implement town hall meetings in their community. Also, it will inform the Deaf
community members on local services, information, and resources, including those for
Deaf victims of violence.
The purposes will be accomplished with the design of a four-fold training
brochure specially designed for federal, city, and state agencies, from which all
members of both the hearing and Deaf communities can learn and benefit. In order to
close the communication gap between the Deaf and hearing community, the hearing in
general need to: (a) modify their attitudes and mindset regarding the Deaf, (b) realize
how the hearing in general oppress the Deaf, (c) learn and understand what ineffective
communication looks like, and (d) understand many deliberately and unintentionally
ramifications of audism and the detrimental harm effect it has on the Deaf community.
Purpose of the Project
According to Dr. Sharon Dawson (personal communication, April 27, 2010),
the County of Sonoma has not been receptive to the needs of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing
community, especially Deaf women. Services provided by Disability Services and
Legal Center and other small isolated community service providers, as well as three
local sign language interpreting agencies are all that is available to the Deaf
community. There are no comprehensive service agencies in Sonoma County focused
on Deaf Culture, Language and Communication, Community Outreach or Advocacy,
5
specifically designed for and by the Deaf community (S. Dawson, personal
communication, April 27, 2010). The disparity includes the lack of services and
resources for Deaf women and their children who are victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault.
Nosek and Howland (1998) provided a “snapshot” of the first research
performed on the severity of the lack of accessible domestic violence and sexual
assault services and resources for disabled women (p. 1). Hence, the goal of this
project is to design a four-fold educational training brochure and a PowerPoint
presentation to be used as a training tool to not only educate the hearing on Deaf
culture, but to inform Deaf women of the resources available to them. Two visual
PowerPoint presentations that come from two different perspectives are being
modeled in this project. One presentation is about Deaf culture, oppression, and
values, and the other is about Deaf victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
One model was created using Lance Forshay’s (2009) Deaf Culture Part 3, the
Oppression, Values and Identity. He covers such topics as cultural attitudes, What’s a
Healthy Deaf Identity?, Deaf culture, and audism. The second model was presented in
EDTE 266 class on November 17, 2010 and was created by Julie Rems-Smario,
Executive Director of Deaf Hope. Like Lance Forshay’s presentation, similar topics on
Deaf culture are covered, but Ms. Smario’s presentation is Deaf survivor centered. She
uses examples of domestic violence in the Deaf community and shares Deaf survivor
centered services.
6
Both visual presentations are not only used as tools to train and outreach to
both the Deaf and hearing communities but to also achieve effective communication.
According to the United States Department of Labor (1996), the benefits of a visual
presentation is it is an effective way to communicate to the audience on ideas, the
purpose of the presentation, and the goals the presenter is trying to achieve (p. 1). It is
especially true for the Deaf as their vision is particularly honed due to the hearing loss.
However, in general, some people are visual learners while others are aural learners.
There are methodologies and strategies that support educating the hearing and the
need for resources for services for Deaf women who are involved in a domestic
violence situation.
Statement of Problem
The Deaf community, including Deaf women, in Sonoma County does not
have access to committees, public hearings, commissions, town hall meetings, or
auxiliaries as the hearing population do because the language is just not as easily
accessible and often they were not informed. In 2006, Brenda Jo Brueggerman and
Susan Burch wrote Women and Deafness: Double Visions. In “Part One: The
Extended Family: Deaf Women in Organizations,” they talked about how important it
is for “the Deaf, particularly women, to belong to groups such as auxiliaries, societies,
organizations, and commissions for intellectual stimulation, information, and ‘social
outlets’” (p. 40). The authors point out, “A gendered interpretation of Deaf
organizations offers especially vivid evidence of women’s agency and of their specific
7
role in cultural transmission” (p. 40). According to a personal interview with Dr.
Sharon Dawson,
In Sonoma County both Deaf women and men do not participate in
Commissions, Councils or County Committees and other public processes that
are intended to enhance the lives of the Deaf community don’t accomplish this
goal because of flawed accessibility to the public service system. (personal
communication, April 27, 2010)
The Deaf community is also struggling with accessibility issues and inadequate
services suited for their needs specifically in Santa Rosa. A major accessibility issue is
that they are unable to communicate with local law enforcement and fire officials (S.
Dawson, personal communication, April 27, 2010). Such a lack of communication will
ensure real problems in both non-emergency and emergency situations. Due to cost of
American Sign Language Interpreters, agencies are not willing to pay for them so
consequently, the Deaf community is discouraged from applying and interviewing for
public service jobs. The Deaf are not specifically recognized on the Census so they are
not counted. Thus, Deaf women who are victims of sexual assault and domestic
violence do not have services to meet their needs in the county. Without an accurate
count, it is impossible to justify services due to the fear of under serving or over
serving. Najarian (2006) points out Deaf women still struggle in their everyday lives
as they negotiate their family, education, and work. They face various obstacles put
before them as well as how they work to negotiate their identities as Deaf women in
8
the Deaf community, hearing world, and the place in between. Deaf women have a
unique place in society because many of them see themselves as part of a linguistic
bicultural community. Their unique place causes the Deaf women to play a balancing
act living between both the hearing and Deaf worlds because they want to stay true to
their identity and culture yet to survive, they have to co-mingle in both worlds.
Significance of the Project
As it was in the hearing world, sexual assault and domestic violence is an
unconscionable form of oppression, destructive to the lives of ALL survivors, their
families, and friends. “What keeps disabled women from escaping ‘interpersonal
violence’ includes not having anyone to trust, to talk to, or believe them” (Powers,
Curry, Oschwald, Maley, & Saxton, 2002, p. 2). According to Powers et al. (2002),
“When interpersonal violence is reported, Disabled women are fearful of losing their
independence and connections with family or friends and fear of retaliation” (p. 2).
Recent studies confirm earlier findings that, compared to women without
disabilities, women with disabilities are more likely to experience physical and
sexual violence (Brownridge, 2006; Martin et al., 2006; Powers et al., 2002;
Smith, 2008), increased severity of violence (Brownridge, 2006; Nannini,
2006; Nosek et al., 2001b), multiple forms of violence (Curry et al., 2004;
Martin et al., 2006; Nosek et al., 2001b), and longer duration of violence
(Nosek et al., 2001b). (Powers, Hughes, & Lund, 2009, para. 4)
9
At the time of this project, Sonoma County had no available information that
could be used as a “one-stop-shop” educational tool for the hearing to understand Deaf
culture and the issues they face. Also, in Sonoma County, there were four agencies
who served the hearing women victims of sexual assault and domestic violence – the
YWCA, United Against Sexual Assault (UASA), Disability Services and Legal
Center, and Purple Berets, who are California certified Domestic Violence/Sexual
Assault counselors or ways for the Deaf to achieve effective communication. There
was not a Deaf agency specifically in Sonoma County working in partnership with the
community as a whole, striving to eliminate all forms of violence, with a special focus
on sexual assault and abuse in the Deaf community.
Theoretical Basis for the Project
There are numerous anti-oppression scholars that offer a solid foundation to
the construct of oppression and anti-oppressive education. To understand oppression
theorists like Paulo Freire, it is important to first see the problem. The Deaf is an
oppressed minority group as a whole. In his Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire
points out how degrading it is to be grouped as a minority because people in minorities
are classified as being “different” or as the “other.” According to Albert Linderman
(1994), “This involves a focus on the trait that makes them different from the rest of
the society (skin color, national origin, handicap, social class and caste)” (p. 75).
However, regardless of what is said, Deaf women have it worse than Deaf men
because Deaf women belong to more than one oppressed minority group, so they have
10
“two strikes against them.” Deaf men do not have the same challenges as women
simply because they are men. The first strike is women are female, and the second
strike is they are seen by society as “disabled.”
Deaf women have a common thread with minority women. Deaf women are
similar to minority women whose language most often is not English; they have
unique cultural and linguistic issues that understandably affect their experiences. But
what separates the Deaf woman from other minorities is their inability to hear. The
other difference between Deaf women and other minority women is that most minority
women are visibly recognized and are from an accepted group. The Deaf are not. They
are still struggling with self-identifying as a linguistic, cultural minority. According to
Cheryl Najarian (2006), “the hearing world does not understand that Deaf/Deaf people
want to be seen as having their own culture that has its own belief system and
language” (p. 3).
A review of the Theory of Anti Oppression Education illustrated that Kevin
Kumashiro (2000) reviewed literature on education that works against oppression. As
he articulated the dynamics of oppression and ways to work against it, it was obvious
how the Deaf is easily identified by a definition of an oppressed group. His philosophy
is that creating “safe places” for the marginalized only “feeds into the oppression” (p.
27). Kumashiro (2000) identifies terms relating to oppression including “duality, self
depreciation, horizontal violence, mistrust, a fatalistic attitude toward life, emotional
dependence on the oppressor, fear of freedom and backlash” (p. 27). Until the hearing
11
population is educated and recognized as well as and respect the oppression, the
Deaf/Deaf will never escape the “o” they wear on their backs for “other” because the
word “other” will always associate itself with traditionally marginalized and oppressed
groups who do not fit into the social construction mold (Kumashiro, 2000).
Like Kumashiro, Oscar Lewis was familiar with oppression, but his framework
focused on the cycle of poverty. In La Vida (1965) and Children of Sanchez (1961), he
presented the concept of a culture of poverty. He wrote of a unique design for living
that included structure, rationale, and defense mechanisms that produced similarities
in family structure, interpersonal relations, time orientation, value systems, spending
patterns, and a sense of community. Lewis asserted that these cultural patterns have
developed as an adaptation and reaction of the poor to their marginal position in
society. According to Lewis (as cited in Linderman, 1994), “A society of poverty
represents an effort to cope with feelings of hopelessness and despair, which develop
from the realization of the improbability of achieving success in terms of the values
and goals of larger society” (p. 78). In other words, as long as the hearing continue to
label the Deaf as disabled, the Deaf will suffer the effects of poverty. Lewis (as cited
in Linderman, 1994) rejects the idea of a capitalistic society, but believes it is part of
life for the Deaf even though the Deaf community continues to live within a society
that still labels them disabled and handicapped. Lewis (as cited in Linderman, 1994)
explains,
12
Deaf people have to adapt to a larger society that does not understand the Deaf
language and culture but prefers to label them as “handicapped.” This serves as
a convenience to hearing society and further reduces the hope of pulling Deaf
society out of the oppressed state. (p. 78)
The three anti-oppression theorists, Friere (1970), Kumashiro (2000), and
Lewis (1961, 1968), support the development of an educational tool to educate the
hearing based on hands-on inquiry methods and strategies, which encourages the
hearing to learn ways to discontinue the oppression and marginalization.
Methodology of the Project
The methodology in this project applies a content analysis approach in
developing an educational packet containing a PowerPoint presentation and brochure.
The educational packet is a training outreach course since this course includes a fourfold brochure compared to typical courses offering just a PowerPoint presentation.
The training is also unique in that it offers resources at the local, state, and federal
levels. The reason for creating/developing this informational outreach training packet
is two-fold. First, law enforcement and other agencies need an option of attending the
training that will not only prepare them to service the Deaf but will give them the tools
for understanding Deaf culture. The attendees will know how to separate fact from
fiction and how we as part of the dominant society continue to marginalize and
oppress them by what we say and how we think. Secondly, the training will educate
the Deaf on national, state, and local resources regarding the growing field of Deaf
13
domestic and sexual assault services. The training course focuses on current models of
gender inclusion practices that Deaf woman may experience as victims of sexual
assault and domestic violence along with an application of these methods being
incorporated into the training course.
Therefore, the brochure looks very different from anything else available as an
educational tool because it was designed to proved hands-on implementation of the
techniques and methods needed when working with the Deaf community. It is a onestop shop of information. The brochure also describes the myths and misconceptions
law enforcement officials should know to better service the Deaf. The brochure will be
available to all state, federal, and city agencies within California. The primary
audience is law enforcement agencies, but it can also be used by any agency that has
contact with the Deaf or has the responsibility of keeping the Deaf safe. The brochure
will also provide law enforcement and agencies with research data from studies
providing examples on how other law enforcement agencies have improved their
services to the Deaf. The purpose of that information is so they have a better
understanding of the Deaf culture, language, and community. The research collected
could be disseminated to law enforcement, educators, agencies, legislators, and the
general public, including the Deaf community by using the visual aid of a PowerPoint
and a brochure.
14
Limitations of the Project
There are a few limitations in this project that can threaten the outcome of this
project. The hearing population such as law enforcement personnel, continue to
oppress the Deaf community by making decisions for them. When law enforcement
makes decisions for the Deaf, they are standing in the way of the Deaf community
making their own decisions and that will keep the Deaf community oppressed and the
two communities from benefitting from this project. City, County and State agencies
including law enforcement continue to take the easy way out by selecting Hard of
Hearing community members to be the spokesperson for the Deaf community so they
can save money on interpreters. That exclusion divides the Deaf community rather
than unites the group. The division could limit the success of this project.
Decision makers may fear the continuation of informational town hall
meetings is an opportunity to make them look bad rather than see it as a legitimate
resource to the Deaf community and not attend. Law enforcement officials or any
possible attendees do not want to be intimidated or have their policies questioned. The
Deaf have not had a voice within many social service agencies, so when they are given
one, what will they say? Possible attendees do not want to appear unprepared or
caught off-guard.
Often, the Deaf do not want to sign their name to anything that has to do with
“research,” which may limit the researcher from getting the information she needs for
any study. The hearing community need to be motivated and want to understanding
15
Deaf culture through workshops and training or they will continue to stand in the way
of the Deaf community moving forward. The success of the project requires the
hearing community’s desire to participate.
Most hearing agencies do not understand the ADA law and are reluctant to hire
interpreters for meetings so the Deaf are unable to achieve effective communication.
The lack of effective communication is a huge limitation for the researcher as town
hall meetings are the prime source of information retrieval from the Deaf community.
To close the gap in services, the researcher must know what the precise gaps are.
Lastly, the researcher creating this project is hearing, not Deaf, and whereas it
does not affect the researcher’s education of the hearing community, but it does that of
the Deaf. The hearing community’s argument is that the researcher is educating people
about something that she has not personally experienced but only read about.
Definition of Terms
Accessibility
Typically defined as having the use of assistive devices or physical
accommodations such as a ramp for people who use wheelchairs or Braille labeling on
elevator buttons. The Deaf need access to video phones, pagers, and interpreters
(Accessing Safety, 2010a).
Accommodations
Understanding your responsibility as service providers when working with
Deaf or Hard of Hearing individuals as delineated in the American with Disability
16
Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Fair Housing Act (Accessing Safety,
2010c).
American Sign Language
A unique language with its own grammatical rules and syntax. (Moore &
Levitan, 2001)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Act gives individuals with disabilities protection under the law similar to
that granted to persons of certain gender, race, age, etc. It also guarantees equal
opportunities for persons with disabilities in public accommodations, public
transportation, telecommunications, and others (Define That, 1991).
Audism
According to Gallaudet University, the Deaf term “audist” is defined the
following way: “Audism (from the Latin word “audire,” to hear, and ism, a system of
practice, behavior, belief, or attitude) has been variously defined as:

The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the
manner of one who hears.

The belief that life without hearing is futile and miserable, that hearing loss is
a tragedy and the scourge of mankind, and that Deaf people should struggle as
hearing people as much as possible (Harrington, 2002).
17
Bi-Bi educated
Describes a bilingual, bicultural approach to Deaf education developed in the
1980s (Ladd, 2003).
Cochlear Implants
From 1980s onwards, growing numbers of Deaf children have been surgically
implanted with an electro-magnetic device intended to directly stimulate the auditory
nerve (Ladd, 2003).
Collectivism
Deaf people consider themselves of a group that includes all Deaf people of
different backgrounds and ethnicities. They perceive themselves as a close-knit and
interconnected group (Ladd, 2003).
Deaf
This term refers to members of the Deaf community who share common
values, norms, traditions, language, and behaviors. Deaf people are considered a
linguistic minority within the American culture. They have their own culture and at
the same time live and work within the dominant American culture (Beattie, 2001).
deaf
This term refers to the audio-logical grouping of hearing losses. The Deaf are
those “unable” to fully perceive sounds in their environment with or without the use of
hearing aids or perhaps unable to use a hearing aid as a primary way to absorb
information (Beattie, 2001).
18
Deaf Culture
The American Deaf Culture is a unique minority that uses American Sign
Language (ASL) as their primary language and primary mode of communication
(Northeast Technical Assistance Center [NETAC], n.d.).
Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deafened
Within the Deaf culture these words refer to a person’s audio-logical status.
People who consider themselves “Hard of Hearing” or “Deafened” do not see
themselves as members of the Deaf culture. Some may know sign language but their
primary language is English (NETAC, n.d.).
Deafhood
This term represents a process, a struggle by every Deaf child, Deaf family,
and Deaf adult who share not only community but their own existence in the world
(Ladd, 2003).
Dependency Duet
Whenever the Deaf or hearing enter the relationship by choice, it is because the
one seeks to be a provider and the other seeks to be provided for (Lane, 1992).
Duality
The first characteristic of an oppressed group. This term focuses on the trait
that makes them different from the rest of the society (skin color, national origin,
handicap, social class, and caste) (Linderman, 1994).
19
Etiquette
While norms may change from community to community, there are some
behaviors in a hearing group that would be considered rude, but are actually quite
acceptable within the Deaf community (Accessing Safety, 2010e).
Hearing
Within the Deaf culture, the term “hearing” is used to identify people who are
members of the dominant American culture. One might think the ASL sign for
“hearing” is related to the group’s ability to hear (e.g., pointing to the ear). However,
the sign for “hearing” is related to the ability to “talk.” The act of talking is clearly
visible to Deaf people, whereas listening or hearing is not. From the Deaf culture
perspective, it is the act of “talking” that clearly separates the two groups (NETAC,
n.d.).
Hearing Impaired
These terms often are used by the media and society in general to refer to
people with a hearing loss. A more acceptable generic phrase is “Deaf and Hard of
Hearing” to refer to all people with a hearing loss. Within the Deaf culture, the term
“hearing impaired” is often considered offensive. It suggests that Deaf people are
“broken” or “inferior” because they do not hear (NETAC, n.d.).
20
Hearing Privilege
When a hearing partner emotionally abuses their Deaf partner, such as keeping
them from effective communication either from the Deaf or hearing community (Reis,
2007).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004
IDEA is a Federal law that mandates how government agencies provide
services to children with disabilities that also included early intervention. IDEA
included “Special Education” that means there are services specifically for a child
with disabilities who has unique needs and these services will be provided to them in
the least restrictive environment (National Resource Center on AD/HD, n.d.).
Interpreters
An Interpreter is a bilingual-bicultural professional who: (a) interprets while
(b) being sensitive to the environmental factors that foster or impede the message and
(c) conducts himself/herself in a professional manner (Berke, 2009).
Language and Communication
The sharing of a language (American Sign Language) bridges racial, gender,
class, and ethnic differences among the American Deaf community. Not all Deaf
people use ASL or other sign languages (Berke, 2009).
Native Competence
When a hearing child of Deaf parents begins to sign at birth and then becomes
His/her parents’ “ears” (Stokoe, 1980).
21
Profound Deaf
Totally Deaf; unable to hear at all and without use of hearing aid (Profound
Deaf, n.d.).
Self-depreciation
When a person is constantly ignored and told he/she is not equal because the
majority does not understand his/her culture, the person begins to believe that negative
stigma (Linderman, 1994).
Self-fulfilling Prophecy
A statement that alters actions and therefore comes true (Self-fulfilling
prophecy, n.d.). An example referring to the Deaf is how the Deaf are made to believe
that they are inferior to the hearing.
Tactile Spelling (Deaf Blind Alphabet)
The two-handed manual alphabet (i.e. the one used in British Sign Language)
is adapted to fingerspell letters onto the palm of the client’s hand. Most Deaf
Blind people in the United States use the standard ASL alphabet; however,
interpreters may encounter clients who know and prefer the Deaf Blind
alphabet. (Michigan Deaf and Hard of Hearing, 2002, para. 5)
Organization of the Project
This project is organized into four chapters with appendices and references.
Chapter 1 introduces topics, which will be covered and explains why this project is
important. Chapter 2 consists of a review of all relevant literature on the topic and
22
justifies why this research is important. Chapter 3 focuses on the methodology of the
project and explains the procedures utilized in the study. Chapter 4 includes the
conclusions drawn from the study followed by the proposed recommendations for
further study.
Background of the Researcher
Patricia Boyd earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Ethnic Studies, with a
minor in Sociology from California State University, Sacramento in 2008. Currently,
she is a graduate student in the Masters of Arts in Education-Behavioral Science
Option-Gender Equity Program at California State University, Sacramento. She is
President and Founder of a Social Justice Advocacy Organization called “Open
Doors.” Her deep-rooted passion to help the underserved and overlooked started as a
child growing up in the 1960s in New Jersey where desegregation, segregation,
discrimination, and bigotry were all around her in school, in neighborhoods, and in her
community. She witnessed first-hand how innocent people were discriminated against
and hated because of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, and skin color.
Because of her formative experience, she has always known fighting for the
rights of the marginalized would always be an integral part of her life’s work; hence,
she has extended her voice, resources, and writing to help the hearing and Deaf
communities. It was when Boyd was invited to a Census Bureau Open House event in
Sonoma County in November 2009 that she realized the Deaf community was
excluded from the Census; she subsequently chose to research this topic for her thesis.
23
The researcher plans to share her findings with the hearing community as well as with
city, county, federal, and state agencies. She is also planning on sharing the findings
with her Congresswoman in hopes she will push legislation in Washington to ensure
the Deaf are included on the next Census. Boyd aims to pursue an Ed.D. in Education
Leadership so she can resume her research on and the disparity of education
opportunities between the hearing and Deaf community and the effects it has on
achieving success for Deaf students.
24
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The History of Deafness in the United States has been misunderstood for
centuries due to the fact that the hearing population cannot get past the fact that the
Deaf do not hear; therefore, there must be something wrong with them. They have
placed stigmas on the Deaf and labeled them as “handicapped,” “disabled,” and
broken, thus allowing the hearing to treat the Deaf as though they always need help
and are not capable of making decisions on their own. But the Deaf in their own way
fight back with determination and self-determination, hanging on to their culture,
language, and the right to self-identify as a cultural linguistic community.
The History of Deaf Communication in the United States
According to Parasnis (1998), the Deaf still struggle with their self-identity and
do not see themselves as “disabled” or medically challenged.
The idea that the Deaf community have their on language is not a new concept.
There are some in the medical work that still believe that the Deaf are
“disabled” but there are educators that believe on the contrary. As early as the
last century educators of the Deaf have all agreed that the Deaf have their
language, values and social norms that are unique. The Deaf were allowed to
use American Sign Language including in school right up until 1880. It was
25
during that time that 50% of the teaching staff was Deaf themselves. (Parasnis,
1998, pp. 5-6)
Deaf children having deaf teachers was an advantage because the teachers
could understand the barriers the children faced and communication between student
and teacher was as easy as that between hearing teacher and hearing student. In 1880,
life as the Deaf knew it changed. At the International Conference of Education for the
Deaf Milan, Italy changed the way American Sign Language would be used in the
American Schools. Oral speech was introduced and the decline of Deaf teachers
continued to 12% by 1960. Since 1960, a controversial debate with regard to students
using speech and sign language in the classroom has gone on. There have been many
studies done on communication methods such as speech, cued speech, simultaneous
communication, total communication, and invented sign systems (Parasnis, 1998).
Due to all the attention the communication methods were getting, American Sign
Language (ASL) and the Deaf culture were receiving very little attention. However, in
spite of the lack of attention, the Deaf community continued to thrive and grow.
Between 1960 and 1970, linguistics made a remarkable discovery that ASL not only
had its own grammar but it also met universal requirements to be a human language
(Klima & Bellugi, 1988), and slowly but surely ASL was back in the mainstream
again. Since the temporary set back, ASL has been thriving and making its way to the
attention of educators and researchers. As a result of all of the positive attention,
several books have been published on the sociocultural context in ways the Deaf
26
community live (Cohen, 1994; Monaghan, Schmaling, Nakamura, & Turner, 2003;
Wilcox, 1989) and on communication and ASL (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980; Bragg
& Olson, 1993; Marschark & Spencer, 2003).
When the Deaf lose their right to define who they are and are excluded from
the educational process to express their needs to the dominant hearing, oppression and
marginalization occurs. However, there was one place where the Deaf students finally
said, “enough is enough.” According to Mills (2003), the Deaf community needed to
feel liberated, empowered and free to not only to make their own decisions but to have
choices about their educational needs. Harlan Lane, an educator and Deaf advocate,
stated the following regarding Deaf and education, “Typically, Deaf persons have not
been involved in making decisions for their own educational placement and language
policy in schools” (p. 43). The first Deaf university in the United States, Gallaudet
University in Washington, DC, had never had a Deaf president.
The Deaf President Now campaign not only included the Deaf community but
Deaf students and Deaf advocates. But to be able to understand the dimension of the
issue the Deaf were fighting, one has to understand Deaf culture. The Deaf have
always fought for their equal portions of human rights for centuries. But over the
years, the Deaf became convinced that nothing would change so they gave up trying
until 1988. The Deaf have a fighting spirit and it shows even as far as Sonoma County,
California. Recently, the Deaf community united and came together in Sonoma
County and voted unanimously for a California Association for the Deaf Chapter that
27
will not only make them cohesive but will empower them to make decisions for their
future. The Deaf community, including Deaf women, is beginning to make a stand and
demand that they make their own decisions.
Because of the controversy of the “Deaf President Now” movement in 1988, a
Deaf person was selected as president at the Gallaudet University in Washington, DC.
Now people including the media have become interested in Deaf culture, their rights,
and are beginning to see them as a cultural and linguistic community.
There has been a “small revolutionary shift” in regard to how people see the
Deaf as a sociocultural group with their own language and culture as opposed to the
medical model portraying the Deaf as being “disabled” (Cummins & Danesi, 1990).
There has been a reported survey by Walter (1992) that there has been an increase of
Deaf teachers that have gone from 12% in 1960 to 18% reported in 1992.
The status of the Deaf improved first in 1991 with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, then further with the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004. Title
II of ADA enforces strict guidelines and requirements all state and city agencies and
local governments must meet to ensure they have effective communication with
people with disabilities, as effective as they would with people without disabilities,
which is referred to as “effective communication.” The requirement stands unless
there are reasons such that (a) state or local government can prove that effective
communication would financially be a burden, or (b) if they can prove that effective
28
communication would modify the nature of the program or service in question (Office
of the Attorney General, 1991).
According to ADA, “Effective Communication” means regardless if the
communication is written or spoken, both methods must be precisely clear and people
with disabilities must be able to understand as people without disabilities do. The level
of understanding is a must because there are people whose communication is affected
by their disability. People with disabilities consisting of blindness; Deafness;
speaking; or reading, writing, or comprehending may select other ways to
communicate. When regarding “Effective Communication,” ALL members of the
general public who may apply for programs, employment, any activities, or seek
information are included. When regarding the Deaf, there are different ways to
communicate: (a) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), or (b) Video Interpreting Service
(VIS). VRI is when an interpreter appears on a videophone over high-speed internet
lines. When the videophone is used appropriately, it can be used for emergency
purposes and effective communication seven days a week, 24 hours a day. VIS is not
the same as Video Relay.
The City of Alameda, California was sued and sanctioned by the Department
of Justice (DOJ) for not providing effective communication. Mr. Bonner, who is deaf,
was taken from his home and sat in jail for three days without an interpreter. He is
Deaf and blind and to this day does not know why he was literally pulled out of his
29
bed at 3 o’clock in the morning with no explanation. Charges were dropped
(Department of Justice, 2010).
Actions Speak Louder Than Words: “Audism”
Since we live in a world where there are people who do not tolerate or accept
diversity, there are many terms that have been invented to describe negative attitudes,
mindset, and behaviors towards a certain race, ethnicity, disability, or sexual
orientation. When a person hates a race other than his/her own, that is racism. When a
male acts superior to a female that is called sexism. If one is a supporter of Hitler and
his Nazi atrocities, they are participating is Nazism. If an employer does not hire an
older person due to their age, that is an act of ageism. If someone exhibits hostility or
discriminates against a Jewish person, that is anti-semitism. The commonality of all
the words is not only that they end with “ism,” but they all refer to bigotry of some
sort. There is another “ism” to add to the list, “Audism,” which means discrimination
against Deaf people. Another term very similar to Audism is “hearing privilege”
(Harrington, 2002).
“Audism is an attitude based on pathological thinking that results in a stigma
toward anyone who does not hear; like racism, audism judges, labels, and limits
individuals on the basis of whether a person hears and speaks” (Waech, 2004, p. 7).
Audism is an attitude that the Deaf people are “broken” and must be fixed. Audists
can be either hearing or Deaf. Examples of Audism are:
30
1. Helping or assisting a Deaf person to communicate
2. Insisting a Deaf read lips or write notes when that is the not his/her choice
3. Communicating for the Deaf person because they cannot
4. When an interpreter is needed, refusing to provide or call for one
5. Looking at those who do not speak and treating those who do as superior
6. Asking a Deaf person to stop using facial expressions because they are making
people uncomfortable
7. Excluding the Deaf from a conversation or laughter by telling them that you
will tell them later
8. Devoting a significant amount of instructional time for a Deaf child to lipread
and get lipspeech therapy rather than learn educational subjects (Waech, 2004,
p. 7).
Misconceptions That Continue to Oppress the Deaf
As long as Deaf women continue to be seen as “disabled,” conflict between the
hearing and the Deaf community will exist. That is evident when we look back in
history at the way Deaf women have been treated by the hearing society. Historically,
Deaf woman are not strangers to oppression, marginalization, and discrimination.
They have to deal with what is known as “double jeopardy” (Schaefer, 2000, p. 46).
They are not only oppressed as women but they are looked down on as being Deaf as
well. Deaf mothers are often harshly judged. Deaf women have been questioned and
31
ridiculed by hearing society for centuries whether they are competent and capable or
not to raise their hearing children (Described and Captioned Media [DCMP], 2006).
Deaf women are not only discriminated against and taunted by the hearing
society for being women and Deaf but a negative image has been carried over to the
Deaf community as well. As a result, Deaf woman in general have not been able to
lose the negative gender role image Deaf men hold. The men still believe women
belong in the kitchen and not as leaders, directors, rulers, or managers. Therefore,
women are expected to be servers and hostesses at social events. Because of the
stereotypes, traditionally Deaf women have not been allowed to join national societies,
which has been carried from generation to generation. As a result, the intolerance and
prejudice against them and isolation they feel have brought Deaf women closer
together for support and companionship (DCMP, 2006).
Most of the hearing world does not understand that the Deaf community comes
from a culture that has its own community, belief system, and language. The hearing
mindset may account for why the Deaf are not adequately serviced or are not offered
ways to obtain effective communication in Sonoma County. Siple (n.d.) states the
following:
Most Deaf do not perceive themselves as lost something (i.e., hearing) and do
not think of themselves of being handicapped, impaired or disabled. They
celebrate and cherish their culture because it gives them the unique privilege of
sharing a common history and language. (p. 1)
32
Until the hearing are educated and recognize and respect that Deaf people are
not broken, the Deaf will never escape the “o” they wear on their backs for “other.” As
previously mentioned, Kevin Kumashiro (2000) states, “The word “other” always
associates itself traditionally with marginalized and oppressed groups” (p. 1). As a
result they are considered a disabled minority group.
Myths That Continue
(1) All Deaf People Wear Hearing Aids, and Hearing Aids Restore Hearing
Some Deaf people have residual hearing. They are the ones who can use
hearing aids effectively. Hearing aids do not make sound, they amplify it. Thus, if
sound is not being heard at all, there is no use for a hearing aid. Even if a Deaf person
could use a hearing aid, he/she may or may not wear it. “The National Institute on
Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCA) provides more in depth
information on hearing aids, their purpose, functionality and limitations” (Waech,
2004, p. 6).
(2) All Deaf People Read Lips
Lipreading is such a precise science that lipreaders can understand what is
being said across the room. There are some Deaf who can read lips, but many cannot.
Because of the many identical mouth movements, only of about 30% of English can
be read on the lips. Body language and environmental cues are also important and
many people are not clued into those (Tyler Junior College, n.d.).
33
(3) All Deaf People Use Sign Language
American Sign Language (ASL) is a recognized language but there are other
ways Deaf people communicate that result in effective communication such as Signed
English (SEE), fingerspelling, lipreading/speechreading, writing, gesturing, writing
notes, and speaking. There are several ways to communicate and not all Deaf
communicate the same way (Waech, 2004).
(4) All Deaf are Mute
Never assume that Deaf people cannot speak. Many Deaf can speak but they
choose not to for many reasons. One of the reasons is due to embarrassment of the
tone of their voice. Only people who do not have the physical ability to speak are
mute, which is not the case for all Deaf (Tyler Junior College, n.d.).
(5) All Deaf Read and Write
ASL is the native language for many Deaf and it has no written form. Many
hearing still do not believe the Deaf have their own language so they assume all Deaf
can read and write. It is still difficult for hearing people to understand that not all Deaf
read and write, which causes issues when the hearing try to communicate with the
Deaf. One out of four profound Deaf write or read English because their profound
language is English (Davis, 2010).
(6) People who are Deaf are Deaf and Dumb
Whether a person can hear or not has nothing to do with his/her IQ. Being
Deaf has nothing to do with being dumb or mute. The Deaf people take offense to the
34
stereotype and it is often written in police reports and newspapers. Stereotyping and
labeling result from misconceptions and myths only makes it more difficult for the
Deaf victim to not be believed but also to be “heard” because the hearing are too
preoccupied about information that has no merit.
Inclusion: Not Always a Good Thing
Inclusion is a frequent buzzword that social justice advocates rally around
when fighting for the rights of the disabled, LGBT community, immigrants, and any
minority groups who are oppressed and marginalized. But inclusion is not right for
everyone, including the Deaf community. When society speaks of inclusion, it is
usually thought to mean one-size-fits-all; but inclusion can often hurt more than then it
can help. “There are consequences that not only have a burden on the Deaf but the
group they are supposed to fit in with” (Waech, 2004, pp. 4-5). It has an effect on Deaf
children mainstreaming and Deaf survivors of violence. One of the most prevalent
places full inclusion can be seen is in school. “Nearly three-fourths of an estimated
eighty thousand Deaf children in the United States now go to local schools with local
hearing children" (Lane, 1992, p. 135). The hearing disparity causes isolation for deaf
students, and they miss getting the same educational experiences as hearing children.
"Most Deaf children are in schools where there are only two other Deaf children in
class" (p. 136).
Inclusion for the Deaf or hard of Hearing in regular school classrooms did not
become as issue in American life until the early 1970s. Before the early 1970s,
35
inclusion was discussed, thought about, or considered by educators and policymakers.
However, not until the 1975 law, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
was it made an educational reality. The law was designed to give all children “free and
appropriate pubic education” in the least restrictive environment” (Cohen, 1995, p. 2).
Many advocates of inclusion support mandatory full inclusion of all children with
disabilities in regular classrooms. The law is often used to give their argument validity
that all children have the right to an education in the same form as the hearing
children. Though children have a right to an equal and fair education, the advocates
rarely consider the fact that full inclusion may not be the best for the child (Cohen,
1995).
More and more Deaf children now mainstreamed as it becomes the norm. Special
classes for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students are decreasing due to the budget
restraints, thus, the number of mainstreamed Deaf students will no doubt increase
(Hall, 2005). Nunes, Pretzlik, and Olsson (2006) discovered that social integration
of Deaf students should be a consideration alongside that of cognitive gain when
determining whether to mainstream or not. They studied the social adaptation of
nine Deaf students from two mainstream schools. They state, “If Deaf pupils are
rejected or feel isolated in mainstream schools, their education may ultimately
suffer” (Nunes et al., 2006, abstract). Since the school experience is also about
socialization and being accepted by others, if Deaf pupils feel rejected, they may
36
have trouble with their studies. There are two issues the advocates do not
understand about how can inclusion can hurt more than help.
1. How can the Deaf child learn when he/she has to stay put with eyes glued
on the interpreter while his/her classmates have full access to the visuals in
the classroom and he/she does not?
2. Deaf children are isolated from their hearing peers because they are glued
to their interpreter all day. “Deaf children immersed in a hearing, Englishspeaking environment, the Deaf child frequently drowns in the
mainstream” (Lane, 1992, p. 136).
Inclusion may not only hurt the deaf child in the classroom, it may also take a toll on
them as adults.
Deaf Children and Deaf Victims of Violence Have a Commonality
Like Deaf children, Deaf victims of violence have not had a positive
experience with inclusion. “Deaf advocates have been against inclusion because even
though equal access is a human right for all, the one size fits all model does not apply
when dealing with the Deaf community” (Waech, 2004, p. 5). It is the same when
Deaf children experience inclusion in the classroom. According to Hall (2005) from
the Rochester Institute of Technology, when mainstreaming Deaf children in the
classroom, it is not likely that the children will learn social skills they need for
everyday life. The amount of communication the children miss out on with their
hearing peers is immense, such that inclusion of Deaf women victims of violence can
37
cause not only anxiety but isolation. Because the Deaf and hearing children
experienced “educational and social development” in different ways, the Deaf child
experiences unfavorable circumstances and, thus, so does the Deaf adult.
The biggest problem and root cause of the increase of isolation and anxiety is
communication difficulties fostered by the mainstreaming setting. A study
showed that rather than being actively disliked, Deaf children were neglected
by the hearing students in terms of socialization. (Martin & Bat-Chava, 2003,
as cited in Hall, (2005 para. 8)
The above experience is what happens in the shelters for Deaf women and it is why
they leave the shelter within 24 hours. The people at the shelter need to be aware of
the lack of companionship and communication, thus the sense of isolation, Deaf
women may experience there at the shelter.
The Deaf Community and Domestic Violence
Overview
The term “Hearing Privilege” is associated with domestic violence, hearing,
and control when a Deaf person’s abuser is hearing. According to DEAF HOPE (Reis,
2007), an advocacy group for the Deaf, hearing privilege is when the hearing partner
excludes the Deaf man or woman from the following or does the following:
1. Phone messages
2. Social events
3. Access to Deaf friends, community, or culture
38
4. Takes advantage of the system, which is not fully accessible to Deaf people.
For example, the restraining order hearing gets postponed because there are no
interpreters.
5. Puts the Deaf person down by saying he/she is no good because he/she is
Deaf.
6. If the police are called, the hearing partner tries to interpret and take control of
the situation (Reis, 2007).
Domestic violence is something no one should experience. It is a form of violence in
which intimidation and threat are imposed on a victim against his/her will. Domestic
violence is all about power, control, and domination. However, being Deaf puts a
person in more danger when experiencing any kind of violence simply because they
cannot hear, which alone makes them an easy target as a victim of crime (Reis, 2007).
Thus, the perpetrator can have more control over the victim by doing things such as
cutting off communication to their friends, law enforcement, and community (Reis,
2007). The abuser makes the victim feel as though he/she is at fault and it is easy for
the abuser to influence the Deaf victim to believe things that are not necessarily true.
Such control not only affects spouses but friends, family members, boyfriends,
girlfriends, and children. Domestic violence is not only physical abuse as most think;
it can also be emotional, sexual, psychological, and economical abuse. The crime
controls, manipulates, intimidates, and destroys victims’ self worth, self-esteem and
self-confidence. Domestic violence does not discriminate when it comes to whom it
39
affects with regard to ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation; this includes women
with disabilities. “Abusers use various tactics to achieve power and control, including
behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce,
threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone” (Accessing Safety, 2010d, para. 1).
Abusers’ tactics go so far as to be in the courtroom when they tell the judge that
pounding on the wall and kicking furniture is to get the victim’s attentions. They
abusers hope the judge will believe the violence is part of Deaf culture. The courtroom
advocates are there to inform the judge of the untruths in the above instances.
Eighty-five percent of the disabled women population is a victim of domestic
violence. They have a twice the greater risk of being raped, abused sexually, verbally
and emotionally than women without disabilities. Other barriers women with
disabilities face that women without disabilities do not face is feeling trapped and
isolated from social interaction due to their lack of accessibility to the outside world.
The fear of being institutionalized is a great fear as well. Research shows the abuse is
not the same for women for women with disabilities including Deaf women, as
women without disabilities (A Safe Place, 2009). Disabled women are more
vulnerable to domestic violence because some may have physical disabilities that keep
them from fighting back.
However, this research also shows that for women with disabilities and Deaf
women, the abuse is different. For example, it is often more severe, goes on for
40
longer periods of time, and occurs at the hand of a larger number of
perpetrators. (Accessing Safety, 2010e, para. 6)
Women in general are marginalized for just being women but disabled Disabled/Deaf
face “double jeopardy” because they are not only women, but they are disabled.
According to Kumashiro (2000), people/students with disabilities are part of an
oppressed group.
Public Resources
Every 10 years when there is a census taken, the information is used for the
federal government to determine how much money is allocated to communities based
on the data extracted from the census. An estimated $400 billion is used for
communities including new schools, hospitals, housing developments, and other
community facilities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The information is used to
determine the demographics, including the size of the community. But since the Deaf
have been excluded from being recognized on the census, they are excluded from
getting money they could use for their community (Lollar, 2002). The money could be
used for additional ASL classes in universities and community colleges including
telecommunication equipment to enhance their quality of life.
The Deaf community currently faces a lack of public and emergency services,
information, and resources. In Sonoma County, for example, the closest agency with
services exclusively for the Deaf is more than 60 miles away in San Leandro. In
Sonoma County, the Deaf community has only one resource they can count on, but
41
that agency is not equipped to serve the Deaf community exclusively. An example is
that in Sonoma County there are three agencies who service the hearing female
victims of sexual assault and domestic violence but there is not one local agency who
service the Deaf women. It is a problem because hearing agencies focus on the fact
that a woman cannot hear rather than focusing on her need. Marilyn Smith (2003)
expresses how important it is for Deaf women who are victims of sexual assault and
domestic violence to be serviced by Deaf agencies,
I talked to a few hearing agencies who were trying to serve Deaf victims, but it
wasn’t working. We the Deaf know what works for us, we know what works,
and we know what cultural rules need to be addressed. When clients go to Deaf
agencies they don’t have to worry about their Deafness. We focus immediately
on the abuse they’re experiencing. (p. 2)
If the idea of inclusion is not embedded within the acknowledgement of each person’s
individual needs, the consequences for Deaf survivors can be devastating.
According to Gretchen Waech (2009),
The survivor will typically experience such severe isolation (due to lack of or
difficulty in communication both with staff and other residents) that she will
often return to an abusive situation where she at least has communication
access (if her abuser signs) within twenty-four hours. (Waech, 2009, p. 5)
Many Deaf women often return to an abusive situation when they have no one with
whom to communicate in a shelter environment or if her abuser also signs.
42
Cockram (2003) studied abused women’s experiences with assistance as well as the
assisting agencies’ abilities to respond. Not only did many of the agencies lack the
funding and resources to help the number of disabled women seeking refuge, the
women often felt worse because of such a disparity. Cockram noted explicit feelings
of confusion for many of the participants, especially when an intimate partner was the
perpetrator. Low self-esteem and negative body images were common themes among
the women. Since Deaf are included in the group labeled “disabled,” they are prone to
similar feelings. If one is disabled, her body must not be ideal. Hence, she must be
grateful that her partner would be willing to be with someone with a disability. Such
low self-esteem and feelings of self-deprecation will keep many victims from helping
themselves (Cockram, 2003).
A recent study performed by the National Institute of Justice regarding Deaf
women who are sexual assault victims showed their issues are unique in terms of the
barriers they face. Researchers Obinna, Kruegar, Osterbaan, Sadusky, and Devoer
(2006) at the Minneapolis Council on Crime and Justice interviewed members of the
community who were impacted by sexual assault whether they were victims or police
officers investigating the crime. They were all involved in some capacity. A total of 51
Deaf citizens were interviewed, along with 15 service providers who serviced both the
hearing and the Deaf and 10 police officers who were connected with the
investigation.
43
Obinna et al. (2006) explained that when a Deaf victim of sexual assault is
identified, it is important that her experiences are not associated with other victims of
the same nature. When Deaf women who have been sexually assaulted report, there
are stereotypes associated not only with being a sexual assault victim but also being
Deaf. The term “rape” is a full of finger pointing and judgments that causes the victim
to feel guilty that maybe she caused it. There is a social stigma attached to being a
rape victim. Because the Deaf community is extremely small, everyone knows
everyone and, as a result, it is very difficult to keep their anonymity. Deaf victims also
found that once the word gets out to the Deaf community that a woman has been
raped, especially if the perpetrator was Deaf, there is not only a lack of support but
isolation (Obinna et al., 2006).
Another issue is the lack of understanding of Deaf culture on the hearing
people’s part. The hearing get so caught up on the fact that the women are Deaf, they
forget the Deaf are from a unique cultural with their own language and belief system.
Obinna et al. (2006) found that many of the Deaf women they interviewed did not see
themselves as having a medical condition; they viewed themselves as coming from a
linguistic community that has not yet been accepted by the hearing community.
Yet another issue the researchers encountered was the fact that because the
Deaf women came from their own unique culture, their experience may be different
from hearing women’s (Obinna et al., 2006). The different experiences may still exist
even though their reactions or experiences are similar. It is the culture differences that
44
dictate whether they tell someone or if they do, who that person will be (Obinna et al.,
2006).
Another issue the researchers (Obinna et al., 2006) pointed out was the way the
hearing treat the Deaf victim. Communication sometimes became very uncomfortable
and awkward for both the Deaf victim and the hearing person, which could be a reason
why the Deaf women do not seek help. The language is also an issue because not may
hearing people realize that English is not the same as ASL, thus creating a
communication barrier. Obinna et al. (2006) also stated that the Deaf women had
several communication styles and those styles varied from person to person. Some
Deaf people lip read, others could read and write, but some Deaf people could not read
and write.
Deaf victims were hesitant to go to hearing shelters or agencies because most
of the providers were hearing and they could not provide effective communication. It
is unlikely that agencies will be set up with a TTY system, not to mention a staff
member who knows how to work the system. Another option is having an interpreter
but that can be very uncomfortable, even though the interpreter is there to be their ears
only, it can be very uncomfortable for a woman to tell someone her business (Obinna
et al., 2006).
When discussing improving police response, there was a mixture of opinions
on whether the police were helpful and if the Deaf would ever call them back after
they were victimized (Obinna et al., 2006). One would not expect to be victimized by
45
police officers but it happens. Deaf women claim that police officers have actually
accused them of being drunk or mentally ill, or they misread their body language as
being violent and dangerous. Another issue the women mentioned was the fact that the
911 operators did not know how to operate the TTY (teletypewriter).
Both the Deaf community and service providers all agreed that law
enforcement must improve their practices when communicating with the Deaf
community, regardless if they are victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, or
suspects of a witness to a crime. Training was also emphasized by the Deaf victims.
Interpreters were on the list as well as very clear and precise agency policies. An
example was given that even though there may be available interpreters, the police
officers did not know how to contact them. Regardless of the flaws of the Minneapolis
Police department, the Obinna et al. (2006) commended them for their sensitivity
toward the Deaf community and recognizing them as a group of people with a distinct
language and culture. The officers also go through a 10-week training course on ASL.
Hearing people serving the Deaf/Deaf have become silent about the
fundamental divergence between their views of Deafness and that of Deaf
people they profess to serve. They rarely discuss these disagreements with one
another or with Deaf leaders; life is more pleasant that way. This silence of
hearing professionals is an adaptive response to an old age feud, a wearying
struggle that seems to never end it, because it is the inexhaustible struggle of a
linguistic and cultural minority for self determination. (Lane, 1992, p. 4)
46
It is easier to submit than to fight the argument with the hearing professional who
knows they will not win because at the end of the day, they know nothing about
struggling for their identity, their culture, or self-determination.
Training Law Enforcement to Communicate with People Who Are Deaf or Hard
of Hearing
According to the American Disability Act (ADA) Guide for Law Enforcement
Officers (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006), it is a matter of time before a police
officer will come into contact with a Deaf or Hard of Hearing person. The ADA
claims approximately 9% of all citizens have an issue with hearing so there is no doubt
that the number will increase as the population ages. The ADA also states that all Deaf
and Hard of Hearing are entitled to the same services as everyone else; hence, law
enforcement must make efforts to ensure effective communication.
According to the ADA, the Deaf are entitled to effective communication. For it
to be achieved, law enforcement must provide certain communication aides and
services unless providing the aide or service becomes a financial burden to the agency.
The decision regarding what aides or services to provide can only be made by the head
or official of the agency. Devices and services available to achieve effective
communication would be pad and pencil and a teletypewriter (TTY also known as a
TTD). The TTY device can be used to send messages back and forth over the
telephone, while another available listening aide is an amplifier that can be placed on
the telephone receiver. A sign language interpreter may also be an option for better
47
communication, and there is an oral interpreter for the Deaf or Hard of Hearing trained
to read lips (i.e., as speech reading). Because only one-third of the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing community read lips, it should not be assumed that lip reading will classify as
effective communication.
Self-identifying
It would make a difference if the Deaf were allowed to self-identify as a
Cultural Linguistic Minority Group. It matters to the Deaf whether they are seen as
disabled or a member of a minority; they do not want to be considered disabled. It
would have an impact on the Deaf community image if the Deaf were allowed to selfidentify as a cultural bilingual minority. The Deaf are seen by the hearing society as
being disabled, broken, and handicapped. Hence, the Deaf have suffered inequality,
disempowerment, and discrimination. As a result of the Deaf not being able to hear,
they have suffered inequality and discrimination and a lack of empowerment.
Lawrence (n.d.) notes the deleterious effect the discrimination has had on their image
from a hearing person’s perspective, “Historically hearing people viewed Deafness of
the mind and body and they did not afford the Deaf to an education, own property or
sign contracts. There is no question that the Deaf have felt the ramification of this
condition” (para. 5). Thus, the term “disabled minority” pigeonholes the Deaf into a
category that makes them appear as being less than. Lollar (2000) notes the negative
effects such a term has on the Deaf, “The term disability is not an outcome, it’s an
input, a variable just like age, sex, racial ethnicity and it needs to be seen that way, as
48
opposed to a negative health outcome” (para. 1). As long as the term disability
continues to correlate with low education, poverty, and communities and individuals
with low resources, the Deaf will never escape their oppressed state. The label of
being “disabled” begins at a very young age for the Deaf; however, there is another
way of looking at the label when referring to education and the Deaf child. The
argument is, rather than classifying the child as “Disabled” why not allow them to
self-identify as a Cultural Linguistic Minority and set a precedent for those who
follow?
The Deaf would have benefited from self-identifying as a Cultural Linguistic
Minority on Census 2010. A recent petition on CARE 2 was posted online to generate
support and get signatures from the pubic to rally around the idea that the Deaf should
be listed on the 2020 Census as a Cultural linguistic Minority group. The Deaf would
not only have the opportunity to change their image but to generate money in their
community from the census as other sub-groups. Funds could be used for the Deaf and
by the Deaf to create Deaf schools, build community centers, shelters for Deaf men,
women, and children who are victims of violence and create support from the county
to start a Deaf commission.
Cultural Minority: Deaf Children Can Pave the Way for Others
If Deaf school children were allowed to self-identify as a Cultural Linguistic
Minority group they would grow up with rights and acceptance their Deaf parents and
grandparents never experienced. Hence, the negative images of being “disabled” and
49
“handicapped” have overshadowed the fact that they come from a linguistic
community. Charrow and Wilbur (1975) note,
Traditionally, Deaf children have been regarded as a handicapped group,
whose inability to hear impose severe limitations on how they could learn. It
cannot be denied that Deaf children, compared to hearing children, are in fact
handicapped: they lack the ability to hear spoken language. (pp. 352-359)
However, as Charrow and Wilbur (1975) explain in the following statement,
there is another way of looking at Deaf children in terms of self-identifying as a
cultural linguistic minority; compare them to other minority groups who do not speak
English.
When looking at other non-native minority groups such as Mexican-Americans
or Chinese Americans, what the Deaf have in common with both is that they
do not speak English. Pre-lingually, Deaf children, after all, are not really
aware of this ‘handicap,’ since they do not know what ‘normal hearing’ is.
(Charrow & Wilbur, 1975, p. 352)
Because they have adapted to Deafness not knowing anything different, they
do not know they are handicapped. It is very difficult for the Deaf to understand why
the hearing think they are “handicapped” because, to the Deaf, they are a cultural
linguistic community. “It is only when they were required to look, perform, behave,
and achieve like hearing children that they begin to see themselves as ‘not normal’ –
as opposed to merely Deaf” (Charrow & Wilbur, 1975, p. 352). So if the only “issue”
50
the Deaf children have is that they do not hear and they are “normal” in every other
way, then we could say they were just like the minority child whose second language
is English.
Charrow and Wilbur (1975) say, “The catch is that the Deaf child’s normal
modality for language is not auditory and oral, but visual and manual” (p. 352). If the
Deaf children were considered a Cultural Linguistic minority group, it may take the
pressure off the fact that they cannot hear because as long as the Deaf are seen as
“disabled,” they will be seen as broken and having to be fixed. If they are accepted as
a Linguistic minority group, they may not only be accepted as individuals, but the fact
that they have their own culture, community, and language may defuse the problem
regarding learning how to speak as their peers. Future firefighters and law
enforcement officials are in those classrooms. Relationships between the children
change leading to changed relationships as adults.
Conclusion
Inclusion of the Deaf community with the hearing is not the answer as so many
advocates may want to believe. Often inclusion isolates and continues to make the
Deaf feel different and stand out more. Having social organizations, clubs, and
auxiliaries of their own is crucial to the Deaf. The organizations and social activities
help the Deaf grow socially by being in a setting in which they feel comfortable and
do not feel isolated or alone. According to Lane (1992), the majority of the hearing
still sees the Deaf as being “Deaf and dumb” and stereotyping holds them back (p. 8).
51
It is believed by many hearing that the Deaf community lacks social skills, cannot
understand other hearing people, and cannot communicate. But those things are
apparent usually when they are with the hearing. What the Deaf have in common with
other cultural stereotypes is they “appear” to lack social and cognitive skills when
dealing with their emotions and behavior. According to Linderman (1994), the Deaf
are seen as an oppressed group and also competition to the hearing. He believes as
long as the Deaf are treated as though they are emotionally defective and broken, the
Deaf start to believe that (p. 76). The only place away from that rhetoric and biased
thinking is being with others from the same group. Many in the hearing world do not
understand that the Deaf have their own language, culture, and community. The
mindset of the hearing may contribute to why the Deaf are not adequately serviced or
at least not offered ways to obtain effective communication in at the same level as the
hearing in Sonoma County (Lane, 1992). There have been numerous obstacles from
social, political, educational, and cultural aspects to hinder both Deaf women and men
from receiving services equal to those of the hearing. The communication gap between
the Deaf and hearing needs to be bridged.
To close the gap in the area of the Deaf having adequate and equal human
services and access to having their own county commissions and boards, something
needs to be done. Obinna et al. (2006) concluded that training is the key to not only
educate about the Deaf culture but to learning Deaf mannerisms and how to respect
them as human beings. Educating the hearing should be employed for two reasons: (a)
52
the Deaf need to have their own services tailored for their needs, and (b) the Deaf
should be allowed to self-identify as a Cultural Linguistic Minority to change their
image from disabled and handicapped to a group that has their own language, which
would be an opportunity to generate money for their community.
A methodology that has been shown to encourage both the hearing and Deaf to
become more involved and aware is to offer an education tool from inquiry-based,
cooperative hands-on techniques. The employment of the teaching methodologies will
lower the barriers both Deaf men and woman have faced in Sonoma County. The
benefits of the inquiry-based model for the Deaf is that the hearings’ mindset and
attitude regarding the Deaf will improve. The Deaf community will see the
opportunities and benefits of an open dialogue to bridge the communication gap, and
engagement of the hearings’ interest in the Deaf obtaining effective communication.
As the hearing become educated with exposure to Deaf culture, resulting from town
hall meetings and the brochure, the hearing will have more resources and knowledge
to provide services and information equally to bridge the gap of inequity both Deaf
men and women face in Sonoma County.
53
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This project was designed around anti-oppression methodologies that benefit
all human beings, especially Deaf men and women. This project has two components:
1. An educational brochure with a focus to bridge the communication gap and
open a dialogue between the Deaf and hearing communities (see Appendix
A), and
2. a PowerPoint presentation that will educate the hearing about bridging the
communication gap in the Deaf community.
It is a guide to deaf culture including the myths and misconceptions and
available resources for Deaf victims of violence (see Appendix B). The development
of this educational project came from a petition signed by 101 Deaf community
members, and the current status of resources and services offered to the Deaf by the
hearing community in Sonoma County. There is a gap in the available services and
resources offered to the Deaf community due somewhat to the communication gap
between the Deaf and hearing community. To close the gap would mean to create an
open dialogue between law enforcement and fire officials with the Deaf community.
There seems to be a great deal of concern for safety and welfare on both sides, not just
from the Deaf community, but from city law enforcement including the Sheriff’s dept
and local fire departments as well.
54
The Target Audience
The target audience for this educational project includes both hearing and Deaf
communities, including law enforcement, fire protection, and other service agencies.
Because of the communication challenges, there must be certified interpreters
including tactile interpreters and Deaf facilitators during the presentation to provide
effective communication for the Deaf.
A Content Analysis of a Training Guide as a Visual Guide
A content analysis approach was used in the development of this educational
project including a PowerPoint and brochure for both the Deaf and the hearing
communities. Content analysis is an obstructive method of examining journals and
books in which the researcher imposes his/her own predetermined categories (Babbie,
1998; Bogdan & Biken, 1998). Content analysis, when organizing the data, shows that
the approach is reliable because it can be recognized and categorized again if needed
(Babbie, 1998). Furthermore, when using the content analysis approach, excellent
results can be achieved to analyze material because the material has been occurring
over periods of time as in the analysis of this training guide and PowerPoint. A content
analysis approach is also secure and effortless since there are no human subjects or an
examination of written records used in the development of this training material
(Babbie, 1998).
55
The following samples of PowerPoint presentations were used as a model and
resource for this project:
1. Entering the World of Deaf Survivors
By Julie Rems-Smario, MS, MA
Deaf Hope-Deaf Counseling Advocacy and Referral Agency
Oakland, CA, No Date
2. Deaf Culture, Part 3: Oppression, Values, Identity
By Lance Forshay
ASL 305, Intro to Deaf Studies
University of Washington, May 4, 2009
For the brochure content, numerous textbooks, journals, and articles were
analyzed for accuracy. The topics were analyzed as well as the depth of the topic,
readability, accurateness, credibility, and appropriateness of the topic. The following
topics are included in the brochure: Demographics, Deaf Culture, a study about
domestic violence and Deaf women, ADA Guide-Model Policy-For Law Enforcement
Officers, and the myths and misconceptions the hearing have about the Deaf
community. Deaf inclusion approaches were used in developing this educational
training guide and visual presentation, specifically using the anti oppressive
framework by focusing on the myths and misconceptions that cause the continuation
of oppression and marginalization. The resources for the brochure are located in
Appendix C.
56
Summary
A comparative analysis approach was used to analyze resources, and other
styles of brochures best suited for this project. The brochure and PowerPoint
presentation was designed around educating the hearing about the Deaf culture and
ways to eliminate the oppression and providing resources for the Deaf community.
This project is a hands-on approach and targets people with strong interests to end
discrimination against the Deaf culture.
57
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
To close the communication gap between the hearing and the Deaf
communities, the hearing have to be educated to understand the Deaf are not
“handicapped,” “disabled,” or are any “different” from people who are able to hear.
According to Parasnis (1998), the Deaf community still struggle with their selfidentity and do not see themselves as “disabled” or medically challenged. The idea
that the Deaf community has their own language is not a new concept in the Deaf
community, but the hearing society still does not understand their reality. However,
some in the medical field still believe the Deaf are “disabled.” Fortunately, there are
some who believe the contrary.
As early as the last century, educators of the Deaf have all agreed that the Deaf
have their own unique language, values, and social norms. According to Mills (2003),
the Deaf community needs to feel liberated, empowered, and free to not only make
their own decisions but to have choices about their educational needs. Harlan Lane
(1992), an educator and Deaf advocate, stated the following regarding Deaf and
education: “typically, Deaf persons have not been involved in making decisions for
their own educational placement and policy in schools” (p. 43). But to understand the
dimension of the issues the Deaf were fighting, one has to understand Deaf culture.
The Deaf have fought for their equal portions of human rights for centuries. However,
58
the effects of oppression and disempowerment caused the Deaf to resign to the fact
that nothing would change so they gave up the fight. When a person is constantly
ignored and told he/she is not equal because the majority does not understand his/her
culture, the person begins to believe that negative stigma (Linderman, 1994).
Many people say the status of the Deaf community improved first in 1991 with
the American Disabilities Act, then further with the Individuals with Disabilities Act
of 2004. Title II of the ADA enforces strict guidelines and requirements all states and
city agencies and local governments must meet to ensure they have effective
communication with people with disabilities, as effective as they would with people
without disabilities, which is referred to as “effective communication.” The
requirement stands unless there are reasons such that (a) state or local government can
prove effective communication would be a financially burden or (b) if they can prove
effective communication would modify the nature of the program or service in
question (Office of the Attorney General, 1991).
According to the ADA, “Effective Communication” means regardless if the
communication is written or spoke, both methods must be precisely clear and people
with disabilities must be able to understand as well as people without disabilities.
Understanding is a must because there are people whose communication is affected by
their disability. People with disabilities consisting of blindness; Deafness; speaking; or
reading, writing, or comprehending may select other ways to communicate. When
regarding “Effective Communication,” this includes ALL members of the general
59
public who may apply for programs or employment, any activities, or seek
information.
The City of Alameda was sued and sanctioned by the Department of Justice for
not providing an interpreter for a Deaf-blind man who sat in jail for three days and had
no idea with what he was being charged (Department of Justice, 2010). The city of
Alameda, and law enforcement in general, must attempt to consider the notion that
providing effective communication is essential to the survival of the Deaf community.
The hearing society must continue to be aware and knowledgeable there is a
communication gap that contributes to the issue of public safety when it comes to the
Deaf community. Most importantly, they need to assist whenever they can in bridging
the communication gap to ensure the Deaf, including Deaf women victims of sexual
assault and domestic violence, have resources and access to effective communication.
An Evaluation Questionnaire on a PowerPoint Presentation and Brochure
The evaluation questionnaire (see Appendix D) and this project were presented
to 11 students, three faculty members from California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS), and one Police Officer. There were a total of 15 people who attended the
presentation. The group was asked to respond honestly to the questions within the
evaluation and either fill it out in person or e-mail their responses. Some of their
comments and suggestions were incorporated into this project including the
PowerPoint presentation and the brochure.
60
To validate and support this project further, one Deaf mental health
professional and two Deaf advocates were given the opportunity to evaluate this
project. The same questionnaire, PowerPoint presentation, and brochure were sent to
two university professors, one in Ethnic Studies and the other in Deaf Studies from a
Northern California University. The extensive feedback, comments, analyses, and
suggestions on Deaf inclusion and the lack of effective communication practices were
incorporated into this project.
Other Professionals Would Benefit from Presentation
All 15 attendees responded with a ranking of a four or a five (agree somewhat
and agree strongly) that they felt others in their profession would benefit from the
presentation. Of the attendees, one made the comment that “They would like the
presenter to come to a domestic violence meeting and perhaps give a presentation at
DIVA of Citrus Heights and Citrus Heights Police Department and speak about Deaf
culture and effective communication.” A Professor of Gender Equity studies
commented, “More teachers and Professors should learn more about the Deaf culture
and language.” A Public Safety officer from the University stated, “I would like to
know more about resources that are available to law enforcement.” These attendees
validate the idea that professionals feel there is a need and an interest in either a
presentation or additional resources and information on Deaf culture and further
explanation of what effective communication means to a Deaf person.
61
Attendees’ Interest in How Informative the Presentation Was
Fifteen of the attendees (with scores of 4 or 5: agree somewhat or agree
strongly) said the presentation was informative. One student, and a professional, said
she learned a lot about the myths and misconceptions that she believed to be true about
the Deaf community and the presentation dispelled the tales. Another attendee said she
learned specific difficulties and prejudices against the Deaf community. A student
stated, “As an American Sign Language student, it is eye-opening to realize the
limited resources available to the Deaf community.” Another said, “I didn’t realize
how the Deaf were oppressed and ignored.” An educator stated, “Presentation was
very informative, great information. The PowerPoint was helpful along with stories
and examples.” The educator’s comments support how effective presentations can be
when using appropriate visuals and story telling. A Deaf student made the following
comment,
The presentation was good; however, I think that hearing individuals would
better understand why Deaf/Hard of Hearing are concerned about dealing with
the Police Department with more examples. Most do not know why we’re
animated, etc.; this is not just a Police Department issue. It even occurs at
Gallaudet University. Their campus Police Department did not even know
American Sign Language and accidently killed a student because he was trying
to sign and they thought he was dangerous. When explaining about the facial
expressions, explain that this is part of the language, grammatical markers.
62
Show an example if you can, or point out what the interpreter is doing. It is a
way of sharing the story, the spirit of the sentence.
It is common and easy for the hearing population to become confused and misread the
facial expressions of the Deaf community when the Deaf are communicating because
of their animation. Facial expressions are kept to a minimum when the hearing
communicate with one another.
The Importance of Visual Effects
All attendees surveyed felt that visual effects were an important component
and were meaningful to the presentation. One attendee stated, “The visuals were good.
The presenter was more focused on the speaking rather than following the
PowerPoint.” Another attendee suggested, “The presenter should have more pictures
in the PowerPoint. Another person said, “I loved the packets the presenter prepared for
the audience.” One educator suggested, “The visual effects would have been more
effective if the presenter practiced on how to use the PowerPoint.” Because the room
was dark and the interpreter was blocking the view of the screen it was difficult to see
the PowerPoint on the screen; therefore, the challenges that occurred could not be
avoided. The Deaf students said,
Regarding PowerPoint and visual effects, if you’re going to be speaking to the
Deaf community, you need to explain that the presentation is primarily geared
to help hearing individuals better understand. I think that audism needs to be
moved under abusing hearing privilege and there are a few other things I
63
would change or move, but it is your PowerPoint and you do it how you feel is
best. I’m concerned there may be some confusion via the Deaf community if
that makes sense. Police Department suggestions may be best to recap in the
conclusion too.
Additional Comments/Suggestions
Only 3 of the 15 questionnaires had comments or suggestions. One graduate
student stated,
My son is Deaf and a deputy Sheriff was standing outside one of our windows
looking in with a flashlight. When I went outside to see what he wanted, I saw
that my ex-boyfriend, a sergeant in the Sacramento Sheriff’s office, was hiding
behind a bush. I went in the house and told my oldest son about it and he went
outside to inquire what was going on. My son proceeded to ask the deputy
questions and because he was rude to my son, he decided to call the deputy’s
superior. This was my son’s experience when he tried calling the Sheriff’s
department. My son who is Deaf tried to call the relay system to make a
complaint. He was able to reach someone at the Sheriff’s department, but in
the middle of the complaint, something happened and they were disconnected.
When he tried to call the sheriff’s department community line back by using
the relay system, no one answered the phone, it was just a recording. My son
called several times but could not reach a live person. Eventually, the deputy’s
64
Sgt. called back at midnight on the house phone, no relay service was used so
my son was not able to take the call directly.
I then spoke to the Sgt and I asked for his supervisor’s name and
number. I called him and he told me that the deputy was only looking at my
house number. My response was that the house number is on the side that faces
the street and the house number was also painted on the curb in front of my
house. I said that I would not keep my house number in a window, especially
one that is not facing the street. My son was never able to reach an officer and
the captain never returned his call. (Graduate student)
A Deaf student also commented the following,
What people do not realize is that most Deaf do not read or write because
many do not have a reading or writing education beyond second to fourth
grade when they graduate from high school, especially if they are
mainstreamed. There should be more of an emphasis on hearing privilege,
which happens amongst friends and it is a form of Audism.
The definition of Audism is the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to
hear or behave in the manner of one who hears.
A college Professor of Deaf Studies said the following,
When looking at your thesis, I wanted to comment on the capitalization of
“Deaf.” It has been a long-standing convention that Deaf be capitalized when
referring to the culture and community of Deaf people, as well as when
65
referring to people who belong to and participate within the Deaf culture and
community, and when referring to audiological standards. Or people should be
more properly considered a linguistic and cultural ethnic minority group, all
Deaf people, whether they are part of the culture, or even if they do not want to
consider themselves to be a part of it or want no part of it, it should be referred
to as “Deaf.” It is like with Black people who might have been raised by White
parents or who have chosen to disassociate themselves from Black culture,
even if they chose to do so or know nothing of Black culture, their biological
makeup and birthright is the Black ethnicity. So too is the case for Deaf
people, in my view. There are some other reasons why I support doing this as
well; it greatly eliminates the decisions one has to make regarding whether to
capitalize in this situation or not. I think it has the potential to promote more
unity within the community. So I do capitalize D for all people who are not
hearing, Deaf, Hard of Hearing, to me, they’re all Deaf. If I need to make the
distinction, then I would say “culturally Deaf” or not culturally deaf.
Attendees’ Interest in the Brochure
Five people out of 15 commented on the brochure. One person said, “The
brochure had a lot of great information and data. Another person from law
enforcement commented, “This is great information and I plan to share this with other
officers. One person commented, “There are a lot of facts, too much to take in or be an
effective brochure. But I am not sure of the audience.” One person said, “I like it very
66
much. This is exactly what we need for Sacramento. It is impossible to find a “onestop” brochure such as this that has everything we need at put fingertips.” The purpose
of creating the brochure was so the information regarding the Deaf community was
organized and readily available to educate and inform the hearing community,
including service agencies.
Conclusions
A recent study performed by the National Institute of Justice regarding Deaf
women who are sexual assault victims showed their issues are unique in terms of the
barriers they face. Researchers Obinna et al. (2006) at the Minneapolis Council on
Crime and Justice interviewed members of the community impacted by sexual assault
whether they were victims or police officers investigating the crime. They were all
involved in some capacity. A total of 51 Deaf citizens were interviewed along with 15
service providers who serviced both the hearing and the Deaf and 10 police officers
who were connected with the investigation.
Obinna et al. (2006) explained that when a Deaf victim of sexual assault is
identified, it is important that her experiences are not associated with other victims of
the same nature. When Deaf women who have been sexually assaulted report, there
are stereotypes associated not only with being a sexual assault victim but also with
being Deaf. The term “rape” is full of finger pointing and judgments that cause the
victim to feel guilty that maybe she caused it. There is a social stigma attached to
being a rape victim. Because the Deaf community is extremely small, everyone knows
67
everyone and, as a result, it is very difficult for most to keep their anonymity. Deaf
victims also found that once the word gets out to the Deaf community that a woman
has been raped, especially if the perpetrator was Deaf, this causes not only a lack of
support but isolation (Obinna et al., 2006).
Another issue is the lack of understanding of Deaf culture on the hearing
people’s part. The hearing get so caught up in the fact that the women are Deaf, they
forget the Deaf are from a unique culture with their own language and belief system.
Obinna et al. (2006) found that many of the Deaf women they interviewed did not see
themselves as having a medical condition; they viewed themselves as coming from a
linguistic community that has not yet been accepted by the hearing community.
Yet another issue the researchers encountered was the fact that because the
Deaf women came from their own unique culture, their experience may be different
from hearing women’s (Obinna et al., 2006). The different experiences may still exist
even though their reactions or experiences are similar. It is the culture differences that
dictate whether they tell someone or if they do, who that person will be (Obinna et al.,
2006).
Another issue the researchers (Obinna et al., 2006) examine is the way the
hearing treat the Deaf victim. How do they communicate? Communication sometimes
became very uncomfortable and awkward for both the Deaf victim and the hearing
person, which could be a reason why the Deaf women do not seek help. The language
is also an issue because not may hearing people realize that English is not the same as
68
ASL, thus creating a communication barrier. Obinna et al. (2006) also stated that the
Deaf women had several communication styles and those styles varied from person to
person. Some Deaf lip read, some could read and write, some could not.
Deaf victims were hesitant to go to hearing shelters or agencies because most
of the providers were hearing and they could not provide effective communication. It
is unlikely that agencies will be set up with a TTY system, not to mention a staff
member who knows how to work the system. Another option is having an interpreter
but that can be very uncomfortable, even though the interpreter is there to be their ears
only, it can be very uncomfortable for a woman to tell someone her business (Obinna
et al., 2006).
When discussing improving police response, there was a mixture of opinions
on whether the police were helpful and whether the Deaf would ever call them back
after they were victimized (Obinna et al., 2006). One would not expect to be
victimized by police officers, but it happens. Deaf women claim police officers have
actually taken them to be drunk or mentally ill or misread their body language as being
violent and dangerous. Another issue the women mentioned was the fact that the 911
operators did not know how to operate the TTY (teletypewriter).
Both the Deaf community and service providers all agreed that law
enforcement must improve their practices when communicating with the Deaf
community, regardless of whether they are victims of sexual assault, domestic
violence, or suspects of a witness to a crime. Training was also emphasized by the
69
Deaf victims. Interpreters were on the list as well as very clear and precise agency
policies. An example was given that even though there may be available interpreters,
the police officers did not know how to contact them. Regardless of the flaws of the
Minneapolis Police department, Obinna et al. (2006) commended them for their
sensitivity toward the Deaf community and recognizing them as a group of people
with a distinct language and culture. The officers also go through a 10-week training
course on ASL.
Limitations
One of the limitations was that there was not enough feedback from law
enforcement and the Deaf community due to attendance. An effective approach would
have been to personally visit the faculty at Deaf studies and the local police stations to
advertise the presentation. The direct approach could have ensured a better turnout.
Another limitation was the questions on the evaluation sheet were too general and
there was not enough depth reflected from the attendees’ feedback. Analyzing the
material and trying to make sense of the answers was difficult.
The PowerPoint and the brochure available at the presentation had limitations
as well. The Power Point was difficult to see from the podium and, as a result, the
presenter had difficulty keeping slides organized. This could have been eliminated had
there been ample time to practice and become comfortable with the electronics used.
The brochure handed out to the attendees was limited as well. There was too much
information in the small the space; hence, the brochure to be not “reader friendly.”
70
Recommendations for Further Study
This researcher recommends that public agencies expose the hearing culture to
the Deaf so the Deaf are seen, valued, and recognized. Educating the hearing is a key
component in changing their negative image. This researcher recommends that law
enforcement continues to bridge the communication gap with hiring law enforcement
and Community Peace Officers who know American Sign Language as well as having
certified interpreters on call. Additional training is needed to ensure that hearing
agencies, including law enforcement, understand the following issues: ADA law that
explains Effective Communication; training on procedures of how to provide service
to Deaf women victims of crimes, including domestic violence and sexual assault; and
an overview of Deaf culture to include basic American Sign language. This researcher
also recommends surveying and conducting focus groups with agencies regarding
their knowledge and understanding of the Deaf community to determine if their needs
are being met. In addition, there should be more studies statewide and nationwide.
Finally, the Deaf community should benefit from funds from the census, which could
be used for education and current communication devices such as video phones for
their homes and for law enforcement and agencies to ensure effective communication.
Reflections
My major in college was Ethnic Studies and I have been passionate about this
topic ever since I discovered this area of study. After graduating with my B.A., I spent
the last three years applying my knowledge in diversity and race relations as a social
71
justice advocate and a Human Right’s Commissioner. As a human rights advocate, I
have observed for several years the way the Deaf community have been ignored and
underserved along with the discrepancy of services, resources, and information they
do not receive. I want to change this alarming trend of the lack of services and
resources the Deaf seem to feel they are not entitled to.
I am passionate about equal rights for all because I feel everyone has the right
to their equal share and the Deaf are no exception. I want to change not only the
attitudes of the hearing about the Deaf community, but I also want to change the
hearing mindset as well, so they see the Deaf as individuals who do not hear rather
than seeing them as broken and needing to be fixed. I want to educate the hearing and,
at the same time, share resources, services and information with the Deaf community
so they will have the tools and confidence to stand on their own two feet and have the
power to control their own journey.
72
APPENDIX A
Brochure
73
74
75
APPENDIX B
PowerPoint Presentation
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
APPENDIX C
Resources for Deaf Women Victims of Violence
87
Resources for Deaf Women Victims of Violence
The following programs specialize in providing support and services for Deaf,
Deaf/blind, and hard of hearing victims of domestic and sexual violence. The
information was retrieved from NRCDV (2004, p. 14).
National
TTY- 800-787-799-SAFE (7233) The national hotline works to provide callers from
across the nation with the information they need as soon as possible. Hotline personnel
are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and will assist you in finding the domestic
violence program closest to your location.
State Wide
California – Oakland www.DeafHope.org
DeafHope is a non-profit organization, established for and by Deaf women in January
2003. Their mission at DeafHope is to end domestic and sexual violence against Deaf
women and children through empowerment, education and services. Their mission
will be achieved on three levels: (1) By providing services to Deaf women and
children who are survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. (2) By educating
the Deaf community and service providers about domestic violence. (3) By providing
statewide training and technical assistance to establish more Deaf-run services for
Deaf survivors.
88
San Diego – info@sddmhs.org
Voice-858-410-1061
San Diego Deaf Mental Health Services – provides comprehensive and culturally
affirmative mental health and social work services to all Deaf and hard of hearing
individuals and their family members, regardless of their social or economic condition,
living in the County of San Diego, CA.
Iowa – diaabuse@gmail.com V.P. 866-319-8987
Deaf Iowans Against Abuse (DIAA) Cedar Rapids.
Vermont –
Deaf Vermonters Advocacy Service – The mission of DVAS is to enrich the lives of
hearing loss by providing access to services, education and advocacy.
Colorado-Denver – info@Deafdove.org 303-831-7874 TTY-VOICE
DOVE – Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Women and Children – provides
culturally appropriate and accessible services for Deaf, blind/Deaf and hard of hearing
victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. DOVE works to empower victims by
providing 24 hr crisis intervention, information and referral, and advocacy. DOVE is
also committed to changing attitudes, which foster and perpetuate violence through
community education out reach and interagency collaboration.
Oregon – 541-754-0273-TTY. Phone Message-541-754-0384.
Contact Person – Gwinette E. Hamlett. GwinetteHamlett2000@yahoo.com,
State of Oregon Domestic Violence/Disability Abuse Coordinator. Deaf/Hard
of Hearing Advocate
89
Washington (Seattle) – hilsmjs@aol.com 206-726-0017 (voice)
Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services – for Deaf and Deaf/blind. Also
Transitional Housing program: A place of our own: features 19 individual units of
traditional housing for very low-income families who are homeless.
Wisconsin – Deafunity@gmail.com
Services offered to the Deaf (State Wide)
When exploring cities in the U.S. who are “Deaf friendly” and offer educational
entertainment, religious and human services to the Deaf community, five stand out
from the rest. The cities are as follows: Detroit, Michigan; Houston, Texas; Los
Angeles, California; Rochester, New York; and Washington, DC.
Detroit Michigan: Has a healthy Deaf community, with at least three
organizations including, social organizations such as social events, a Chapter
of National Black Deaf advocates and farther from Detroit is the Flint
Association of the Deaf. Also interpreting agencies. (About.com:Deafness,
2010.
Houston, Texas: offers social services, social activities, and interpreting
services. (About.com:Deafness.2010).
Los Angeles, California: Has a Deaf and hard of hearing society, Greater Los
Angeles Agency of Deafness (GLAD) which has a social calendar for GLAD
sponsored events. Deaf chat coffee, Los Angeles, which meets at the Coffee
90
Bean & Tea Leaf once a month. Captioned movies. Deaf people can choose
either rear window captioned films or open-captioned films at a variety of
locations.
Ethnic Organizations:
(a) Asian- Southern California Asian Deaf Association, a chapter of the National
Asian Deaf Congress.
(b) Hispanic- California Latino Council of the Deaf and hard of hearing.
(c) African American- California Black Advocates, a chapter of the National
Black Deaf Advocates.
Social Services agencies:
Hearing Loss Network. Some social services agencies have units that service the
Deaf community, such as the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults against
Women.
Entertainment:
Deaf West Theatre of “Big River” fame, and the L.A. Bridges Theatre Company
of the Deaf.
Interpreting Services:
(a) Good hands interpreting
(b) Western Interpreting
(c) Life Signs (offered by GLAD)
91
(d) LINKS Interpreting Service
(e) Southern California RID Chapter
Captioning:
(a) NCI Captioning, Burbank
(b) Caption Center, Burbank
(c) Vitac, North Hollywood, CA
Religion:
Several churches (About.com: Deafness, 2010).
Rochester New York:
Rochester has one of the largest Deaf populations per capita, meaning that out
of the total of population of Rochester, a substantial percentage are Deaf. The
Deaf population is so large there that the local Democrat and Chronicle
newspaper has a reporter, Greg Livadas, who frequently writes Deaf related
stories. Just about every aspect of life in Rochester is Deaf accessible.
Community News:
Rochester has their own website for the Deaf community. DeafRocherter.com.
Deaf Culture:
Rochester has been the birth place of organizations such as Deaf artists of
America, the theatre lights on, and Deaf life magazine.
92
Education:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, a technical college on the campus of
Rochester Institute of Technology. Younger Deaf students have the choice of
the Rochester School for the Deaf (before the early 1820s, there was a shortlives small school for the Deaf; RSD started in 1876 as the Western New York
Institution for the Deaf-Mutes, and became RSD in 1919 or mainstreaming
with support services provided by the Monroe County Services for Deaf and
hard of hearing.
Health:
Marion Folsom Center, there are professionals skilled in sign language. The
University of Rochester hosts PAH MD, Promoting Awareness in Healthcare,
Medical and Deaf.
Sign Language Classes:
ASL at the University of Rochester
Rochester School for the Deaf
MCAHI
Monroe County Adult Education
Interpreter Training Programs:
The National Technical Institute for the Deaf has an interpreting program. The
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf has a local chapter, the Genesse Valley
Region Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
93
Interpreting Agencies:
FMI Interpreting Services
Interpreter
M.E. Services
Sign Language Connection
Strong Connection (Medical interpreting provided by the University Medical
Center (About.com: Deaf, 2010).
Washington, DC:
Captioning Services: Caption Gallaudet Interpreters: DC based interpreter can join the
Potomac Chapter. Registry of Interpreters includes:
Gallaudet Interpreting Service
Partners in Sign, Inc.
Viscom Interpreting, Inc
Movie Theatres:
These theatres have captioning:
AMC Mazza Galleria 7 (rear window)
AMC Union Station 9 (rear window)
Loews Georgetown 14 (rear window)
Regal Gallery Place Stadium 14 (open captions)
94
Organizations:
District of Columbia Area Black Deaf Advocates (chapter of National Black
Deaf Advocates)
District of Columbia Association of the Deaf
DCHLAA (Chapter of the hearing loss Association of America)
Schools and Colleges:
Gallaudet University
Model Secondary School for the Deaf (high school)
Kendall Demonstration Elementary School
River School (Private School)
Religion:
Tifereth Israel Congregation (a synagogue in Northwest, DC that provides
services for the Deaf. Services included at the following locations:
Gallaudet University
Bethesda Baptist Church (near Gallaudet) (About.com/Deafness, 2010).
Local Deaf Services in Sonoma County and Neighboring Counties
According to THE DIRECTORY, Sonoma County Resource Book there is
only three agencies listed specifically for the Deaf:
Disability Services and Legal Center: Santa Rosa California and Deaf and
Disabled
95
Telecommunications located in Oakland, approximately 60 miles a way.
California Telephone Access Program, located in Oakland, California.
Educational Resources for the Deaf (state wide)
K-12
Because inclusion is very common there are some schools that offer Deaf studies. The
options that are offered are:
Residential Schools for the Deaf, Day schools (oral or sign). Early intervention &
Preschool Programs, Mainstreaming and Inclusion, self-contained classrooms, Home
school Environment.
Educational Resources for the Deaf Child K-12 in Sonoma County
In Sonoma County there is only one private residential School for the Deaf. If a Deaf
child is “mainstreamed” there are “special classes” available that provide interpreters,
however no special accommodations to ensure the Deaf have the same or equivalent
educational experience as the hearing child.
College – In California and Out of State
Cal State University Northridge
More than 220 Deaf and hearing impaired students attend this university. They
offer a complete undergraduate program in the field of Deaf studies. The Deaf
studies program offers careers in sign language interpreting to government
specialists, speech pathologists to program administrators. They offer Deaf
96
workshops, Deafestivals, academic panels, and social gatherings (Disaboom,
n.d.)
National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Rochester, New York
The world’s first and largest technological college for the Deaf and hard of
hearing impaired students. These students, who currently number about 1.100,
share their educational experience with approximately 14,000 hearing students
at the institutes seven other colleges. Special services consist of: Strobe light
fire alarms, telephone amplifiers. State of the Art computers and multimedia
technologies, digital printing presses, laser optics lad and robotics program.
There are other special services offered: note-takers, tutors, and the largest
interpreter service in the country. In the classroom there are several ways to
achieve effective communication: ASL, finger-spelling, writing, and visual
aids (Disaboom, n.d.).
Gallaudet University, Washington, DC
Captioning services
Interpreters
Movie Theaters
Organizations, Schools and Colleges.
Sign Language Interpreters
Religious Organizations
97
Sonoma State University, Sonoma County, California
There are 58 majors offered. There is not a Deaf studies department
Utah Valley University
Offers Deaf studies, ASL, Interpreter certification, and Deaf studies Today
conference.
Human Services Available to the Hearing Community in Sonoma County
According to Sonoma County Health and Human Services Resources 2010 Directory,
there were over 1,000 referrals connecting the hearing to their community such as:
(1) Human Services and Information 7 Referral,
(2) Volunteer Wheels
(3) Literacy Connection
(4) Youth Volunteer Corp
(5) Retired & Senior Volunteer Program
(6) Human Race
(7) Giving Tree
(8) Resource Center for Non-profits
98
APPENDIX D
Evaluation Form
99
AN EVALUATION & A QUESTIONNAIRE ON A PRESENTATION ON THE HISTORY,
MISCONCEPTIONS, AND MYTHS ABOUT THE DEAF COMMUNITY INCLUDING
ISSUES THAT AFFECT DEAF WOMAN AND AN EDUCATIONAL BROCHURE.
Please answer the following questions about yourself. All information collected from this
evaluation form will be kept confidential.
Age: _____ Gender: ____ Female______ Male________
Ethnicity____________
Profession/Occupation_______________________
Does your profession require you to work with the Deaf
Community?______________________________
Education Level: (Circle highest level completed)
High School Some College UndergraduateGraduate
AA/AS degree _________________________ (subject)
BA/BS degree _________________________ (subject)
MA/MS degree _________________________ (subject)
Technical/Trade School __________________ (certificate / degree)
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement using the scale
below and writing the corresponding number on the lines provided.
0
1
2
3
4
5
disagree disagree disagree agree agree
agree
strongly somewhat slightly slightly somewhat strongly
100
PART ONE
THE PRESENTATION
1. How informative was this presentation? Did you learn anything?
Why/Why not?
2. Do you think others in your profession would benefit from this presentation?
Why/Why not?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3. Do you think this information was appropriate for this topic?
Why/Why not?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
4. Was the length of the presentation too long, too short?
Comments/suggestion
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
101
5. How affective were the visual effects?
Comments/suggestions
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
6. The Presentation this evening did the following:
Please check those that apply:
(a) enlightened
(b) respected the deaf community
(c) informed
(d) inspired
Additional Comments/Suggestion
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
102
PART TWO
THE BROCHURE
After reviewing educational brochure, is there any feedback that you would like to give to the
presenter?
Comments/ Suggestions
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Thank you so much for attending this presentation and for your participation. All information
will be kept confidential.
103
REFERENCES
A Safe Place. (2009). Domestic violence and women with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.asafeplaceforhelp.org/disabilities.html
Accessing Safety. (2010a). Addressing accessibility. Retrieved from
http://www.accessingsafety.org/index.php/main/main_menu/addressing_access
ibility
Accessing Safety. (2010b). Domestic violence. Retrieved from
http://www.accessingsafety.org/index.php/main/main_menu/understanding_vi
olence/what_is_domestic_violence
Accessing Safety. (2010c). Meeting your responsibilities. Retrieved from
http://www.accessingsafety.org/index.php/main/main_menu/addressing_access
ibility/your_rights_and_responsibilities
Accessing Safety. (2010d). Stats. Retrieved from
http://www.accessingsafety.org/index.php/main/main_menu/understanding_vi
olence/what_is_domestic_violence/who_does_it_impact
Accessing Safety. (2010e). Understanding Deaf culture. Retrieved from
http://www.accessingsafety.org/index.php/main/main_menu/understanding_de
af_culture
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. London: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
104
Baker-Shenk, C., & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher’s
resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers,
Inc.
Beattie, R. (2001). Ethics in education: The first six years. Maryland Heights, MO:
Academic Press.
Berke, J. (2009, June 19). Sign language interpreter - Definition of a sign language
interpreter. Retrieved from
http://deafness.about.com/od/interpreting/g/interpreter.htm
Berke, J. (2010, July 13). Before you visit American Deaf communities. Retrieved
from
http://Deafness.about.com/od/americanDeafcommunities/bb/uscommunities.ht
m
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bragg, B., & Olson, J. R. (1993). Meeting halfway in American Sign Language: A
common ground for effective communication among Deaf and hard of hearing
people. Rochester, NY: Deaf Life Press.
Brownridge, D. A. (2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities. Violence
Against Women, 12(9) 805-822.
Brueggeman, B., & Burch, S. (2006). Women and Deafness: Double vision.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
105
Charrow, V., & Wilbur. R. (1975). The Deaf child as a linguistic minority, 14(5), 353354, 359.
Cockram, J. (2003). Silent voices: Women with disabilities and family and domestic
violence. Doctoral dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA.
Retrieved from http://www.wwda.org.au/silent7.htm
Cohen, L. H. (1994). Train go sorry: Inside a Deaf world. New York: Vintage Books.
Cohen, O. P. (1995, July 16-20). The adverse implications of full Inclusion for Deaf
students. Paper Presented at the Congress on Education of the Deaf, Tel-Aviv,
Israel.
Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage languages: The development and denial
of Canada's linguistic resources. Montreal, Quebec: Our Schools/Ourselves
Education Foundation.
Curry, M. A. et al., Renker, P., Hughes, R. B., Robinson-Whelen, S., Oschwald, M.
M., Swank, P., & Powers, L. E. (2009). Development of measures of abuse
among women with disabilities and the characteristics of their perpetrators.
Violence Against Women, 15(9), 1001-1025.
Davis, S. (2010, May 3). Lecture in EDTE 250. California State University,
Sacramento.
Define That. (1991). Americans with Disabilities Act. (199). Retrieved from
http://www.definethat.com/define/381.htm
106
Department of Justice. (2010, February 2). Settlement agreement between United
States of America and County of Alameda Sheriff’s Office Complaint # 204-11290. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/bonner.htm
Described and Captioned Media (DCMP). (2006, October). National Deaf Women
United with DCMP. Retrieved from http://www.dcmp.org/caai/nadh50.pdf
Forshay, L. (2009, May 4). Deaf culture part 3, the oppression, values and identity.
Class ASL 305, Introduction to Deaf studies. Seattle: University of
Washington.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.
Gallaudet Research Institute-Dawes House. (2010). Demographics. Retrieved from
http://library.gallaudet.edu/Gallaudet_Research_Institute/Demographics.html
Hall, W. C. (2005). Decrease of Deaf potential in a mainstreamed environment.
Rochester Institute of Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/hall.html
Harrington, T. (2002). FAQ: Audism. Gallaudet University Library. Retrieved from
http://library.gallaudet.edu/Library/Deaf_Research_Help/Frequently_Asked_Q
uestions_(FAQs)/Cultural_Social_Medical/Audism.html
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1988) The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of
Educational Research, 70(1), 25-23.
107
Ladd, P. (2003). In search of Deafhood. Great Britain: Cromwell Press.
Lane, H. (1992). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the Deaf community. New York:
Vintage Books.
Lawrence, J. (n.d.). Ethnic minorities in America: Asian, African-American, Hispanic
and Deaf? Retrieved from
http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/creation/janay.html
Lewis, O. (1961). Children of Sanchez. New York: Vintage.
Lewis, O. (1965). La vida. New York: Vintage.
Linderman, A. (1994). Deafness: Life and culture: Oppression, culture of poverty, and
Deaf people. Maryland: A Deaf American Monograph, 44, 75-79.
Lollar, D. (2000). Disability and the 2000 Census: What reporters need to know.
Retrieved from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/demographicsidentity/census2000.htm
Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (2003). Deaf studies, language, and education. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Martin, D., & Bat-Chava, Y. (2003). Negotiating Deaf-hearing friendships: Coping
strategies of Deaf boys and girls in mainstream schools. Child: Care, Health &
Development, 29(6), 511-521.
Martin, S., Ray, N., Sotres-Alvarez, D., Kupper, L., Moracco, K., Dickens, P….&
Gizlice, Z. (2006). Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities.
Violence Against Women, 12, 823-837.
108
Michigan Deaf and Hard of Hearing. (2002). Deaf /blind interpreting guidelines.
Retrieved from http://www.michdhh.org/interpreters/Deafblind.htm1#defs
Mills, S. (2003, April 29). Deaf president now. Retrieved from
http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/Deafpresidentnow.htm
Mitchell. R. (2005). How many Deaf people are there in the United States? Estimates
from the survey of income and program participation. Retrieved from
http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org.content/11/1/112.full
Monaghan, L., Schmaling, C., Nakamura, K., & Turner, G. H. (Eds.). (2003). Many
ways to be Deaf. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Moore, M., & Levitan. L. (2001. For hearing people only. New York: Deaf Life Press.
Najarian, C. (2006). Between worlds: Deaf women, work and intersections of gender
and ability. New York: Routledge.
National Resource Center on AD/HD. (n.d.). IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act). Retrieved from
http://www.help4adhd.org/education/rights/idea
Northeast Technical Assistance Center. (n.d.). Deaf culture. Retrieved from
http://www.netac.rit.edu/publication/tipsheet/Deafculture.html
Nosek, M. A., & Howland, C. A. (1998). The investigation of abuse and women with
disabilities. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet. Retrieved from
http://new.vanet.org/Assoc files VAnet/AR disab.pdf
109
Nunes, T., Pretzlik, U., & Olsson, J. (2006). Deaf children’s social relationships in
mainstream schools. Deafness & Education International, 3(3), 123-136. doi:
10.1002/dei.106
Obinna, J., Kruegar, S. Osterbaan, C., Sadusky, J. M., & Devoer, W. (2006).
Understanding the needs of the victims of sexual assault in the Deaf
community, final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC: (NCJ 212867). Retrieved from
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/212867.pdf
Office of the Attorney General. (1991). General effective communication requirements
under title II of the ADA. Retrieved from www.ada.gov/reg2.html
Parasnis. I. (1998). Cultural and language diversity and the Deaf experience.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Powers, L. E., Curry, M. A., Oschwald, M., Maley, S., & Saxton, M. (2002). Barriers
and strategies in addressing abuse with personal assistance relationships: A
survey of disabled women’s experiences. Journal of Rehabilitation, 68(1), 413.
Powers, L. E., Hughes, R. B., & Lund, E. M. (2009). Interpersonal violence and
woman with disabilities: A research update. Harrisburg. PA: WAWnet, a
project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania
Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://www.vawnet.org
110
Profound Deaf. (n.d). Thesaurus. Retrieved from:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/profoundly+Deaf
Reis, R. (2007). Deaf power and control wheel. Deaf Hope. San Leandro. Retrieved
from http://www.Deaf-hope.org/images/DeafHope%20PowerControl%20Wheel.pdf
Rems-Smario, J. (2010, November 17). Class EDTE 266. San Leandro, CA: Deaf
Hope.
Schaefer, R. (2000). Racial ethnic groups (8th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Self-fulfilling prophecy. (n.d). Wisegeek. Retrieved from
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-self-fulling-prophecy.htm
Siple, L. (n.d). Deaf culture. PepNet-Northeast. Retrieved from
http://www.netac.rit.edu/publication/tipsheet/deafculture.html
Smith, M. (2003). Abused Deaf women's advocacy services. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipforchange.org/talks/smith/
Stokoe, W. (1980). Sign language and the Deaf community. Washington, DC: Library
of Congress.
Tyler Junior College. (n.d.). Deaf and hard of hearing students. Retrieved from
http://www.tutorworkshop.org/Deaf/Deaf1.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Santa Rosa (city) “Quick Facts from the U.S. Census
Bureau.” Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0670098.html
111
U.S. Department of Labor. (1996). Presenting effective presentations with visual aids.
Retrieved from
http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/traintec.htmol
U.S. Justice Department of Justice. (2006). Communicating with people who are Deaf
or hard of hearing: ADA guide for law enforcement officers. Retrieved from
http://www.ada.gov/lawenfcomm.htm
Waech, G. (2004). Violence in the lives of the Deaf or hard of hearing. Retrieved from
http://new.vawnet.org/category/index_pages.php?category_id=966
Waech, G. (2009). Why cry if no one hears? The community’s experience of Sexual
and domestic violence. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
(NRCDV). Retrieved from
http://new.vawnet.org/catagory/index_pages.php?category_id=966
Walter, G. (1992). Diversity in the schools for the Deaf: A report to the membership of
the CEASED from the research committee. Report presented at the annual
Conference of the Convention of the Education and Administration Serving the
Deaf (CEASED). Charleston, SC.
Wilcox, S. (1989). American Deaf culture: An anthology. Burtonsville, MD: Linstock
Press.