As some may recall, last March I sent a Freedom of Information Act requests to both the CDC and NCHAM about the EHDI’s 2012 Annual Meeting’s presentation and its selection process.
Last May, I got a response from the CDC regarding my two letters requesting the information. I originally was going to take the CDC’s responses to Huffington Post, and ask them for their assistance in this matter, but I unfortunately got side-tracked with other things. So, see below for the CDC’s responses.
For those who are unable to view the images for whatever reason, the CDC in their May 7 response, stated the following why my request was mainly denied:
- “Program staff inform me that CDC does not pay to advertise the EHDI meetings, but that web links to the meeting were provided on CDC web pages. These documents are enclosed.”
- “Program staff also inform me that CDC does not maintain the abstracts of rejected proposals for the EHDI annual meeting.
- “Under authority of the Freedom of Information Act at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) and the Department’s implementing regulation at 45 CFR 5.67, the titles of rejected abstracts, which could lead to the identification of unsuccessful submitters and would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, were deleted from these documents.”
In the May 22 response from the CDC, they again denied most of my request and stated the following:
“Enclosed please find a document pertaining to your request (1 page).
Program staff inform me that CDC did not place notices about a call for papers (abstracts) for the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting.
Under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) and the Department’s implementing regulations at 45 CFR 5.67, the names of Abstract Review Committee members, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, have been deleted from these records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(F), which protects against endangerment of the safety or life of any individual, and the Department’s implementing regulation at 45 CFR 5.67, the names of the Abstract Review Committee members have been deleted form these records.
You can view both letters in the image gallery above, and I have also shown the 1 document enclosed in the May 22 letter. In the May 7 letter, aside from the printed web pages, they also enclosed a document that is also shown in the image gallery.
Ultimately, in my opinion, the message from NCHAM and the CDC is very clear. And that is:
You and the ASL Deaf Community can shove it.
I claim this is their message based on several things:
- The CDC admits that they did not issue a call for papers, nor really advertise about the EHDI Annual Meetings. So the question arises: how could a fair and transparent abstract selection process take place?
- You have to contend with their coded documents listing which presentations and posters to be exhibited at the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting. What’s the purpose of sending me a coded document?
- And the most damning of all, the government destroyed records because they apparently believe those on the 2012 Abstract Review Committee, would be physically endangered. It’s almost laughable when you think about it.
In my opinion, NCHAM and CDC has clearly demonstrated that they do not truly want the Deaf Community to become involved or be even aware about EHDI and its process. These responses, in my opinion, lends tremendous credence to the notion that many of the Deaf Community’s concerns with EHDI are quite justified, and there is more to this than what meets the eye here.
The years of lack of transparency and answers to our questions; the overflow of irrelevant and confusing information that has nothing to do with our questions; the coded documents; the destruction of records so we can no longer ask for them… all point to something very disturbing within NCHAM and the CDC when it comes to the Deaf Community.
Unfortunately, the deadline for appealing these absurd responses has passed. And as a friend pointed out to me last spring, this is really far too big for one person to take on. I do not have the financial means or the resources to fight this, really.
I strongly believe that we, as a community, cannot allow this insult and dismissal to abide. For the sake of future generations of us Deaf, I hope things will change for the better within EHDI. But that will only happen if enough of us take a stand for what’s right. I now share this information with all of you in hopes for that happening. After all… like someone once said:
We are governed not by armies, but by ideas. – Mona Caird
Hi Pundit,
Sorry for the late response here.
My thoughts:
1.) The CDC not advertising or issuing a call for presentations is not the issue here. The issue is whether pro-ASL presentations were rejected on the basis of them being pro-ASL. However, Pro-ASL Deaf people surely knew about EHDI, I saw the AFA/DBC there online, didn’t I? How could they have advertised it better? Issued a call for presentations better? There were people at EHDI, it wasn’t some secret convention and apparently everyone was welcome.
2.) The purpose of coded documents is to show you what was omitted specifically…which were the names of people giving presentations and people on the selection committee. BTW, the selection committee member names are in the EDHI brochure anyway. In addition, I doubt there are documents documenting who was rejected. If anyone was rejected, it is more likely that their submission was simply discarded (why keep a rejected submission?).
3.) It’s not that they believe people will be physically endangered, it is just that it is good practice to NOT release names to the public in any case. While I agree with you, there’s a 99.9% chance nobody will get violent…but you cannot 100% guarantee that someone won’t do something.
4.) As for whether EHDI doesn’t want the Deaf community involved, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the Deaf community gets involved and properly makes submissions as per their regulations. What the Deaf community needs to do is PLAY their game per their rules and document everything that happens. If that happens, I am confident that the Deaf community can have more input at EHDI conferences. Once the Deaf community gains more of a foothold in the EHDI, they can then “change the game”. That’s how it works for all organizations…change comes from within..not the outside.
5.) Will your friend who got rejected ever come forward? If not, then there’s no further action to take on the 2012 EHDI conference if you ask me. For the 2013 conference, I’d encourage that anyone who submits an abstract/presentation and gets rejected…to report it. Also, that person will need to request the EHDI folks to specifically explain why their submission was rejected.
6.) Has any Deaf person asked to be on the evaluation committee? What are the qualifications to be on the evaluation committee? Surely many Deaf people are qualified to evaluate submissions? If any Deaf person asked to be on the committee and was rejected, I’d like to know….
7.) Basically, the above documents are evidence of nothing but their refusal to share names. You say they refuse to share because they want to hide behind the law, I say they refuse to share for privacy concerns (which is very common).
8.) Until there’s tangible evidence, I will not get upset about Pro-ASL submissions that were ALLEGEDLY rejected for no other reason than them being pro-ASL.
-J.J.
I disagree with you, J.J. I think the CDC and NCHAM not issuing a call for papers is a major issue. It is standard operating procedure for conferences to do so. AG Bell and NAD does this, among many other conferences. But the EHDI Annual Meeting doesn’t do this? Why isn’t the EHDI Annual Meeting following SOP?
Furthermore, by not issuing an official call for papers, not everyone in the field will be alerted in sufficient time to turn in abstracts. They’re making it more difficult than it should be, for the pro-ASL people to submit their abstracts, due to time constraints.
And this does play a role in the pro-ASL abstracts being rejected. After all, common sense dictates that if you do not have enough notice, the odds are higher that your abstracts will be rejected. EHDI is smart enough to not tell ALL of the pro-ASL submitters that their abstract was rejected because of the ASL content.
Think about it: Information is power, and that’s the game EHDI plays extremely well. Especially when you consider that not all of the pro-ASL experts are plugged in fully within the EHDI network.
Now, if the purpose of the coded documents were to show me what was omitted specifically, (and how am I supposed to know the specifics if it’s in code?!) but if the selection committee member names were in the brochure (which is something I must have overlooked), then why not just send me the brochure? Hmm? You don’t find that very inconsistent?
Then let’s take this a step further: if the names were already out there via the brochure, why destroy it now, claiming it’s due to privacy and endangerment reasons? Again, don’t you find that at the very least, contradictory?
Typically, from my experience, a list of rejected abstracts will be kept, so at the very least, they can give brief feedback on why their abstract was rejected. BTW – this person who had their abstracts rejected isn’t my friend. And it is up to that person to come forward or not. However, given the riducle from those who think nothing’s wrong with EHDI’s procedures, I would not be surprised if this person refuses to do so.
And no, what matters is that the CDC and NCHAM needs to apply the same rules equally for everyone. Disparate treatment is unacceptable. The Deaf Community cannot present their view on an equitable basis if that isn’t happening. And right now, I strongly believe that the responses to my FOIA request has greatly supported the Deaf Community’s complaints regarding a very, very unlevel playing field.
FYI – I just found out the other day that the deadline for the abstract submission for the 2013 EHDI Annual Meeting is on October 1st. I do know that there are 5 Deaf individuals on the national EHDI planning committee for 2013. It remains to be seen whether their presence will have a fundamental impact or not. Change comes from BOTH within and without.