As I watched the graduation via live streaming for Gallaudet University earlier today to watch the keynote speaker what he has to say. The keynote speaker is the father of Internet: Vinton Cerf.
I found that Vinton Cerf’s presentation during the 2015 commencement did not have any place on academy at all. He encouraged Deaf people to get cochlear implants on their most important day of their lives: graduation! It is the biggest insult to their pursuit of happiness. What is more that Alan Hurwitz smiled right back at him and told him a big THANK YOU.
I am deeply concerned with the resurgence of allowing eugenics on the graduation day with Cerf’s alliance with political-ideological movements to block ASL in education. Gallaudet University has continued toward to developing a program for the eradication and oppression of ASL, the language and culture of the Deaf by promoting more speculative communicative pursuits.
There was really no excuse for Vinton Cerf’s unprofessional behavior–a travesty of social injustice. Gallaudet University should not be the community that turns Deaf people into puppets by TELLING them to get cochlear implants–the greatest mocking treatment of Deaf people!
I am getting really tired sick of the amount of language bigotry and hate speech anymore! The question you ask yourself, what are the dangers of allowing Vinton Cerf to speak eugenics-style presentation in 2015? As I was taught that Gallaudet University was supposed to be the voyage and movement. It’s sad because no one has stopped his speech and allowed him to practice hate speech—Gallaudet University is supposed to defend ASL fiercely.
There were couple of Deaf graduates graduating with honor and respect; yet, the kind of imagination at Gallaudet University is that Mr. Cerf makes sure that Deaf people forget that they are Deaf. Just like AGB’s philosophy in 1884. “We should try ourselves to forget that they are deaf. We should try to teach them that they are deaf.” Since Vinton Cerf is the father of Internet, let’s stamp him as the father of Hate Speech eradicating Deaf graduates today. It is a sad day!
Copyright © 2015 Jason Tozier
This text may be freely copied in its entirely only, including this copyright message
121 thoughts on “Charge Vinton Cerf with Deaf Hate Speech!”
Technically, yes, Hurwitz could have shut down his speech, because GU is not a federal agency and so is not bound by the First Amendment, however it would have been very unwise to do so. It’s better to let him express his opinion, and then others can respond. It’s OK to avoid inviting him to speak, but very, very unwise for the GU president to block him in expressing himself during the middle of his speech. No GU president will ever do that, now or on the future.
Yes, Hurwitz could have done that, but Gallaudet is appropriated by the Congress to receive federal funding—that is the big problem. It has been like this since 1864. Is Hate Speech part of the First Amendment? Let me know. 🙂
The First Amendment allows hate speech (and even protects peoples’ right to use hate speech).
I forgot to comment that there was a great article written whether hate speech versus free speech is liable. It’s really good.
JT, you cited only one sentence. I cannot condemn him based on this one.But I can imagine him to be audistic in his thinking and behavior. I can see him to be obsessed with the value of hearing. No wonder that he wears one or two hearing aids and has benefited from it.
It is not wise for Hurwitz to stop Cerf from speaking. The students in the audience should have booed him. IPerhaps, noone did that. This should be done now in various publications, both print and on Internet.
Hartmut, thanks for leaving your comment. Yes, I am surprised that the graduating students did not protest his presentation or even walk out of the building for this matter! He is one of the worst audists ever on the mother planet. I just wrote a new blog few minutes ago. It is called “A Perfect Mask of Benevolence: Vinton Cerf’s Ideology”
How sad! Why was he chosen to be the guest speaker??????????
Cerf did not even show any remorse for Deaf people.
How Sad! Why was he chosen to be the guest speaker in the first place???
Yeah, political agenda. Mark my words.
Because he was on Gallaudet’s Board of Trustees and he was to receive a honorary doctoral degree, he “must” speak at the Commencement. Well, the Board was never free of audists, with with intact hearing and inability to hear (I am not speaking of “hearing loss”).
Sadly, Cerf has never learned the true meaning of being deaf, while serving on the Board.
I am deaf, but not my ears.
Is it proper for BoT member to be given speech as a commencement speaker? Many questions to be answered. The BoT was never given a full orientation how to understand the power dynamics of Audism.
Unbelievably ill-advised and ignorant. Certainly Vint Cerf is hearing by using his devices and does not seem to be aware of the culture of the Deaf community. In the future campus speakers need to be given a short orientation so they don’t put their foot in their mouth.
Yes, it was one of the most ignorant speeches I ever seen! That’s a good advice to require the future speakers show up for orientation and give themselves a big wake up call. Would it ever happen at Gallaudet in the future?
New blog few minutes ago.
I watched the speech and Dr Vinton Gray Cerf DID NOT encourage graduates to get a cochlear implant. He did no such thing. Stop spreading lies. He shared the time line of all the medical and technological advancements over the years.
Nothing is new with you, Gina Alberti Sutton. You support Cued Speech in Illinois, almost virtually everywhere you support eugenics (cochlear implant, oralism, AVT, etc) There is something wrong with your eyes if you watched the speech. It is time for you to do follow up with your eye doctor please. Thanks!
JT, you use my name to discredit me but you could not show me exactly what he said. For example, you need to point out specific part of his speech. The video is captioned. Show me which part of his speech that encouraged graduates to get a cochlear implant. Let’s be adults about this and discuss in a mature way instead of using my name to discredit me. That’s childish, JT.
I already wrote a post few minutes ago to show what exactly he said. Yes, no shit, like I do not know that it was captioned! You are being childish when you support all the eugenics-cases.
Gina, even if he didn’t encourage graduates to get C.I., I still don’t like it. No one should mention anything about C.I., oralism, Ephphatha, etc, during a happy graduation day. He’s not a childish. You started it by saying “Stop spreading lies.” How can you be so stupid?
Yeah, Gina is famous for spinning lies. She’s one of those hidden Audists. She’s that nutty enough!
Had JT wrote a blog stating what you said, I would not have had a problem with it because he has a right to his opinion. That would have been absolutely fine. Not a problem. However, he stated, quote “He encouraged Deaf people to get cochlear implants on their most important day of their lives: graduation! ” unquote.
Dr. Cerf wasn’t “encouraging”, he was going over the past timeline and possible future timeline.
Dianrez, maybe you can help me here, can you type verbatim via captioning on the video that points to Dr. Vinton Gray Cerf encouraging graduates to get a cochlear implant? Thanks.
I have a transcript of the speech, from the captions. You are distorting the speech, deviating the speech, putting words into Dr. Cerf’s mouth. I am done here. It makes no sense arguing about what is clearly shown what Dr. Cerf said. Good day.
I have the transcript, too. So, we both are even! Oh, yes, with the captions, too. You just cannot argue with me at all. Have a good night.
Actually, for Cerf to claim that cochlear implantation is “standard practice” is more than an exhortation.
Right on the nose!
You’re distorting yourself in the most nutty of all!
It was MY graduation, I was there! I heard what he said and you must have heard WRONG. He is clearly happy his mom, born in 1916, got to see so many inventions, and have his wife get 2 CIs, he uses HAs. But he did not say we all need them. He is clearly not an ASL user, he is more hearing person. But “Deaf Hate Speach”?? Come on! While I would have prefered the US President to come, they rarely do, I doubt any hearing person would understand us and do much differently. He clearly thinks tomorrow will have many new technologies to help the disabled, and thinks we are going to have implanted robots in us to fix what ails us, well…he is a tech man, that is his passion, duh. But he did not say on graduation day go get a CI. Be HONEST!
For the rest of you here, please trust those who are graduating Class of 2015, ask US how we feel about him! Those who are not in attendance should not be speaking for us, as THAT is paternalism, and is what we hate hearing to do to us, so STOP allowing outsiders to tell us at Gally how we need them to fix stuff for us. THANK YOU
I beg to differ! It is everybody’s graduation! Thanks to live streaming, it has opened many doors to begin their quest to understand hate speech. With the audistic connotation you imply that I can “hear.” I saw him what he said in the broadest sense of my eyes and it was good thing that the live streaming was captioned. Please re-consider your statement.
Yes, he pushed the edge to re-discover their life with cochlear implant in the air. You had missed many important points. That is not an American democracy by insulting Deaf graduates. Not only that, but many of us out in the community as well, too! There is such no thing for paternalism. The outsiders you had insulted their intelligence has shown that you are angry at me for writing this post. The outsiders which has happened to be for alumna, alumnus and family members who cannot make it to Gallaudet for a reason.
Go ahead and try to ask the group of MA in ASL-ed that they almost considered walking out of the ceremony. They felt violated because….you might ask them, so I have every right to express my feelings whether I was in the attendance or not.
Let me explain what Deaf Hate Speech stands for:
DEAF= A collectivity: the people as a whole that is regarded as opprobrious, as a source of ignominy (humiliating)
HATE= A feeling of aversion or hostility;
SPEECH= Any action…..(why don’t you figure it out?)
Is there a life after hate speech? If I were attempting to answer that question, it would be very difficult to answer the systems of governance, it is still flawed in the people’s minds. What we need today, for the sake of the survival of mother planet, is long-term awareness.
Honesty was already shown in the graduation video. I rest my case.
Thank you, David for stating a fact that is so obvious. It was very clear per transcript, per captions, per interpreter translating Dr. Cerf’s speech that he was not asking or encouraging graduates to get a CI.
As we can see here, the issue was that Dr. Cerf brought up the advances of medical marvels and advances in technology that appears to have irritated this blogger to no end. This blogger does have a right to not like the speaker, he does have a right to object that Gallaudet got Dr. Cerf to speak. However, he did not have a right to put words into Dr. Cerf’s mouth because Dr. Cerf said no such thing encouraging graduates to get a CI.
Encouraging or not, the language is so hidden that people did not see that it is actually hate speech—and yes, he was trying to make them think. That’s beyond stupidity. The medical marvels you are talking about: cochlear implant. Again, you are putting words in anyone’s mouth and keep it up.
David, yes I was there as a guest of one of graduated student invited me. The keynote speaker, Vinton Cerf, our father of internet inventor, was chosen for Gally’s gradauation. I found it odd that he seated as Board of Trustees and recieved honoray doctorate degree at same time.
I prefer someone from outside, who successed in related to deaf culturcal, deaf services/communities or leadership for deafness, give best examples for Gallaudet graduates to prepare for their career success opportunities.
Technically he doesnt ‘encourage” us to have CI implanted. He emphasized to the point where technology has led our lives into amazing drastic changes. He mentioned that his mother has outlived to almost one century to watch first car invention, War/Depression struggles to today’s computer/microtechnology devices.
In additional, all keyguests should have submit their sermon notes for administration to review before graduation ceremony to assure there is no controversial topics in related to Deafness Hates, Sex Hates, Deaf Cultural prejudicines, etc.
I also prefer someone from outside, too! From I can remember, I never seen anyone who was on BoT and got an honorary degree at the same time who is the grand winner of Alexander Graham Bell medal is very insulting. Big money is coming in!
Just wonder students swallowed his hate speech! If I am president of Gally then I will confront and insult Cerf. Almost all of you are fake people. Report to Washington Post. I will throw my graduation hat to him. Bad feeling on Graduation Day for rest of life. I was right like I said few months ago it will be Gallaudet Implants University in the future. Get lost Cerf. He punished Deaf students and not congrats them.
One of the most important days in their lives get crushed through invisible Audism.
The cost of graduation cap, gown, invitation cards, the likes of graduation etiquette helps the industry hundreds of million dollars, is a total waste for Gallaudetians this year. It is all about money! Generating cochlear implants in his mouth earns him and Gallaudet more money to the revenue.
always a victim mentality … Everywhere I look ….
And it is also called plantation mentality, too!
said like a true intellectual, not.
Even that JT wrote that Hurwitz should stop Cerf midway in his speech, that equals calling for him to shut up, JT was mainly criticizing what Cerf spoke, his words and what additional meanings one can glean from them. That is the main issue here. Cerf wanted to say, deafness is a malady for mankind and for every individual person, and we could and should not defend against it, because technology marches forward and is “unstoppable”. He seems to be subscribing to the ideology that humanity is perfect with hearing intact or better with superhearing (ability to hear beyond speech frequencies like a dog). He, as well as everyone of us – deaf or hearing -, must contemplate, whether it is good for mankind to consist of hearing people only. Believing this is to deny deaf people to exist as a matter of nature, or, for religious people, as part of God’s creation (Exodus 4:11).
A piece of humanity vanishes when deaf people are exterminated. I wrote in a German publication about the CI (and other medical procedures) being the Final Solution to the Deaf-Mute Question.
Surdo ergo sum.
Yes, and the words had already devastated as whole towns and villages that Cerf and GU itself knew that the words in his presentation were pretty decimated. Deaf graduates should not be forced to walk in the deserts of cochlear implant makers.
Congrats on your publication! A good publication like good thinkers. I would love to read this if you do not mind. I am a reader of all literature on any given days. The Final Solution to the Deaf-Mute question is almost a similar to a chapter I read in a book called. “Deaf People in Hitler’s Europe”–a profound moment.
Descrates’s bust is sitting in my bedroom. Slainte!
I hope that his business will fall into 0 dollar amount value due to his inappropriate speech at GU. It shows his immaturity and animosity toward GU and its people. What if he becomes deaf in later years, then he will understand what is being to be deaf and forced into cochler implant against his will. Then, it will be “kick in his arse”.
Even with the graduation being done for the year, the money is still generating into Cerf’s bank account because he has helped Alexander Graham Bell Association richer. A commission at best. As much as callow he was, it is clear that he is very much colonized. Yes, let’s send him a message: Póg Mo Thón! (Kiss my Ass!)
JT, you have my email address. You can send me a private email for me to send you some of my publications in Germany. I have a few in English translation.
Vinton Cerf is simply a victim of the audist culture he has been brought up as a hard-of-hearing person, who still functions as a hearing person completely, although he missed pieces of chit-chat conversations in his environs. He has grown to become a loner, focusing almost exclusively on his interests, talents, and skills, as if they have become an oasis or cave to escape to. I have met many deaf and hard-of-hearing oralists, who have become heremits or oddballs of some sorts. Those people consider deafness a thing to overcome and they MUST by the audist mentality function as pseudo-hearing persons.
“Victima” in Latin means to sacrifice–and Cerf has sacrificed a lot for Audist culture. I like your comment.
One more thing, I wish to comment about the term “hate speech”. I quickly recognized it to be from the late Carl Schroeder, who tried to popularize the term to be the crux of the problems in the relations between the deaf and hearing peoples. He was in Boston to give lectures about it. But sadly, he failed to define the term within some sort of framework, and how “hate speech” better captures the problem. He could not be persuaded that hate speech or negative pronouncements against a group of people are only a manifestation of a complex of discriminatory attitudes, like racism, homophobism, sexism, etc..including audism and ableism.(Ableism in fact derives from audism historically and ideologically).
The danger with the use of “hate speech” is that everything uttered about the group displeasingly will be categorized as hate speech, where hate cannot be determined in a speech. For example, a hearing person saying “I love music above all” cannot be construed to be hate speech. This is not audistic yet. However, when he continues to say that I should undergo a medical procedure to gain hearing to enjoy music the same way as he does, thinking my quality of life would improve, it becomes audistic, but not yet hate speech. Hate speech requires further elements to become such.
Yes, the late Carl Schroeder was my greatest mentor. I was in person of charge for his memorial service. Let you read the post, OK?
I know his father better. My only encounter with Carl Schroeder was in Boston, when he was presenting on “Hate Speech”. I am very glad that he was your greatest mentor, although I did not have a good opinion of him.
I would like to say, the theme of “hate speech” does not stick in the intellectual discourse of the problem in the relations between the hearing and the deaf.
What we should look in Cerf’s speech is audism, regarding the value of hearing to be high and absolute for a perfect mankind and how he exhorts us to share it.
His father is a good guy so was Carl. Yes, I will discuss more about “hate speech” that will meet the merit for an intellectual discourse of the problem. This time, my own thinking. Hate speech is the cousin of Audism. That’s one happy family!
Hartmut makes a serious point. Hate speech is what one saw in Germany when propaganda against Jews began. Cartoons and highly offensive language was used to describe Jews and how they were bad for Germany. You know how this ended.
What we see in Cerf’s remarks can be described as insensitive, ignorant, yes, even audist. However, it is not hate speech. If people stop listening to us, it will be because they got tired of exaggerations.
Yes, I agree that Hartmut makes a serious point, so am I. As reading is the most powerful tool, I am aware of all those books I had read including propaganda in Germany to target Jews—and does that mean you do not agree that Deaf people EVER experience hate speech as well? It’s funny thing that you said the same thing five years ago. So much not for a change.
Again, hate speech is the bigger cousin of Audism. People stop listening to us because they are in major denial knowing that what they did to Deaf people is wrong. I rest my case that it was a case of hate speech what Cerf has said there.
You may say “I rest my case” but you do not win the case. See many of us see this speech differently than you. That is okay, but we all are saying similar things about what you wrote and that is you exaggerated it and want to demonize him. Indeed I have met people who have been pushed out of Deaf world by people who claim to love ASL and Deaf and not want Oralist Audism…but cannot tollerate anybody who is: not fluent instantly in ASL…including terp students, hard of hearing, later deafened, and oral deaf who did not choose to be oral and now want to sign; not deaf enough to be Deaf…such as born with gene for deafness in a family of many who are deaf who were oral and did not become deaf until adult and are 1st to want ASL and are told by Deaf they must be labeled “hearing” or “HOH” because not Deaf enough to say Deaf; or had a CI…even if parents gave it to them or by choice, yet hearing aids are worn by almost all Deaf and are accepted.
Now while I am an advocate for Deaf rights I also see a lot of the verbal anger directed at others who are deaf and the language used actually is hate speech, wanting them to be harmed, and that pushes them away from Deaf community. Why would anybody want to learn more about why talking to ASL loving Deaf at graduation is offensive if they are name-called, threatened, or their words are twisted to entrap them?
So the fact is you got a right to an opinion on what you read with captions, but I was there and it was not how you make it out to be. And then I seen others get enraged by your article and share it without having attened, asked those in attendence, or watching the graduation. http://webcast.gallaudet.edu/?id=238 < That is the link if it still works may others here who have not seen it watch it for themselves and not rely on anyone else's opinions.
There is a lot of talk here, but the proper thing to do is post the full video and the full text (or just the links). Otherwise this us a bunch of people talking about something that literally doesn’t exist. Where’s the beef? Show, or share the full context at the source (this blog is the source of the accusation, and therefore responsible for showing previsely what is objected to).
I have the full text—you might be careful what you wrote in here throwing me an accusation. Please re-consider your statement.
Vinton Cerf’s full transcript from captions. The time mark begins at 1:59:38
Members of the board, members of the faculty family and friends and class of 2015, congratulations!
I am sure many of you are feeling a sense of accomplishment and relief. I can assure your parents are probably thinking the same thing.
Many of who live to be 100 years old. You have about 80 years to look forward to. Let’s try to figure out what that might mean.
My mother, Muriel Cerf, was born in 1916 and passed away last year at the age of 98. For her, the telegraph, the telephone, talking movies, mass produced automobiles, radio, the airplane and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanices, the Panama Canal, World War I, and the Great Depression were already in her past. What would she see over the next 80 years? She would experience World War 2, the invention of the computer, radar, rockets, television….well, okay. It was not invented in 1928 but was not widely in use until the 1950s. And microwave ovens.
In her lifetime she would see the synthesis of insulin and the birth control pill, magnetic resonance imaging, the invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, she would see the invention of and ride in jet airplanes and watch men landing on the moon and space craft on mars, and other bodies in our solar system. She would see the invention of the internet and the world wide web, she would experience the invention and use of the transistor, mainframe computers, personal computers, laptops, tablets, hand held mobiles and the smart phone.
She would experience the assassination of JFK, MLK, and Robert Kennedy, and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. She would experience the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would lie ahead of the 20 year old Muriel. Interestingly, the first wearable hearing aid was invented in 1938, when Muriel was 22.
By 1953, the transistor made behind the ear hearing aids possible. I started wearing them in 1956 when I was 13 years old. The 80 year old Muriel would see her daughter-in-law and my wife, Sigrid Cerf, receive her first cochlear implant in 1996 and a second one 10 years later.
It is 2015, you are about to graduate into a world that we can only begin to imagine. What might you experience over the next 80 years? In my own field, it is reasonable to expect that quantum computers will become real, if not necessarily wide-spread use. Minimally-invasive surgery will be the norm for many conditions and nano-scale devices will be reduced to practice. Some may be autonomous and others guided by skillful hands or even robots. Some may even work inside our bodies. Self-driving cars will become commonplace and it might even be illegal for inept humans to drive cars except on specially-designed off road or race tracks! And finally humans will land on Mars and a spacecraft will be on its way to the nearest star system Alpha Beta and Proxima Centauri.
The internet of things is becoming a reality and it will be the norm for you in your lifetime. Wearable computes and sensing devices on or embedded in our bodies will be standard practice. some already are such as the insulin pump, cochlear implant, and video cameras you can swallow. Electronic alternatives to pharmaceutical medicines will be standard options for you during your lifetime. While there won’t quite be Star Trek replicators, 3D printers will be commonplace and spare parts and whole cars will be manufactured on the spot. Stem cell and genetic therapies will almost certainly become commonplace in your lifetimes.
And it is not inconceivable that we will be able to re-grow damaged parts of our bodies and that may include the reconstruction of organs that help us see, feel, or hear. Some of you may well find, yourselves in Earth orbit for a stay in a Virgin Galactic or Bigelow Hotel and you will get there on a commercial space flight offered by Space-X or Virgin Galactic.
I have had the good fortune to experience a career filled with interesting challenges and fascinating ideas. While I was trained as a Mathematician, I soon discovered computers and that led to networking and that led to the internet. I had the benefit of many, many colleagues who felt the same urge I did to connect things that had not been connected before. To erase distance and fashion an ever more interconnected world. I am an engineer by trade. A computer scientist by my degrees. And a Chief Internet evangelist by title. Of course, there are only an estimated 3 billion people on the net today so there are about 4 billion people more to connect. I could use some help.
For the past 40 years it has been my task to convince others that they, too, want everyone on the planet to be part of the internet and the World Wide Web that it supports. Smart mobiles have helped realize that goal with several billion in use today. I see the internet’s success as a lucky confluence of technology. Us and other government leadership and support. Dramatic reduction in the cost of computing and communications. Massive commitment by individuals, research institutions and private sector companies and business models that have attracted persistent investment and the creation of new enterprises. The world of the future is not predictable. Some of you will discover new physical principles. New business opportunities, new ways of living in a world challenged by climate change, persistent, regional conflicts, growing population and demands for natural resources.
It will be a world posing hard problems and dramatic and opportunities for their solution. You will be a part of that world and you will shape it. Your interests, aspirations, creative talents and your desires will influence the markets and products of the future.
By this time, you will have learned that hard work, patience, and persistence really count in the real world. I hope you have also discovered that doing things that you like and are good at makes work seem more like fun and adventure. You hear often that you should discover what trigger your own passion and pursue that in your career. Do not allow others to define who you are or what your limits might be. These are yours and yours alone to discover and to extend.
I wish each and every one of you all possible success. I have good reason for that – I will be living in the world you create. And so will you! Congratulations!
And it concludes at 2:08:43.
Full transcript. Good boy.
No hate speech anywhere. The context is technical innovation, and a CI is part of that collection. Cerf puts himself and his wife and mother in the same cycle. You’re blowing hot air JT.
“Good boy” what condescending arrogance. Sir, your lack of any grace makes your posts lack any regard.
Call me “good boy” again, I will block you. That is a hateful spew. Since you said there is no hate speech anywhere. Geez. I will copy and paste from my blog just for you, Alec.
I will copy several portions of captions of his presentation that I think where people did not see between the lines. Again, English language can be very tricky. My findings below:
“My wife, Sigrid Cerf received her first cochlear implant in 1996 and a second one ten years later. Now in 2015 you are about to graduate into a world that we can only begin to imagine. Notice the word right before this? ‘First cochlear implant…and second one ten years later….into a world that we can only begin to imagine. It means use your best imagination what to hear out there. ONLY WE CAN ONLY BEGIN….
“In my own field, it is reasonable to expect that quantum computers will become real. If not, necessarily in wide spread use. Minimally invasive surgery will be the norm for many conditions and nano-scale devices will be reduced to practice. Some may be autonomous and others guided by skillful hands or even by robots. Some will work inside our bodies. The key is “minimally invasive surgery will be the norm for many conditions.”—Many conditions means to wipe the condition of Deaf world. The second key is that “some will work inside our bodies” suggesting cochlear implant will work inside our ears. Is the ears part of the bodies? You decide.
“The Internet is becoming a reality and it will be the norm for you in your life time. Wearable computers and sensing devices will be standard practice some already are. Such as the insulin pump, cochlear implant, and video cameras you can shallow.” Cochlear implants are the reality that people need to shallow. Sensing devices are the part of encouraging getting cochlear implants.
“It is not inconceivable that we will able to re-grow damaged parts of our bodies and that may include the reconstruction of organs that help us see feel or hear.” It is easy to know what it means when someone says “re-grow damaged parts of our bodies”—re-grow ears are part of the bodies!
“Some of you will discover new physical principles….” Hmmm. That is very tricky. Isn’t physical principle part of eradicating Deaf and learn to be hearing again? Deaf people have principles to protect their constitution rights.
your points are spot on. our friend Alec is sufficiently outclassed and out-Deaffed…
You have extrapolated. You took his actual words and inserted your ideas of what you think was inferred. But that is not how we read it, orheard it, or saw it if we were there. He did not say anything about wiping out the Deaf world, although you being upset by the 1st part of his speech made you feel that he must have bad intent. He is a tech/science type…he adores gadgets, he dreams of nano-technology. I get that geeks do adore that stuff. To his type the idea of a computer doing things for us seems awe inspiring, and so he seemed to think some of us would be just as excited. Well…I was not. I am not into tech stuff much, although seeing pictures of Mars is nice it just is not what my passion is. And it may not be for you either. But I doubt he is the Deaf Satan you make him out to be.
Also you seemed to read wrong some bits. He did not say in future or now you swallow a CI, he said there are tiny video cameras today you can swallow before a surgery and that helps doctors see things. The sentence included devices he found amazing which included insulin pump…you do not swallow it…a CI…you do not swallow it…and the video cameras you can swallow. If you get angry about what is said because you read it wrong, that is the problem with reading a translation. Maybe if you were there you would have seen in his eyes the truth…he was just a science geek not a Deaf-eradicating Hitler. He just does not know how his feelings about CI and ability to hear will hit Deaf eyes, that we do not all want to hear better like maybe he does. I wished we had a more ASL speaker, but I do not think it was a hate speech.I do think you tried to pull out stuff that simply was not there.
Abstract: find the quote that talks about a “high legal standard for hate crimes in this article about police “militarization” and things telated to racism:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-limits-of-police-reform/393530/
chill, sir technical, splitting of hair…
Admit it. You got outclassed.
The guy basically says that the future holds technologies that will help you hear (cure this graduating class)? He mentioned cochlear implants… What about technologies that will help hearing parents of deaf children (or anyone for that matter), SIGN? What about a scientific exploration based on the expanding universe and uniqueness of being Deaf? Auspiciously ABSENT from the speech is ANY reference to sign language, on the campus of a DEAF university, nonetheless! This is appalling! Sign Language accomplishes what no other auditory language can possibly imagine. Namely, a communication that happens in: “space-time.” What about future technologies that exploit that uniqueness? It’s a shame that still, in this day and age – not recognized – at Gallaudet, the self-proclaiming, supposed beacon of Deaf education… A true Deaf genius-scientist-artist was born who could have advanced the intellectual specialness and discourse sign language offers. A way of describing the universe that draws from the beauty and integrity of a purely visual language with the singularity of focus that is uniquely Deaf. And there was not even a small mention in memoriam. It’s okay — he would’t have wanted to be.
Good point that you made–“what about technologies that will help hearing parents of deaf children (or anyone for that matter), SIGN?”
This is called ABOMINATION.
That is a disgust. When a parent is told that the baby is Deaf, she feels disgusted…abominated. She would ask how? Think of the mother whose culture, value, language and everyday discourse could have imagined for her baby. However, the baby is Deaf, which throws out her vision for the baby…disgusting, indeed…anger…abomination!
Another example, sometimes you walk in at work or some place, you tell someone you have “NO HEAR” and she would feel abominated since she wishes to complete her tasks. When she is told you couldn’t hear, she would have to drop everything, which is disgusting! That is what Cerf did to those graduating students!
Alec, chill out – even if hate speech is technically over the top, the insulting commencement is appalling, regardless.
And hate speech is not often discussed enough in Deaf community and that is the problem.
Gallaudet is lost. They don’t know what they don’t know!!! The following explains (or clarifies): US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in 2002:
Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
Ha ha ha. I remember that Rumsfeld’s comment.
Looks like Mr. “Good boy” McFarlane has gone silent. No loss there.
If you feel compelled, send your comments to “Vinton Cerf” who completely disregarded Sign Language in his commencement speech (in favor of a technological, cure for being deaf):
https://www.facebook.com/messages/vint.cerf.9 or: NationalScienceBrd@nsf.gov
or to his fan mail:
1818 Library Street
Reston, VA 20190
Interesting. Look at the number. 1818. 8=Infinity. Google (1)–the only one. Infinity=Google. Cerf thinks he cannot be stopped in his commencement speech. Cerf does not make decisions or for the best for Deaf people. Ever. Cochlear implant is not infinity. ASL is infinity.
I am gonna write something lengthy in response to Cerf’s commencement address. Thank you, JT, for inserting the whole address.
Suffices to say now, all his talk of technological progress misses the side of humanity and humanness. He failed to contemplate that deafness induces a special sort of humanity (AGBell is right in this regard, but he condemned the creation of “special variety of human race”). Yes, we are a special sort of human folk. He must be forced to think, if it is a good idea for deaf people to vanish from this planet?
Be deaf and stay being there!
“Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” -Gandhi
…and the truth is that there is no such thing as “charging” someone with hate speech.
FH, have you begin to grow now and realize that hate speech did occur that afternoon?
Hartmut’s revised comment:
I searched for a definition in the Internet and to find who and on what basis the term ‘hate speech’ was coined. So far I got only what are in general dictionaries, not as a technical term by sociologists, less the name and article of the originator who introduced it. So I must for the purpose of this blog be content with what I have obtained so far. I don’t have enough time to continue my search. I needed to move on and get my thoughts into the net.
All definitions I see use active verbs such as incite violence, insult, intimidates, disparage, attack, advocate hatred/hostility/violence, categorize a group with negative attributes harmful to it, cause and reinforce subordination of a group on the basis of certain physical attributes, which can be gleaned from a speech act. No couching in diminishing verbs such as “seem to …; suggest hatred, demeaning, belittling; lend itself to …”.
In sum, a negatively loaded speech does not deserve to be called hate speech, when hatred or desire to harm a group cannot be inferred from it in order to accuse the author of evilness to incite insult,disparage etc .
Hiccup, hate speech is not even a big cousin of audism. To put it on the equal pedestal with audism misses the greater magnitude of a discriminatory mentality that is usually, if not always, prevalent in a heterogeneous society. To take a close look at it, and using the metaphor similarly to yours, hate speech is a maladjusted wheel in a social machinery – an evil cog that causes malfunctions in the machinery. Whatever discriminatory mentality exists in a society, it is bound to cause a social problem, which must be solved, if one cares for humanness to operate in the society.
When your mentor spoke in Boston on this subject, I brought up the point that “hate speech” does not capture the entire spectrum of audism, it is only one of several mechanisms that creates a social problem. I wish to insert here my definition of audism to aid in understanding of how hate speech is related to audism. I regard the definition to encompass the whole fabric of negative relations between hearing and deaf peoples. I first published it in a German Deaf forum (www.gl-cafe.de, keyword “Audismus”) in 2007 when the topic of audism was virulent there and I was asked to travel around the country to expound on it.
The definition in my translation goes as:
“Audism is the mentality that overvalues the sense of hearing and ability to speak, from which diverse discriminatory acts in form of attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, utterances (spoken, signed or written), actions, practices, institutional rules may arise that disadvantage deaf or hard-of-hearing people.”
Needless to say, audism can be overt or covert, conscious or unconscious. Whether an act is audistic can be determined only by a collective, deliberative process by deaf people.
You see, hate speech is included in the above definition – among others! Your mentor seems not to know the big picture what the construct of audism captures.
But concentrating the social problem arising from deafness on hate speech misses other acts of speech that cannot be classified as hate speech or being due to hatred toward deaf people. The above definition of audism can include completely innocent speech acts.
Non-hate speech acts toward a deaf person would be like, “Hey, you deaf? Why didn’t you hear?” (after hooping on a car horn or shouting), or asking a Deaf mother of a newly born baby (before any other question) “Is the baby deaf or hearing?”. Both are audistic, but hatred? Certainly not. Why the first is audistic requires a treatise, not a point here. Why the second is audistic depends on particular situations. This act of speech can be non-audistic if asked in the US or by a deaf person, but it is problematic in Germany due to her Nazi past with the ideology of “perfect race”. The question raises a red flag quickly in a German Deaf person’s mind.
Yet this “inappropriate” question cannot come from any loathness toward deaf people, just an innocent curios question, obviously born from the mentality that it’s better to be hearing than deaf. The audistic nature of the question is relative, depending on where. Readers here may quickly respond, why accuse the speaker of being evil for having uttered something innocently (audism by definition has this accusatory implication). One needs to learn to see if audism behind an act is germinating an action that creates a social problem.
A proper response may come from after the analysis of the nature of the act. In the US, the Deaf mother may answer to the second question “not hear” without any apprehension. But in Germany, the Deaf mother predicts a negative reaction, when saying “not hear”, but sees an approving facial expression when replying “can hear”. An audistic speech toward a deaf person becomes hate speech only when something evil accompanies or ensues it.
Underlying the two innocent questions above is the mentality that everyone can or ought to hear, that any inability to hear is a calamity. This inbred notion of a “perfect” human with intact hearing definitely IS audistic by the above definition, since it is the incubator of discriminatory behaviors toward deaf people. Any human society need to learn to appreciate that having deaf people around is perfectly in order … and ought not to vanish; nothing is wrong with being deaf but even better so, if deafness still exists. This relativization of the value of hearing need to spread in the whole society as an act of humanity.
You see, audism is wider and it encompasses hate speech as one among other acts. Not every audistic act will escalate into a discriminatory act. The process of examiining the audistic nature of an incident start, if it arises from the mentality of the value of hearing for being human as guided by the definition above. If in the afirmative, then deliberate what measure(s) should be used to counter it. As an example, what would be the best counter to the “Baby deaf or hearing?” question in Germany, a Deaf lady suggested to give just the brief answer “Baby healthy”. Indeed the best anti-audistic reply to this innocent question so far!
Can anyone of you do this process of examining the audistic nature in Cerf’s address and point out why it is audistic? Then deliberate, what anti-audistic measure would best counter it?
You can hear. That’s OK.
You cannot hear. That is also good.
mmm…interesting: “cause and reinforce subordination of a group on the basis of certain physical attributes.”
This is only one dictionary definition of ‘hate speech’. My point is to show that hate speech requires more than just saying something unpleasant about a group. If a speech act does not show any intention or evil nature, even only implied, it cannot be labelled a hate speech, and the speaker be accused of harboring hatred toward deaf people, of desire to disadvantage them by any degree. The act could be innocent and audistic at the same time. It could be seen as an impropriety, a form of impoliteness, an OOPS thing. You need one or more indications that it is borne from some form of hatred and desire to disadvantage the group. That is why, the definition includes strong action verbs with unpleasant outcomes, no diminishing verbs. I need to see how the term is used the first time and now by sociologists, and if it includes unpleasant utterances with no negative outcome at all to a group.
Even to classify insulting as hate speech is problematic. True, insults offend someone or a group and deserve this appellation by the definitions I listed above. Often, that is just it, nothing more, because insulting is so common in the culture.
By speaking of audism, you aim at its reduction in the society in order to alleviate a social problem. Each audistic act, insidious or innocent, calls for an anti-audistic response. Hegel’s theory of thesis and anti-thesis! As I said earlier, the goal of reducing audism in society is establishing relativism of the value of hearing and speech or in short value relativism of hearing. Unfortunately, some posters got too hung up on the single word “relativism” and distorted the meaning behind the WHOLE phrase. By this I mean that the value of hearing needs to be relativized and becomes a trait in the culture, with the result that nothing, absolutely nothing is bad, sad, etc. about being deaf.
True, the topic is about hate speech. And in my view, the bigger problem is not hate speech, but audism. Also if Cerf’s speech in the final analysis may turn out not to be hate speech, it is still audistic, and it calls for an appropriate anti-audistic response. Here, I just wonder myself, if folks in D.C. are practicing fetishism with the term.
I am still writing an analysis of Cerf’s speech.
14 paragraphs is what it takes you to say “hot air”.
Take a recent case in context of free speech, CNN: “…the SCOTHUS said it wasn’t enough to convict the man solely on the idea that a reasonable person would regard his communications as a threat”
And in the same case the defense attorney’s brief stated, in part, “…the First Amendment’s basic commandis that the government ay not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable.”
I sent JT papers showing him where the real problems are where his brand of audism is concerned. I actually make the case of audism without using the word. But of course, JT hates me now.
… the government may not…
Where did condescending-arrogant: “Good boy” McFarlane go?
What I sent to Mr. Genius Father of the Internet:
Hey Genius — Sign Language has properties that no other auditory language can imagine — Namely, a communication system that takes place in space-time. Future technologies that focus on this, instead of your arrogant fixing of deafness, implies.
The attached video is my son, who faced the same ignorance you embody and who took his own life. You need to take a humble pill, sir.
Gio – Snap.com -New Friend- DC-QuickTime H.264 Web 4×3-2.mov
Where are you Sir arrogant, condescending: “Good boy” McFarlane?
Feeling a bit impotent, Sir McFarlane???
Its funny that a topic accusing hate speech upon someone now has so much vitrol. JT made a post without substance, without the actual context, full and unadultered. He did this without citation.
JT put opinion to perspective. That’s all anybody could see.
I am a friend you never knew you had. I know the problem very well, and it is more than you all suppose. While Cerf was not, in any way, shape, or form espousing or practicing hate speech, he did use keywords and trigger words. Some keywords are innocent in and of themselves, but all trigger words are relative.
Maybe this was a sly sell by Cerf, maybe it was a slick sell by Cerf, I do not know. The problem he alludes to is huge. I underdtand it all too well: a CI does not equal “hearing”. The word “hearing” is abused just as is the word “deaf”. This is a dispute over what constitutes a hearing or a deaf person.
Where JT is right, he is wrong. He is right where there is an industry that is tearing things apart in the deaf world, but he’s wrong about the solutions. Screaming Audism in the internet is tatount to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. People are panicking for the wrong reasons.
The American Deaf leadership does not have a clue about what to do and that ignorance has come at an enormous cost you ate looking at right now, my friends.
Whether Alec is right, he is wrong. He is wrong where Cerf did nothing wrong—and he is wrong about solutions. What a sly and slick comment you wrote. There is no one who knows the problem very well, even the world’s leading experts on hate speech is never easy to answer than we all know. It is a BIG problem that hate speech exists in our community. That’s a big ego talk, Alec. Come on!
From my most recent blog post I wrote, I think it would be best for me to copy and paste my comment into this and let you think about this.
I am talking to you. DEAF to DEAF. You and I have the same identity: DEAF.
HATE—we have been led to believe that it does not exist in our life. Hate produces ignorance, discrimination, and prejudice. We know some Deaf who rejects being DEAF, deny American Sign Language and their signed languages as languages and culture….
Is it time to support DEAF community and stop hate speech? We all know what Audism means. Is it also time to advance our knowledge that hate speech actually exists in our life?
Is America Surdophobia? It was coined by Gary van Gils, a social worker who lives in Holland and is highly respected as Deaf Studies lecturer. The term is well-defined academically and it makes sense to me. In the meaning of Surdophobia, “a hostility, intolerance, or fear against Deaf people, Deaf culture, and the Deaf community and that resistance toward the sign languages used. It can consist of a range of negative attitudes toward Deafhood, the idea of Deafpositive and Deaf rights.”
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said right here. I am saying the approach is still hot air and that it is counterproductive to your stated objectives.
IGNORANCE is DEADLY
I wonder if Cerf’s ignorance is more deadly than the King Cobra’s venom—something to ponder. That’s scary, right? ;/
I am a member of the Advanced Bionics Facebook group which is designed for CI users and has the usual videos, newspaper articles, and other stuff espousing the wonder of “hearing” and other buzzwords like listening and spoken language, etc. In anybcase I came across a video and posted my comments below.
In regard to CI:
The ability to hear is a great thing, if you can. There is little doubt a CI will restore some hearing, and sometimes even a lot of hearing, but never all hearing or even “normal” hearing. Only god can give you “normal hearing”. In fact a number of caveats are in order, beginning with the word ‘hearing’.
(1) A person with a CI is deaf and always will be. Irrespective of language modalities (signing or spoken) and irrespective of hearing levels.
(2) A CI is not an option for all people, and if you think hard and wide you will see that it is not available to the vast majority of deaf people on earth. Even in developed countries like the USA, it is not available or accessable to all who may qualify.
(3) Hearing and speech do not equal intelligence. There are plenty of people who have poor speech, poor reading skills and low intelligence who have “normal hearing”. In fact these people constitute the majority on earth.
(4) Any assistive devices or implants do not change most of the problems unique to one otherwise deaf, and as noted in #1 above.
The word “hearing” is abused as often as is the word “deafness”. This is why, taken with the above, a CI is not a solution to the collective, to society. A CI is a benefit to the individual with individual results, no two alike.
The conclusion should be plain, a CI is a limited device with limited means that will not solve the matter of deafness. If it helps you, great, but remember we live in society where the benefits of education and things like captioning are not desiged for the individual as much as for all of us.
There will never NO doubt a CI will restore hearing at ALL. That’s the greatest fraud!
Can you please repeat your self-aggrandizing, McFarlane? LOL
SIGNING… is also a great thing. A language that incorporates conceptual simultaneity, as well – one that references multiple concepts in space time. Geography in language? Sound simply cannot compete. How about technologies that parlay this amazing Deaf per view? As opposed to CI that tries to fix it? Arrogance at it’s most destructible…
your “The ability to hear is a great thing, if you can.” in a few posts above fits with the idea of value relativism of hearing, which I regard as the ultimate goal of anti-audism, if it is complemented with “So is the inability to hear, if you cannot.(do so)” That is how we deafies have fashioned our interactions and relations with hearies.all the time and operated on this basis. That is the real Deaf Gain that we’ve contributed to mankind and continue to do so.
The value relativism of hearing is that HUGE goal, we need to pursue in our anti-audism endeavors.
CI as an option, as an idea, needs to be relativized. Alas, this has not been so presented by the industry and by the audists of any degree. When they present it as such, it is always a slogan to shut us up and prevent us promulgating the idea that hearing is not such a great deal in comparison to the beating of a hart and working of our brains. It is surely a great thing, like the hands … only if you have them. Amputated hands is like loss of hearing. The quality of life are the same, although in different ways. Wearing a prothesis is an option for those having had the functionality of hearing or hands, but not for those who never had it before.
Speaks a hearie to me, I always respond “I don’t hear”, instead of “I cannot hear” or “I am deaf”. This is exactly what is equivalent to having no hand. A one handed person would simply say, “I have no hand”, not “I cannot use the hand” or “I am handless”.
Speaks Cerf to a “handless” person about his wife wearing hand protheses on both sides and great progress of the technology of hand protheses, this person would shout, “Scram, you manualist!” He may add, “Learn the art of living without a hand and enjoy it!” To call the manualist Cerf’s talk “hate speech” requires further elements. This would be, if he continues to say, “You would be an idiot, if you don’t take advantage of the wonders that a prothese would bring you.”
It’s not that I cannot hear, but I don’t hear (= have no hearing).
Addendum: the word “hearing” carries an ethnic meaning for us, in terms of “them” or “not us”, without antagonism, if signed with a neutral facial expression. No hate speech if we use the sign that way.
sign language is not a wheelchair for the deaf, nor is it a prosthesis for lost limbs…
read the post you replied to again and again and again and again. You reacted as if your “sign language” button has been pushed that I did not push. Look, what I wrote in regards to CI as a prothesis and try to understand it.
And that is very easy to understand that, too! Good answer!
Relativism. Relative to. Therefore it is Hate speech relative to your view. The first Amendment and others protect your rights, including the right to be stupid.
Don’t worry, I’ve done plenty of stupid myself, but I’ve got larger objectives and they are more relevant, if not yet hate speech. Just because something goes against your belief does not make it hate speech.
I am afraid, you haven’t grasped the idea of value relativism yet. The value of hearing needs to be made relative, not absolute. It doesn’t mean ‘relative to’ someone’s view.
The problem underlying audism is the absoluteness of hearing as a value that leads to acts detrimental to deaf and hard of hearing people. To relativize the value means to regard both ability and inability to hear as equally good.
What are your “larger objectives” ?
Anyway, what does the pronoun “it” refers to in your second sentence with “therefore?
Your ad hominem attack with the word ‘stupid’ is not appreciated.
For a bunch of people who hide behind pseudonyms and have questionable reading and writing skills (hate speech is clained here and it wont stand the sneeze test), you should not be bringing up big fancy words.
Relativism n., ‘the doctorine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context are not absolute’. Relative to a certain group of people, hearing is of paramount importance. Certain people believe hearing is of importance, that it is the right and proper being. That is the circle you’re riding in.
My statements have not been read very well, I have made the same point without the use of relativism. That things are relative is fiat accompli.
Take the discussion over to where it belongs: the DOE/HHS Policy Proposal on Inclusion. There is no hate speech there, but plans as sinister as any you can imagine.
Sir pompous McFarlane who earlier said “good boy” in the most condescending and arrogant way — the big words you speak of are totally burying you and make you look intellectually impotent. You state: “Relative to a certain group of people, hearing is of paramount importance.”
Fine — but at a deaf university’s commencement speech — ZERO mention of the value of deafness? ZERO mention of the uniqueness and special place the graduates have in this world (instead of new technologies that will cure them)? ZERO mention of the value of sign language? My god, if you can’t value deafness, its language and culture — on the grounds of a deaf university — where on earth can you value it?
The topic is the claim: Hate Speech. What they SHOULD do, what they OUGHT to do, or what you WOULD do are separate matters altogether.
You and I agree, deafness should be celebrated at an institution for the deaf. I am a Gally alumni, but I did not get into the business of deafness until about 6 years ago. While Gally is important, your question “where can you value it (deafness)? The answer is at the DCDL. or the Deaf Culture Digital Library. I helped make this into law in Maryland. I know the story and I have the value proposition.
Looks like rjmanganelli is getting on your neck. He has made many good points and I share the same thoughts as he does because for one thing, we both understood what’s wrong with the bigger picture. Again, you had been belittling my intelligent morals that I do not seem to value relativism. Look, Audism is a baby term, but the hate speech is a relativism that we all need to learn more. Seriously! Hate speech cannot go unchallenged and that is the damnest truth that we suffer more than you actually understand! I am afraid that it is a larger objective to look at.
There are important elements that it is valid to call it a hate speech. For one, it represents the end point on the continuum of prejudice and bigotry. Think about it—Gallaudet University is designed for Deaf people in 1864 and we both know that. Now a hate speech has committed directed against Deaf people’s property–an act of desecration and belittlement. Is that a thrill-seeking bigot enough to tell that to graduating Deaf students on their special day?
The less important is that Deaf Gain does not meet the strongest merits in humankind–and I support the relativism that Deafhood is more powerful and truth than ‘Deaf Gain’ by those people who coined the term. Deafhood is a life-long endeavor. Deaf Gain is what, a short-term coinage?
“There will never NO doubt a CI will restore hearing at ALL”
What d’ya mean? When a sentence begins to be bilingual, it can be difficult to understand, especially with two negatives in it.
In plain English, do you want to say, “There will never any doubt, a CI will restore hearing.”
You want to play chess? I’m good at that kind of game. I said that CI will NEVER restore hearing at ALL. NEVER! NEVER!
the point in my last comment is to ask you what you mean by the sentence I cited. It was incomprehensible and I don’t want to make an incorrect guess. Your last rejoinder clarifies it. Thank you.
I agree, a CI does not restore hearing completely.
It is not playing chess with arguments as chess figures on the board.
That is what cochlear implant makers are playing chess to rob Deaf children every day. The Deaf children are the figures.
Hiccup, you don’t need to convince me about the CI.
He/She/it said: “By speaking of audism, you aim at its reduction in the (sic) society in order to alleviate a social problem. Each audistic act, insidious or innocent, calls for an anti-audistic response. ”
Alec said: By speaking of audism, you aim at its reduction in society in order to alleviate social problems by building a library about the deaf and for everyone. Then you use that platform and invite people, authors, organizations, theater groups, musicians and deal with the issue front and center at any one og Americas 123,000 public libraries and 17,500 public museums.