EHDI FOIA Request Update

Posted on September 23, 2012 by A Deaf Pundit

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

Karl White & My FOIA Request

Posted on April 7, 2012 by A Deaf Pundit

On March 23, 2012, I mailed out two FOIA requests, one under federal FOIA, and another under Utah’s, to the National Center of Hearing Assessment and Management at Utah State University. This was my letter below (without the letterhead containing my contact information). The only difference between the two letters were the citations of the applicable law that my requests were based upon.

National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management
Utah State University
2615 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Utah 84322

FOIA REQUEST

Dear FOIA Officer:

Please send me a copy of the following public records:

The titles and abstracts of submitted proposals that were rejected by any authority working with and/or for the 2012 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention [EHDI] Annual Meeting;

The list of the 2012 Abstract Review Committee members and whom the individual Abstract Review Committee members were representing;

The list of places, publications, media, etc., in which EHDI placed advertisements for the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting;

The list of places, publications, media, etc., in which EHDI placed notices about call for papers to the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting.

This request for information is made pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act, UCA §§63-2-101 to -207, which requires you to respond in writing within ten (10) business days. Please advise me in writing of the estimated cost of this FOIA request, prior to filling this request, if it is estimated to be $20.00 or more.

If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you provide me with your written rationale for all deletions and/or exclusions, by reference to specific exemptions of the act. Please communicate with me by email, if you have questions regarding this request.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeannette Johnson

On April 6, 2012, Dr. Karl White emailed me, and responded with the following:

Dear Jeannette Johnson

In your letters of March 23, 2012 you requested information about how proposals for presentations and posters that were presented at the 2012 National EHDI Meeting in St. Louis were solicited, reviewed and selected. In those requests you cited the Freedom of Information Act and the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act. I don’t believe any of the information you requested is subject to the provisions of those statutes, but I am happy to provide you with answers to most of your questions anyway because we want the procedures associated with the National EHDI Meeting to be open and transparent. We are always interested in finding ways to improve the EHDI Meeting and invite your suggestions.

Attached is information about the process for soliciting, reviewing and selecting presentations and posters at the EHDI Meeting that is based on a recent response to someone who made a similar request.

You also requested information about the the titles and abstracts of rejected proposals and the names of people who reviewed the abstracts. In the attached material I have indicated where you can find the names and affiliations of the members of the Planning Committee for the 2012 National EHDI Meeting (which is a different group of people from those who reviewed proposals). The names of the people who reviewed the proposals have not been published since this is a “blind” review process and I think it would be inappropriate for me to publish those names. If people who were on the review committee want to disclose their own names, they are certainly free to do that.

I am providing you with the titles of the rejected proposals because I believe this information was sent to you by CDC in response to your FOIA request to them. I hope you will not publish this information because it may be embarrassing to people whose proposals were rejected.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or suggestions.

Karl

I quickly responded to him with the following:

Dear Dr. White:

Are you the FOIA officer for Utah State University? From my experience with prior FOIA requests to a variety of public institutions across the country, it is my understanding that if you are not, you are obligated to forward my FOIA request to the Utah State University’s FOIA officer.

However, given your response, particularly your refusal to quote the applicable part of the statue on why this is being denied, please provide me with the name of the FOIA officer so I can send my request to the officer directly. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Jeannette

Dr. White replied shortly after this with the following:

Dear Ms Johnson

I am not the FOIA Officer at Utah State University. A far as I know, Utah State University has not designated an FOIA Officer. I suggest you contact the University’s legal office or the office of the Utah State Attorney General if you would like additional information . Because your initial letter was sent to me, I did my best to answer your questions.

At that point, I decided do several things, and among one was to contact the Utah State University’s Provost and ask for the FOIA officer’s contact information. The Provost, after inquiring with the university’s attorney, replied within several hours with the information. And so, I sent Craig Simper, the university’s FOIA officer, my request. Since it was sent on April 6, the results of that FOIA request is still pending.

I have to point out several things here regarding Dr. White’s responses. I did not address the FOIA request to Dr. Karl White. If you read my letter carefully (and it was on the envelope as well), it was addressed to ‘FOIA officer’.

And it appears to me that Dr. White did not forward my FOIA letter to the appropriate officials, or even inquire with his employers whether there was a FOIA officer. Otherwise, why would he claim that to his knowledge, there was no FOIA officer at Utah State University? Given all of this, I find this to be quite a bit unusual, especially when one considers the seriousness of FOIA requests.

Furthermore, one should note that despite Dr. White’s claims of cooperation and willingness to answer questions in his initial email, I had to contact the provost in order to obtain the FOIA officer’s contact information, after his refusal to to my request for said information.

I also find it very interesting that that except for one item which I FOIA’ed both him and the CDC for (which I might add, haven’t gotten yet from the CDC. And nor is it the only thing I asked the CDC about), Dr. White gave me information that I did not ask for. So, why did Dr. White do this? This makes me wonder whether Dr. White would have been as “helpful” to every single person who made a similar request.

Then one has to contend with how Dr. White’s response to my FOIA was done. I have had my requests both approved and denied elsewhere in the past, and his email is not how you respond to a FOIA request in any shape or form. Why was the response done in this manner? Would have he responded in a similar manner to a hearing person?

(Edited to add: If you’re curious to see one of the 3 typical response to a FOIA request is, check out http://www.ita.doc.gov/ooms/FOIASampleLtr3.pdf and compare that to Dr. White’s response to me).

And last of all, what I find to be the most intriguing is Dr. White’s second to last line in his initial email. “I hope you will not publish this information because it may be embarrassing to people whose proposals were rejected.”

Would he make this kind of statement to a hearing person making a similar request? Would he even dream of making this kind of statement to a hearing blogger or reporter?

Given Dr. White’s overall conduct, I suspect that at the very least, he has something to hide. Especially when one notes that he’s essentially filibustering by giving me what I did not ask for. I wonder what the people at the CDC, the Health Resources Service Administration and our Congresspersons has to say about all of this, if they knew. Perhaps we all should go and find out, hmm?

At any rate, we should see within a few weeks, whether my suspicions are accurate.

To be continued…

Note: I’m not publishing the rejected titles until I get an official response (either a denial or approval with applicable information) from NCHAM and/or CDC on the entire content of my FOIA requests.

Deaf Not Allowed To Teach?

Posted on January 26, 2012 by A Deaf Pundit

I recently received an email from a woman named Kelly Laatsch. A friend had referred her to me, asking that I support her in her civil rights issue. Her story is quite astounding, and so I am going to share her story here, in her own words.

—-

Hello,

I am a Deaf student at Central Michigan University, currently student teaching and in place to graduate with a Bachelors of Science in Elementary Education in May 2012. I was provided sign language interpreters for my courses including education courses at Central Michigan University for the last four years.

Currently I am in week two of sixteen weeks of student teaching. In preparation for this, I requested an interpreter months ago; however, Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching and Susie Rood, Director of Student Disability Services stated that I do have the right to an interpreter, but if I use an interpreter I may not pass my student teaching requirements based on Michigan Department of Education Teaching Technical Standards. There is a statement that Dr. Edwards pointed out in the Technical Standards that states that I must “understand and speak in English.” Dr. Edwards and Ms. Rood created an Action Plan to “wean” me off from using an interpreter to “help” me become “more independent” (first two weeks I was able to use an interpreter full time, following two weeks I can only use an interpreter half time, then for the rest of the semester I need to show that I can teach without an interpreter). I have cochlear implants and can speak for myself and hear fairly well; however, I still need an interpreter for things I miss

Dr. Edwards and Ms. Rood let me know that I can use a FM System and that this would not strongly affect whether or not I pass student teaching. They may be thinking that using an FM System still allows me to use my own “body and mind” to show how effective I am as a teacher (and that using an interpreter makes me less effective as a teacher). Even with my cochlear implants and with an FM System, I am still not going to be able to effectively communicate with the students, parents, and other teachers as well as I could with an interpreter.

I have filed a complaint (in October 2011) against Central Michigan University through Office of Civil Rights. They are still processing my case (may take up to 180 days); however, so far it does not look good. It appears to me they feel the Michigan Department of Education Technical Standards (policies) trumps the laws that entitle me an interpreter without consequences.

Obviously, this is a time-sensitive matter because I am now student teaching. For the next two weeks I am “encouraged” to only have an interpreter with me half of the time. Then in two weeks I am “encouraged” to not have an interpreter or I may not pass because of my use of an interpreter.

—-

Ms. Laatsch, in the close of her email to me, asked for letters of support for her, to the CMU administrators and enclosed their information. So, please feel free to contact these individuals and let them know how you feel about this. Remember, please do try to keep it civil in your emails!

Susie Pletcher-Rood, Director of Student Disability Services: rood1se@cmich.edu
Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching: edwar2kl@cmich.edu
Tony Voisin, Dean of Students: deanofstu@cmich.edu
Kathryn Koch, Interim Dean of College of Education and Human Services: koch1ke@cmich.edu

Death to Deafness: Part 2

Posted on June 10, 2011 by A Deaf Pundit

(Continuation from Part 1)

Today’s and the Future’s Realities on Educating the Deaf

This now leads us into the matter of the accusations made against us Deaf Community members of being in denial about today’s and the future realities of Deaf Education.

So, let’s look at some statistics regarding today’s reality in Deaf Education. It’s reported that as of April 2009, approximately 25,500 children in the country have cochlear implants.

Now, there is a specific claim regarding cochlear implants, where it is said that “profoundly deaf kids can hear and discriminate all the sounds of spoken language.” It is true for some – it is undeniable that for some profoundly deaf children, the cochlear implant does succeed in this regard.

However, if this claim was universally true, then the CI surgeons wouldn’t have a problem guaranteeing this for all who receive it. But that does not happen. Why? Because just like any other surgery, there are going to be variables in the results. This Medical Today News article indirectly acknowledges that reality. And if the CI was universally successful in this regard, then the majority of the implanted children would not be receiving special education services under IDEA. But the majority still are today.

Onwards to deaf education itself, it is reported that 52% of the deaf and hard of hearing children are taught via the speech only method. This conversely means that 46% of the deaf and hard of hearing children use signed languages and/or sign systems.

Interestingly enough, the educational environment statistic conflicts with LSL proponents’ claim that 89% of the deaf and hard of hearing children do not use signed languages or sign systems. This claim has been one method, out of several methods, in convincing naïve parents that it isn’t worth using signed languages with their deaf children.

Another method in convincing the naïve parents to favor the LSL doctrine is the argument that the State Schools of the Deaf do not perform very well on testing scores, therefore ASL must not be very good in educating deaf and hard of hearing children.

They ignore experts in the Deaf Education field, such as the superintendent of ISD’s letter to the Indy Star, citing the reason for the drag on testing scores as the result of “parents who chose only a spoken-English approach and then waited until their child failed to show progress before introducing a visual language forces a school like ISD to play catch-up.”

That is today’s reality in Deaf Education and has been for the last several decades. Same song, different verse. Why would it change anytime soon? And still, even in the face of these facts, they want us to believe their claims that technological feats will conquer all, that they accept ASL and do not actively oppose the language?

An Ideological & Pedagogical War Today – Yes or No?

Given all of this, it stands to reason that yes, indeed, the ideological & pedagogical war is still raging on today in Deaf Education. Just because the war is fought differently today, does not mean it no longer exists.

However, I must confess that I did not fully appreciate just how differently, until all of this happened. As I read up on the recent events in Deaf Education, more and more disturbing questions arose.

Such as why did the Hear Indiana executive director make this statement to the media, “… Hear Indiana does not want to eliminate sign language, she said. But ISD receives an inordinate amount of state support, Horton said, noting that it receives $18 million from the state to teach sign language to almost 350 students.”? (Source: ~~TribTown.com~~ IBJ.com).

This statement at first puzzled me. If I were in the shoes of the Hear Indiana executive director, my response to the media would have been: “We have had no hand in the new appointments to the ISD board. Our focus is on informing and advocating for our educational philosophy. We only involve ourselves very superficially with other entities that do not share our views.”

It is highly probable that this response would’ve been well received in the media, and it has the additional bonus of not really giving the Deaf Community anything to pounce upon. It was only when I went back and looked at a PDF by Hear USA that was written several years ago, that the pieces clicked together for me.

Hear Indiana did have a hand in the selection of the new ISD board appointees. The organization knows, from witnessing the recent entanglements of the Deaf Community with like-minded organizations, to only deny when they can get away with it.

And when Hear Indiana says they do not want to eliminate sign language, they mean they aren’t going to enter the schools and outright throw out signed languages.

After all, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf formally rejected the resolutions of the 1880 Milan Conference. And then, there’s the sticky matter of the high probability of successful lawsuits being brought against them. Parental choices reign in the matter of education, and they have the legal right to use signed language in the instruction of their deaf children.

No, they aren’t going to outright eliminate ASL. You see, in the Hear USA PDF that was passed onto me, the last page had a list of questions that they wanted to explore. “What would it mean to conquer deafness?”

“What would businesses and institutions have to do?”

“What would be the costs?”

“Who will pay for it?”

“How would the market for implants, hearing aids, and audiology and otology services grow?”

“What and how rapid would be the impact on Gallaudet University and schools and centers for the deaf?”

“What would happen to American Sign Language and Deaf Culture?” …

And in a side box, they hypothesize that in 2010 this would happen:

Gallaudet University receives Congressional approval to expand enrollment of non-US students to 80 percent, in stages, between 2010 and 2020, so that Gallaudet can serve students from countries where hearing aids and cochlear implants are not available to the bulk of the population. This shift compensates for the declining enrollment of US students due to newborn screenings and intervention via hearing aids or implants. The legislation expands the Washington campus and deploys faculty and graduates to create campuses in Africa, Latin America, China, India and Eastern Europe; and funds Gallaudet through the World Bank and the US Agency for International Development.

Obviously, this hasn’t happened yet. But it does hint extremely well at their plans for the State Schools of the Deaf and elsewhere. We only need to look at the Utah School of the Deaf for what they will attempt nationally. In the name of budget woes, they will attempt, and already successfully did at USDB, to put ALL deaf children in one school, even with differing educational doctrines.

One administrator leading a school where you have a set of parents who want their children to be immersed in a bilingual environment, and another set of parents who want their children to only use English. Only in Deaf Education would this be acceptable.

This is a war of attrition, in where the majority surrounds the minority, and leads to fighting over resources and money, until the minority is ultimately defeated through sheer numbers.

Indeed… the Hear USA PDF names their plan very aptly. And that plan is called

Death of Deafness

One of Deaf Education’s Dirty Secrets…

Posted on August 26, 2010 by A Deaf Pundit

One early summer day, a couple of decades ago, my parents and a couple of other parents went door to door campaigning for one of the school board candidates. During their door-to-door campaign, they stopped by one of the deaf education teachers’ house. They rang the doorbell, and *Susan’s spouse answered the door.

In the background, somewhere in the house, distraught sobbing could be heard. The spouse, familiar with these present, said, “I’m sorry, Susan’s not able to come down here right now.” An uncomfortable pause ensued, punctuated by the sobbing. The spouse finally said, “She’s always like this at the end of the school year. Susan’s upset, you know, about being unable to see her students during the summer.”

Interestingly enough, several years later when Susan was transferred to General Ed, by all accounts, she didn’t repeat this behavior with the General Ed students.

Different Rules – Different Game?

Some might shrug their shoulders and argue that the rules for Deaf Ed’s different than it is for General Ed, so it’s only natural that the Deaf Ed personnel will behave differently in each setting. Therefore, what Susan did isn’t cause for concern, much less alarm. And after all, the setting of Deaf Ed is structured in a way that it’s a natural consequence for the teachers and interpreters to have a closer relationship with the average Deaf student than General Ed students do with their faculty/staff.

However, if one looks at the actual rules for Deaf Ed, the rules for the most part, focus on ensuring the Deaf students obtain equal access to education, especially functional equivalency. So what’s this really about? If one examines a relationship that a Deaf Ed teacher or an educational interpreter has with the Deaf student, far too often, one will find that the personnel infantilizes the Deaf student. This is not to say all do this. There are many wonderful professionals out there who do have an appropriate relationship with their students and have ethical standards and boundaries.

But there are also many out there who do not, and it’s all too common for people to turn a blind eye to this behavior. The majority of the Deaf Community can share more than one personal story about several Deaf Ed teachers and/or interpreters over-sharing, becoming overly involved with their students’ lives (and even sometimes the student’s families), crossing emotional boundaries, and/or reacting terribly when the student dares to become more independent than they’re comfortable with.

One Deaf Ed advocate shared a story with me about how it’s not quite common but not too rare either, for the school personnel during IEPT meetings to call her clients “Mom”, instead of the clients’ actual name. If that isn’t infantilization, then I don’t know what is.

Sadly enough, the general public supports the infantilization of the Deaf. They, like many in the Deaf Ed field, consider us to be disabled, not as a cultural and linguistic minority. Therefore, we need to be taken care of, in their eyes, and it’s perfectly acceptable for Deaf Ed personnel to treat us differently than how they would with others. How many of us are familiar with this sentiment, “You work with these kids? How precious!” or “Oh, my! You’re Deaf and you were able to accomplish this? How wonderful!” Hence, the sweeping under the rug about this problem.

Some might pooh-pooh this and say this was probably common twenty years ago, but isn’t nowadays. I certainly hope it’s not as prevalent today, but I still get horror stories from Deaf Ed advocates and the Deaf Community about teachers and especially interpreters. And just the other day, I stumbled across a Facebook page of a Deaf Ed teacher who possibly seems to have a close emotional bond with one of her former students, to the point where it raised my and another Deaf adult’s eyebrows. However, apparently her hearing friends generally found it adorable.

It certainly says something about society and its perception of us, don’t you think?

* Name changed to protect privacy

The MSU Situation

Posted on August 11, 2010 by A Deaf Pundit

A lot of people have been asking me about the MSU Deaf Education situation in the past several months, and it hasn’t been until now that I’ve been able to blog about it. The reason for that is because from May to July, I was busy interning at the National Association of the Deaf. The internship was a very enriching experience, and I appreciated the opportunity to work there.

Now, regarding the MSU Deaf Education situation (see here for previous posts to get the background if you’re not familiar with it), there’s not very much to share. MSU has closed enrollment for incoming freshmen. That means last year’s freshmen were the last one to enter the Deaf Education program and when they graduate, the program will cease to exist. However, it is still questionable whether last year’s freshmen will be able to graduate with a degree in Deaf Education, since Marta Belsky, the sole full-time ASL instructor, is no longer working at the university. It’s worthwhile to note that Marta is Deaf and has had professional training in ASL, in addition to having a Deaf father, Martin Belsky who is a former principal and teacher of the Michigan School of the Deaf. MSU, and ultimately, the Deaf children of Michigan lost an ASL expert.

It is also clear to everyone involved that the MSU Provost has already made up his mind, and things will remain as it is. It’s rare for a board to act in opposition of their Provost at all universities, so it’s not expected that the MSU Board of Trustees will overrule the Provost’s decision. So ultimately, the MSU Deaf Education program is closed.

However, there is still one thing that the Deaf Community can do, which is to contact an organization with civil/disability rights attorneys, such as NAD, to help with filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights under the Department of Justice. There are grounds for the civil rights complaint, which I’m not going to go into details publicly, for obvious reasons. Things also have grown complicated here in Michigan, and I’ve decided to take myself out of the equation to devote my time and attention to my studies and career goals. The Michigan Deaf Association is aware of my suggestion to file a civil rights complaint with the assistance of NAD or other like-minded organizations, so it is now in their and the community’s hands to take further action if desired.

One might ask what good will filing a complaint do, if the program is closed? I’m not sure what exactly it will immediately accomplish, but I do know having an official record of people’s grievances with MSU’s closure of the Deaf Education program, is a very good policy. After all, you never know when such a document will become very useful, and odds are it’ll become just that someday.

MSU’s Rationale For Closing Deaf Ed Program

Posted on December 3, 2009 by A Deaf Pundit

I am aware that DeafRead does not publish posts that have emails in it – but this is an extraordinary situation, and this is an email between two public officials, which can be FOIA’ed [Freedom of Information Act]. This is a public record, and illuminates MSU’s TRUE rationale for closing the Deaf Education program. So I am asking DeafRead to please publish this post for these reasons.

From: Carole Ames [mailto:cames@msu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:36 AM
To: Flanagan, Mike (MDE)
Subject: Closure of Deaf Education

Mike,

I know you are getting copied on lots of emails protesting the
recommended closure of our deaf education certification program and
ASL courses. I have attached a document that outlines our rationale
for discontinuing deaf education as a certification area. Basically,
the enrollment is low, Eastern Michigan has a much larger special
education program but also low enrollment in Deaf Education and they
will accept more. The philosophical difference between deaf
education that is ASL based vs. oral/auditory based is playing a
major role in this protest. Because most children who are born deaf
are born to hearing parents, because deafness is identified at birth,
because cochlear implants are recommended–the oral/auditory programs
have much more viability in terms of teacher preparation.

There are many institutions in MI that offer ASL and many train
interpreters and translators so there is no shortage in this area.
In MI as well as 38 other states, there is not a shortage of teachers
certified in deaf education.

All of this is outlined on the attached document. I just wanted you
to have the information. Please let me know if you have any
questions or need clarification. Cass is also available to answer
questions.

FYI–there will be a sizeable rally at the administration building at
MSU this Friday. I don’t know how all this will play out but wanted
you to know.

We are not abandoning special education and in fact, we want to build
those areas (especially autism) where the incidence is high and the
demand is high.

Thanks.
–
Carole Ames
Dean
College of Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48823

Dean Ames’ Attachment

———–

It is my personal opinion that Dean Ames’ email reeks of audism, and many of her claims are false. I find it ironic that she claims there’s an increased demand for ASL interpreters, then turns around and claims there’s also an increased demand for AVT teachers. That is completely contradictory, not to mention irrelevant.

There still is, and ALWAYS will be a need for teachers of the deaf who are proficient in ASL. and I dare Dean Ames to provide statistics to show there is NOT a shortage of deaf education teachers who are proficient in ASL!

I am asking all of you, the readers, and all deaf organizations across the nation, to please, if you are able to, attend this rally tomorrow on MSU’s campus in East Lansing, Michigan. It is at the Hannah Administration Building from 10 am to noon, but it may run longer than 2 hours – depending on how many people show up and the rally speakers.

If you cannot attend, then please send emails to the following people (and those who are in MI, please also email your legislators):

presmail@msu.edu – Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, MSU President
kwilcox@msu.edu – Dr. Kim Wilcox, MSU Provost
cames@msu.edu – Dr. Carol Ames, MSU College of Education Dean
dbyrum@byrumfisk.com – MSU Board of Trustees

FLANAGANM@MICHIGAN.GOV– Mike Flanagan, Superintendent of Public Instruction

PDF List of MI Board of Education Members’ Emails

Find Your Michigan Senators

Find Your Michigan Representatives