Numerous Deaf people, including myself, who are either fluent or native ASL users, upon seeing this video are quite upset. The signing is barely comprehensible to us. It has been described as gibberish and babble. A few ASL signs can be glimpsed in the video, but for the most part, it is utterly incoherent. Mark Nakhla has defended this video by claiming that this video was using ASL glosses and this was an artistic interpretation of the song. He admits he uses some gestures, which is completely different than signs in a signed language. To be irrevocably clear: gestures =! sign. Anyone who would do some basic fact-checking would realize this.

Therefore, this brings up numerous questions. Why did Huffington Post cover a music video that claims to use American Sign Language, but is incomprehensible to fluent and native ASL users? Why didn’t they at least consult with ASL experts to verify that the video does use the language? Why doesn’t Huffington Post cover music videos that are done by Deaf persons, such as Rosa Lee Timm and LankyListman, but only those that are done by hearing people who are extremely poor in using ASL?

And why is it that when we complain about the misrepresentation and exploitation of our language, we’re either ignored or scolded for daring to object?

If an English singer decided to do a song in Spanish or any other language that is spoken with the voice, and they mangled the pronunciation of the foreign words, they would be met with wide-spread criticism, even when given room for ‘artistic interpretation’. And the criticism would be considered as valid and appropriate. Yet this is not the case when it comes to the usage of the Deaf people’s language, American Sign Language.

Why is that?

I can only conclude that there is no sincere respect for signed languages such as American Sign Language, and it is ultimately not considered a real language amongst the mainstream. This is despite decades of scholarly research confirming that indeed, ASL and other signed languages are genuine languages, just like spoken ones.

This is a saddening testimony to how ignored and oppressed the Deaf Community is, in my opinion. Our objections and opinions on issues that concern us, are simply brushed aside as if we do not truly matter.

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. 

And unfortunately, I discovered much to my dismay, that the conference schedule on the EHDI website was not complete, and that the program book listed more ASL-centric workshops. Needless to say, I am not happy about this discovery, and I strongly suggest that the EHDI staff take steps to make sure their website is more accurate in the future.

Now, because I strongly believe in ensuring that everyone has accurate and relevant information, I will now present the corrected statistics, with additional information for clarity.

First, the additional information for clarity’s sake. On page 6 of the 2012 EHDI program book, it states the goal of the EHDI conference is:

The goal of this meeting is to enhance the implementation of comprehensive state-based Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs.

This proves beyond any doubt, about my point that the national EHDI conference does establish the tone for the state EHDIs.

Additionally, underneath the goal statement in the program book, on the same page, it talks about the “Learning Objectives For Participants”. The objectives are:

• Identify and promote knowledge and awareness of successful strategies for implementing comprehensive state-based EHDI programs that include screening, audiologic diagnostic evaluation, early intervention, medical home, reporting, tracking, surveillance, loss to follow-up issues, data integration, and other related surveillance components.
• Interpret and describe current research and research methods related to EHDI.
• Examine cultural competence of providers and assess their ability to work with children who have a hearing loss, their families, and communities.
• Discuss the importance of enhancing and creating new and ongoing working
  relationships among federal agencies, non-profit organizations, state health departments and educational agencies, advocacy groups, families, and professionals.

Now, after looking at this information in the program book, I decided to explore further into the EHDI Conference website and I found this link titled, “Presenter Information”. On that page, it lists quite a bit of information, including the tracks of the conference. I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting their statements about the tracks below:

Abstracts for presentations or posters can be submitted in one of the following nine program tracks. All presenters are encouraged to include information in the abstract that demonstrates collaboration among EHDI stakeholders. The tracks (along with a few illustrative ideas for each track which are not meant to be limiting) are listed below.

1. EHDI Program Enhancement (e.g., efforts to improve any component of an EHDI program, systems change initiatives, protocol improvement, extending EHDI to other populations)
2. Audiological Assessment and Intervention (e.g., improving diagnostic protocols, fitting and management of hearing aids, cochlear implants, or FM systems, access to hearing aids, counseling families on full range of communication and technological options, how to communicate to families, how barriers to language acquisition can be overcome)
3. Early Intervention (e.g., improving educational programs for 0-5 year olds, coordination and communication among early intervention and EHDI programs, transition between programs, the role of non-Part C services, providing culturally competent services, language acquisition and development, evaluation and intervention in regards to speech/language assessments)
4. Medical Home (e.g., providing family-centered health care within a community-based system, coordinating care between primary care providers, specialists, subspecialists, and other health care professionals, delivering health care that is accessible, continuous, comprehensive, compassionate, culturally effective and efficient for all involved, screening during well-child care)
5. Follow-up, Tracking and Data Management (e.g., strategies for improving loss to follow-up, innovative tracking systems, using tracking information for quality improvement)
6. Family Perspectives and Support (e.g., what do families like and dislike about EHDI programs, how parents can be involved efficiently in program administration, implementing effective parent support programs, parent education, how to inform families of the full range of communication options and choices, overcoming barriers to language acquisition)
7. EHDI Workforce Issues (e.g., pre-service and in-service education for EHDI providers, workforce shortages and how to reduce them, strategies to address knowledge gaps)
8. Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance (e.g., efforts to assess quality of services or data, quality improvement efforts, results of statewide program evaluations, reporting to funders and administrators, strategies for assuring quality)
9. Policy, Advocacy and Legislative Issues (e.g., mandates for insurance coverage for hearing aids, securing funding for program improvement, public awareness campaigns, state legislative or advocacy efforts)

I have to say that I find it interesting that there’s basically 2 tracks for medical related issues (the Audiological Assessment and Intervention and Medical Home tracks), but none for American Sign Language and related issues. The tracks need to change at the next conference, so the attendees are fully apprised of the alternate views and approaches with deaf children, not just the medically-based ones.

So my and others’ objections about the EHDI conference and NCHAM’s bias still stands.

Now, the corrected statistics about how many ASL-Centric workshops there were. The corrected percentage is 10%, not 5%. There were 13, not 7, ASL-centric ones out of approximately 124 presentations.

1. Parents’ Legal Rights In the Education System – Presented by Alexis Kashar, Howard Rosenblum
2. Knowledge Is Power: Parents’ Legal Rights Outside the Classroom – Presented by Debra Patkin, Howard Rosenblum, Tawny Holmes
3. Resource Materials Guiding Decision-Making: How Do They Measure Up? – Presented by Gina Oliva, Barbara Raimondo, Marilyn Sass-Lehrer, Beth Benedict
4. Raising a Successful Deaf Child the Bilingual Way – Presented by Chris Hench, Peter Dale
5. Deaf Role Models: Making the Family Support Puzzle Complete – Presented by Madelyn Warnock, Danny Lucero
6. Advocacy for Children Using the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) – Presented by Barbara Raimondo
7. Language Choices: Exploring Diverse Pedagogies of Language in Education – Presented by Thomas Horejes
8. Massachusetts Family Sign Language Program: A Model for Effective Family-Centered Sign Language Instruction – Presented by Kathleen Vesey, Glenys Crane-Emerson
9. Language Acquisition Tips For Busy Parents – Presented by Debra Patkin, Howard Rosenblum, Tawny Holmes
10. A Close Look at Families and Support Received – Presented by Beth Benedict, Barbara Bodner-Johnson
11. Lessons to Learn from Deaf College Students: A Panel Discussion – Presented by Marilyn Sass-Lehrer, Beth Benedict
12. Best of Both Worlds: Maximizing Through Partnerships – Presented by Debra Patkin, Howard Rosenblum, Tawny Holmes
13. Helping to Support Parents of Deaf Babies – Presented by John Egbert

Keep in mind that what I am proposing here does not mean that we will be able to 100% control our message. That is impossible. But we can control it enough to the point where our opponents attack us, they will look foolish and/or make mistakes. And also, keep in mind, there is no one magic bullet that will fix the EHDI problem. Anyone who tells you that there is one, is a liar. Pure and simple. Now, here are some tactics that I recommend that we undertake. These tactics are not strictly all mine – others in the Deaf Community have previously mentioned some of these ideas.

Tactic 1: Continue the legal, peaceful protests at the EHDI conference. Keep the protests only at the conference and nowhere else, for now. Some of us in the Deaf community are seriously under-estimating how effective it is. Think about it – these people have no idea what the protestors are saying or what they’re going to do next. People don’t like dealing with the unpredictable/unknown quantities and they’re bound to make more mistakes as a result. Take advantage of that!

Tactic 2: This is a continuation of the protest aspect. Keep your message simple. Demand equal stake in EHDI and for EHDI to ensure equal access to ASL. Don’t talk about Deaf Culture. Some will object to this, pointing to the fact that language and culture are entwined. Which is true. However, one has to keep in mind that the Oral extremists are saying that if the deaf child learns ASL, they become part of the Deaf culture, but not part of the American culture.As we know, that is a blatant lie. So we need to attack this from another angle. Point out that if the child learns ASL, it will enable the child to become fully integrated in America because it is guaranteed that he will learn how to read and write English, which is essential in being a productive, contributing member of American society.

Once we get the parents’ attention about how ASL is essential for the children’s English literacy skills, and how ASL does not turn their children into some strange, disconnected foreigners, we will draw the parents in. Over time, they will start learning more and more about Deaf culture, because as already stated previously, language and culture cannot be really separated. That part of discussion about Deaf culture has to happen later, not immediately, and it has to happen on a natural, slow pace, based on the parents’ level of comfort. The last thing we want to do is to make the parents uncomfortable and think we want to own their children. We do not!

Tactic 3: If you’re a Deaf educator, student or professional in EHDI related fields, register and attend in droves. It will drive the Oral extremists crazy, and it’ll get the clueless people’s attention. It’ll slowly but surely change the clueless people’s minds about us, because we’re not doing anything that Karl White and his cohorts are claiming about us.

Tactic 4: If you’re a Deaf educator and/or professional in related fields, please consider submitting proposals so you can make presentations at the EHDI conference. We know Karl White’s turned down presentations for bogus reasons. Let’s take advantage of his stupidity there.

The denied presenters can forward NCHAM’s bogus responses to the National Association of the Deaf. NAD will know what to do about this. And even if NCHAM turns the proposals down for “legitimate” reasons, they still have to contend with the fact that currently only approximately 5% of the presentations are ASL-centric, when 46% of the deaf children use sign. And that isn’t the only area NCHAM’s seriously lacking in, but I’m not going to mention it all here because it isn’t wise to point out ALL of it in public. (I have no doubt that either Karl White himself or one of his underlings will read this blog. Hi there, guys. )

And so, if NCHAM refuses to deal with the severe imbalance in the presented information, that’s fine. Because one way or another, things have to and will change. We all, including NCHAM, are past the point of no return. And over time, armed with this information, NAD and Deaf community can work together and use all of this information against Karl White and NCHAM. Will this happen overnight? Of course not. EHDI took years to come into what it is now, and it’ll take at least two years, in my opinion, to set it onto the right course.

Tactic 5: Choose the right leaders. We need to have leaders who sees the whole picture, and I mean the whole picture, and who can keep cool under pressure. Not those who easily fold under pressure and just does what’s popular at the moment. Or those who constantly exploit situations to advance their own personal agenda. Or those who obstinately refuse to adapt to new circumstances.

We need leaders who are adaptable, level-headed, politically savvy team players who understands how the hearing thinks, and will do what’s in the best interest for the Deaf Community, even if it’s not always quite exactly what we want immediately. They also need to have the judgment skills to know when the situation requires bluntness or a light touch. Easier said than done, believe me. Seek out leaders like that, and place/vote them in our organizations. In all of our Deaf organizations, including the NAD board. Will we always be able to find the right ones? No. We will sometimes choose the wrong leaders. But after we realize that they’re wrong for that position, don’t put them back in again. A bad leader does more damage than when there’s no leader!

There are more ideas, but again, it isn’t too wise to reveal them all in public. I also think what’s presented here is effective, stops/reduces the unnecessary protraction and will lead to a seismic shift in our favor with EHDI.

After discovering that AFA made an appearance at the local CI clinic at a hospital and two Oral schools when schoolchildren were still there, I wrote this on my Facebook:

People really need to look at what exactly they want to accomplish with their tactics. Think out of all possible consequences from that particular tactic. Also screen OUT people who will put their personal ambition above what’s in the best interest of the Deaf community, and those who do not have the judgment and sense to know when to be delicate or blunt, depending on the situation.

The Good – Internal and External Pressure on EHDI

Now, first of all, do I think it was appropriate for AFA to protest the EHDI conference? Yes, I do. Why? Because Karl White, who operates the EHDI conference and system (which is heavily supported by federal funds, I might add) is refusing the Deaf stakeholders’ participation in the issue network fully. Rather, Karl White and the other Oral extremists are perpetuating what’s commonly known in the public and nonprofit administration field, as a iron triangle. For a good summary on the definitions and differences between an issue network and the iron triangle, see here.

By ensuring that the iron triangle continues its existence, Karl White is making sure that his vested interests benefit himself and his cohorts, and not what’s in the best interest of the entire deaf community and general public. Don’t believe me? Check out the EHDI conference website. On the website, it very clearly shows that only 7 ASL/Deaf- centric presentations, out of over 120 presentations total. That equals to approximately 5% ASL/Deaf-centric presentations.  (The information about the number and percentage are incorrect. The EHDI conference schedule website was NOT accurate. I have written a subsequent blog post to present the correct information and the source of the correction.)

There are certainly various reasons why the presentations are so low. But I would wager that one prominent reason is because Karl White is denying presentations that are too ASL-centric. In fact, it happened to at least one Deaf professional.  

Now, contrast the previous statistic to the May 2011 GAO report, where it shows that 46% of deaf children in the K-12 educational system uses American Sign Language to varying degrees.

This undeniably illustrates a very jaundiced bias and imbalance in the EHDI system, against American Sign Language, which Karl White and his cohorts are exploiting to further their own vested interests. The entire purpose of the EHDI conference is to exchange and increase knowledge and resources for educators and parents of deaf children. And limiting ASL/Deaf-centric presentations to 5% of the total conference presentations, when there’s 46% of deaf children using ASL, clearly shows that parents and the service providers are NOT getting the needed information about American Sign Language and related issues.

It is a crucial part of a functioning democracy, to enable everyone to make fully informed decisions and agreements. And in order to make fully informed decisions, the parents and service providers need to have full, comprehensive information on all methods, which includes American Sign Language and English/ASL bilingualism.

And so, what Karl White and the EHDI people are doing right now, does deserve a protest. A massive protest. The EHDI system needs to receive major pressure internally and externally.

The Bad – The Lost Message

What I do not support, however, is AFA making appearance at the local CI clinic and 2 Oral schools. And that brings me to my statement I made on Facebook, quoted in the beginning. Just what does making an appearance at a CI clinic and 2 Oral schools will accomplish other than getting attention?

Publicity stunts for the mere sake of getting attention will not get anyone very far. These appearances just needlessly alarmed parents and fed right into the hands of Karl White and his cohorts. Karl White, prior to the EHDI conference, released a lengthy email to the attendees, and amongst one of the comments in the letter, he stated:

You should know that some of what has been posted on their websites, blogs, and Facebook pages has been angry and, as of late, even threatening. Because of those statements, some people who are registered for the EHDI Meeting have asked me if I think it will be safe to attend. My answer is that we are doing everything possible to ensure everyone’s safety and comfort.

Now, I am not a parent myself, but putting myself in the parents’ shoes, seeing a group of strangers show up out of the blue at my hospital or school where my child’s at, and keep in mind, there’s a high chance that the parents already heard about Karl White’s letter prior to this… And then seeing the personnel react very uneasily to a group of strangers’ appearances… how do you think a parent’s going to react and feel? The parents have no clue about AFA’s intentions or why they’re there in the first place. They could be thinking that AFA’s there to stalk, do surveillance, or God forbid, even take hostages. We know that AFA was not doing that. Not at all. But again, the parents and personnel don’t know that. All they see is suspicious activity.

So, the parents and personnel in all probability, are going to feel very, very uncomfortable and probably even intimidated. Not everyone will react aggressively when they’re intimidated. If there’s no security around, odds are most will smile very politely, be very cooperative and hope the group leaves quietly without a scene.

People need to be aware that in hostage situations and again, I’m not saying this was a hostage situation. It was not, but these hearing people didn’t know if it would be, thanks to Karl White… The police’s advice to hostages is to be cooperative with their hostage-takers, if there’s no opportunity to flee. And Karl White basically hints at this:

Finally, if you notice anything that is suspicious or disruptive, please immediately inform one of the meeting staff members (who will be wearing black polo shirts with an EHDI Meeting logo and will have a name badge with a ribbon that says STAFF). Do not try to intervene yourself. [Emphasis added]

I cannot stress enough how important it is to acknowledge that messages are not only sent via words, but also through one’s actions. Karl White knows this very well and is using this to his advantage.

Therefore, that is why I think these appearances were a very bad move. These actions sent an attention-grabbing message that was left far too wide open to interpretation, outside of AFA’s control. Now as a result, Karl White is most likely going to run with this, telling everyone in not so many words, “See?! The Deaf Community, not just AFA, but the Deaf Community, cannot be dealt with, or even trusted. They just want to intimidate us hearing and shove Deaf Culture down people’s throats! What are they going to do next?!” when that really is not the case for the majority of the Deaf Community.

So, what do we do to get around Karl White and his tactics, so we can then effect real changes in the EHDI system?

Next – How To Do A Seismic Shift In EHDI?

Since that time, the university’s student newspaper has covered this story in a 2 part article series: Article 1 and Article 2.  There is now also an update from Ms. Laatsch, which I have posted below, including another CMU administrator email address, for those who want to send in letters of support for Ms. Laatsch.

I personally am outraged at this situation. There is absolutely no justification for this denial of interpreters for Ms. Laatsch, on the part of the CMU administrators. Section 504 and ADA guarantees her the right to an interpreter if her cochlear implants are not enough for effective communication. Michigan State, prior to closing its Deaf Education program, had several deaf students graduate from its program, and went on to teach, without any issues.

Shame on you, Central Michigan University!

~ A Deaf Pundit

—–

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 eight of sixteen weeks of student teaching. In preparation for this, I requested an interpreter months ago; however, Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching, Renee Papelian, Director of Professional Education & Assistant to the Dean, 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 are statements that Dr. Edwards pointed out in the Technical Standards including that I “understand and speak in English.” Dr. Edwards, Dr. Papelian, 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 was encouraged to use an interpreter half time, then for the rest of the semester I am encouraged to show that I can teach “independently” 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. I believe that as a Deaf student, being unable to use an interpreter in a required course (student teaching) is in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, PA 220, Article 1, Sec. 102 (PA 220 of 1976), and others.

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). It appears to me these staff members at Central Michigan University feel the Michigan Department of Education Technical Standards (policies) trumps the laws that entitle me an interpreter without consequences.

Last week, Dr. Edwards and Dr. Papelian told me that I have to go four to five weeks without an interpreter before the end of the semester to demonstrate my “independence” as a teacher or I may not pass student teaching. What I find odd is that right on top of the Technical Standards, it states that I must meet the standards “with or without reasonable accommodations.” Dr. Edwards and Dr. Papelian still believe I must go for some time without an interpreter.

They also told me that if I don’t pass student teaching I could still get a Bachelors of Science (non-teaching) degree from Central Michigan University. I told them I want to earn my Bachelors of Science in Elementary Education, the degree I have been pursing for the last four years. In addition to this, they suggested that I could also sign a waiver stating that I will never receive teaching certification in the state of Michigan. This baffled me. I wondered why anyone would even do this. I told them I would not do this.

Another issue I have been struggling with deals with interpreters. For the first four weeks of student teaching, I had the same main interpreter every day. Some days another interpreter will be present as a team. After the first four weeks when I decided that this Action Plan was not going to be successful, I told Ms. Rood that I needed an interpreter for the reminder of the semester. I also requested for that same interpreter to continue interpreting since she stated to me she is willing to and is available to be there. Ms. Rood denied this request and instead hired an interpreter agency. I cannot tell you who will be my interpreter every day because it is random. Usually there is one same interpreter who is there but sometimes she has to go to another job and a different interpreter would be there. Some days there are two interpreters all day. Some days there are two interpreters in which one or both would come and go throughout the day. Some days there is just one interpreter. Sometimes I would go without an interpreter from between thirty minutes to a few hours. I feel this is very inconsistent and it frustrates me. It is not good for my students especially since most of these students are at-risk and they very much need consistency. Also to make my student teaching experience successful I feel it is best to have one interpreter or a team of interpreters be there every day. I feel that this would also be “reasonable accommodation.”

As you can probably see, there has been a lot of discrimination, oppression, and violation against laws. Obviously, this is a time-sensitive matter because I am in the middle of my student teaching experience. If you need more information, please contact me. Anything you can do quickly would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kelly Laatsch

The CMU contacts:

Susie Pletcher-Rood, Director of Student Disability Services
rood1se@cmich.edu
(989) 774-3018

Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching
edwar2kl@cmich.edu
(989) 774-4411

Renee Papelian, Director of Professional Education & Assistant to the Dean
papel1rj@cmich.edu
(989) 774-1410

Tony Voisin, Dean of Students
deanofstu@cmich.edu
(989) 774-3346

Kathryn Koch, Interim Dean of College of Education and Human Services
koch1ke@cmich.edu
(989) 774-6995

—-

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