Mishka Zena

When I first heard about a hearing actor being cast in a deaf leading role, my initial response was dismay.  Learning it was Hamill’s decision left me astounded.  

The more I ponder this, the more questions I have.
 
Does this mean Hamill sees himself as being more of a hearing person than a Deaf person because he grew up orally, not knowing sign language until he went to college?
 
Can a hearing person really understand what it’s like to be deaf?  Hard of hearing?
 
Does Hamill feel a Deaf person too lowly to portray him?  Or is it more of a concern whether the Deaf actor is too culturally Deaf to understand the upbringing of an oral deaf person?
 
Is Hamill deaf or hard of hearing?
 
Why doesn’t he request a hard of hearing or deaf actor with an oral background?
 
Is the quality of the voicing an issue?
 
I have no answer to these questions.

Apparently Hamill appreciates the scriptwriter’s two years investment in studying Hamill, ASL, and Deaf culture for the upcoming movie.  In his blog, he has stated that he feels a Deaf person studying him for two months will not capture who he really is.
 
As I grew up an oral deaf person, I functioned like a hearing person. However I instinctively knew hearing people have no idea what it was like to be an oral deaf person. No Deaf person growing up in Deaf schools and Deaf families can share the same understanding, either. Only an oral deaf person who later learned sign language can identify with my experiences.
 
The hiring of a hearing actor in a leading deaf role may give Hollywood a clear-cut message it’s suitable to use hearing people for deaf roles. This may hurt the Deaf Community in the long run, though the deaf defenders of Hamill’s decision deny this possibility.

Whether Hamill realizes it or not, he is a role model for the young D/deaf children.  How do they feel seeing a hearing person playing the role of Hamill, a deaf man?  What kind of messages will they be receiving… perhaps that Hamill doesn’t see a d/Deaf person worthy of his leading role?  As Hamill and his defenders apparently feel hiring Deaf people for other roles should be sufficient, this shouldn’t be a problem.  The Deaf Community disagrees.

Whatever objections Deaf Community has, the deaf people disregards. Deaf Community feels a Deaf actor will give authenticity to the Hamill character. However the deaf people points out Marlee Matlin, a heterosexual, acting as a lesbian, with no objection from the gay community.  

However, unlike gay community, a large segment of Deaf Community, including Gallaudet and NTID/RIT does , object to a hearing actor playing a deaf man. That’s the problem.

Deaf Community feels it’s a clear cut case of audism while deaf people thinks it’s reverse audism.

Had Hamill picked a signing and oral deaf or hard of hearing person for the leading role, would the whole community support him?  I think there would be better acceptance of his decision.

His decision to hire a hearing actor has resulted in a sharp division within the D/d community, which is very unfortunate, in my opinion.  Most of the deaf people with oral background or who are hard of hearing support Hamil’s decision while the majority of Deaf Community oppose it.  More infighting and nasty bashing arise between the members of this community. 

Clarification:  Even though majority of the deaf defenders of Hamill’s decision are oral/hoh, some are culturally Deaf.  Not all the opponents are culturally Deaf, though the majority is. MZ

 Please no personal bashing. Address to the subject.

Warning:  Non-productive comments will be deleted.

What remains hidden are the Deaf people who were implanted with C.I. as children, teens, and adults in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
 
Back then, doctors and oral educators were convinced that once these people who have never understood spoken language received cochlear implants, they would be able to hear, after appropriate aural training.  At that time, these professionals weren’t aware that the plasticity of the brain being limited by age. In other words, if Deaf people were implanted after their brains were ’set in their ways’, so to speak, their brains wouldn’t be able to decipher speech.
 
Many parents believed what the doctors and oral educators told them and went ahead with this experimental surgery. Many of the prelingually deaf kids and teens were led to expect success,  pressured or forced into being implanted, then underwent countless hours of speech and aural therapy. A few did succeed in comprehending speech, but most didn’t as they were too old to master the speech comprehension from using the cochlear implants. 

The doctors learned from their mistakes with older prelingually Deaf people and moved on, working with the younger deaf infants and toddlers.  Left behind were these victims and their devastated parents who desperately wanted their beloved kids to hear and talk.
 
These victims need to be heard and this dark history exposed to the light.
 
After all, these Deaf people were experimented upon. To this day, they are still paying the price, physically and psychologically.

What happened to the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath “Do No Harm”?

Long before the movie made its appearance tonight, controversies broke out in the forums and blogs, with the c.i. camp heavily advocating the cochlear implants and the ASL camp decrying the use of the cochlear implants. In attempts to tear down the other camp while promoting their propaganda, both camps used misconceptions. Between these two camps, the public revealed its deep ignorance regarding the cochlear implant and the Deaf Community.

This movie focuses on the relationship between the spouses and the conflicts they experience as their cultural modes they are raised in clash sharply, straining their marriage. The hearing husband wants to explore the idea of cochlear implants for their late deafened son, alienating his Deaf wife, Laura, due to her cultural beliefs that deafness is not a disability. Her parents, heavily enculturated in the Deaf Community, increase the tension as they attempt to interfere with the couple’s decision-making.

On the witness stand, a deaf mom with a cochlear implant, Valerie Park proclaims that her daughter, also fitted with c.i.,  can speak with anyone anytime.  Well,  we know that’s not 100% accurate. This will give people a false impression that cochlear implants are guaranteed success. The deaf mother is able to speak and hear well with her cochlear implant. Has she become deaf after acquiring spoken language? The movie doesn’t say and this may give the hearing public the false impression that cochlear implant will work with all deaf adults, those who become deaf before they develop spoken language and those acquiring spoken language prior becoming deaf.

Throw in some surprise, as the flashback Laura had with the steaming teakettle whistling and the discovery that she wasn’t born Deaf as previously thought.

Cochlear implants: Politically correct? Politically Incorrect?
 
Laura : And what do you say, when he looks up at you and asks, “WHY DADDY? Why are you doing this to me? Is there something wrong with me”? What do you say? Is there something wrong with being deaf? I’d like to know! What do you tell him?
 
Dan:  What do I say when he looks up at me and says–you had the chance to get some of my hearing back and YOU DID NOTHING?” What do I say THEN? ” Sorry, sweetheart. It wasn’t POLITICALLY CORRECT”?
 
Difficult questions. Parenting is the toughest job in the world.
 
After the ER visit, Adam has been pressured by his father to use his voice. At first, he doesn’t, then he speaks without any warning at the dining room while Laura’s parents are visiting, catching everybody off guard.  Later he refuses when his father asked him to speak to his hearing grandmother on the phone. Adam is visibly torn by the tensions between his parents, wanting to please both parents.

Dan making appointments with the medical professionals without discussing with Laura first aggravates the marital tensions even further.
 
Dan’s mother reacts at Laura’s rejection of the cochlear implant, not understanding how a parent can not want a child to hear and speak.  
 
I feel the portrayal of Laura’s Deaf parents to be accurate. Remember the furor incurred when the Deaf and hearing siblings debated about cochlear implanting their deaf kids in the movie Sound and Fury? The father defiantly proud of his deafness and the wife supportive of him, but haunted by a secret they withheld from Laura and insists that they must tell her.  The secret is finally out.  Then the slow painful realization dawns on her that her father couldn’t accept her hearing when she was small, failing to provide her hearing aids.
 
I missed some parts due to few emergency tornado warning notices.  Don’t you hate when this happens?
 
Laura’s mother, Sally telling her daughter she has choices now, unlike Sally when Laura became deaf. 
 
The guilt Dan feels for wanting his own son to hear, thinking aloud.. does this make him the evil hearing parent?
 
Both Ed Waterstreet and Phyllis Frelich’s acting are impeccable.

One wonders why the Deaf son Adam hasn’t been asked if he wants a cochlear implant. Of course this is best done by a neutral professional person, like a clinical psychologist, if his parents are unable to make a mutual decision.
 
The biggest issue I see with this show…. it shows the conflicts between the hearing world and the deaf world about the cochlear implant.. However, only one biased person testifies that cochlear implants work.  No testimony from cochlear implant experts is provided.  So the viewers are left with the impression that all cochlear implants do work, which isn’t always the case.  This significant omission is disturbing and possibly paints the Deaf Community ’selfish’ and self-centered, unfairly.

The scriptwriter and the director show exceptional sensitivity toward Deaf culture and ASL. Linda Bove, a renowned Deaf actoress, works in as the ASL consultant.  A byproduct of a hearing family and mainstreamed programs, Marlee Matlin is an user of simultaneous communication, talking and signing at the same time, using signed English. Since the role calls for an ASL user, she needs guidance in using sign language and faces frequent reminders from the director not to mouth the words so much.  I would think placing a marble inside her mouth would do the trick, but on second thought, as it may present a choking hazard,  it may not be a good idea after all
 
The fact that the movie ended with no conclusion about the choice the parents need to make regarding whether to implant their deafened child or not indicates that the cochlear implant isn’t the core issue of the movie, but rather how the parents’ struggles with the basic core values testing their marriage. The conclusion shows their reunion and a determination to face the obstacles together, with their love for each other renewed, stronger than ever.

Overall, I think it’s a good movie about the tensions parents face with conflicting values and how they handle the tension.  It rates one thumb up.

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

Please let’s have a constructive and pleasand dialogue without any personal insults. Thank you. MZ

Eugenic Victory for UK Deaf Parents A Possibility

Under the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, using embryo-screening deliberately to create a child with a serious medical condition - which officials had said includes being deaf - would be illegal

Now, however, the Department of Health has agreed to cut from the Bill any reference to deafness as a serious medical condition.

The move could pave the way for the Bill to be amended, when it passes through the Commons later this year, permitting a challenge over whether deafness should be classed as a serious medical condition for the purposes of the bill and allowing parents to pick an embryo, using IVF treatment, that will develop into a deaf child. 

The issue first came under the spotlight six years ago in America, when it emerged that a deaf couple had sought out a sperm donor with a family history of deafness. After the anger caused by that case, officials singled out deafness as being a condition that would be covered by the Bill.

Ministers, however, were shocked by the strength of opposition from members of the deaf community. Campaigners now believe the removal of the reference to deafness signals a softening of the Government’s position. For the full article: Couples could win right to select deaf baby - Telegraph

Commentary: It is too soon to say… but this new attitude is encouraging. The strong efforts by the UK Deaf Community in raising awareness on this issue and trampling over parents’ rights may be paying off!  Deafness is not equivalent to a degenerative and fatal illness like Tay-Sachs Disease. The inclusion of the deaf gene in the IVF bill reportedly came from the publicity of the intentional creation of a deaf baby here in Maryland some years ago.

Hands waving to Paula Garfield, Tomato Lichy, the UK Deaf Community and their Deaf Friends for their hard campaigning.   Nevertheless, the battle is not over until the bill is passed.

Of course there are some audistic jerks decrying this enlightened attitude of the Parliament :  Deaf couples choosing deaf babies is sick « Letters From A Tory.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Five Arrests at LSD, BoT Unaware of Four Arrests last Nov.  

 ”The head of the board overseeing the Louisiana School for the Deaf says she will call for a report after a series of recent sex-related arrests involving individuals connected with the school.
 
Glenny Lee Buquet, who is chairwoman of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s committee that oversees the school, said she was not aware of five of the six recent arrests involving allegations of indecent behavior with juveniles who attend the school.
 
Of the five individuals arrested, three are current or former teachers at the school. Another is an alumnus not currently affiliated with the school.

The latest arrest involved the arrest of a youth minister who worked with students in an off-campus after-school program. Police allege that Joey Eugene Thomas, 31, considered a 14-year-old student to be his girlfriend, although investigators say both denied having sex. To read more:   Report called for on arrests at deaf school
 

Commentary: When I first heard about the arrests,  I took note on the prompt reporting to the police these cases of these cases by the staff and administration  Though first victim had inappropriate relationships via electronic communication with the staff and one alumnus off campus as a day student, her mother caught on and reported it to the school authorities who turned it over to the police. That perverted Deaf minister was also reported quickly to the authorities once the second victim confided the relationship to the school counselor.  So far, very good.  However this is where things becomes interesting.  The BoT wasn’t even aware of the four arrests made last fall until just now. Were the administrators withholding the information from the BoT even after the parents were promptly made aware of the first four arrests last Nov? That is very unusual.

Incidents like that happen to even the best schools anywhere. However, four arrests of staff at a small school are rather high. It does make one wonder…..

Earlier articles on the five arrests as a result of inappropriate behavior and/or indecent exposure to two LSD students:

Last week:  Baton Rouge News | Baton Rouge Loop | Baton Rouge Traffic | LSU Sports | Free Classifieds - Youth Minister Joey Thomas Accuse…

Last Fall:

Two arrested in case involving student at state school for deaf

Teachers and Trash Education: Baton Rouge, LOUISIANA

Issues Relating to Louisiana Sex Offenders: Fourth suspect arrested in deaf school sex case

By the way I didn’t see any reference to the sixth arrest.  

P.S. Any non-constructive comments will not be published. MZ

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com

My response is a loud YES to the possibility of a Deaf blogger being sued.  I can vouch for this personally as I’ve been threatened with lawsuits.

I was asked to cover this issue by another blogger in response to the supoena of Kathleen Seidel for her post criticizing the actions of personal injury lawyers going after a vaccine manufacturer.

During the heyday of the Gallaudet Protests, I’d been threatened with lawsuits for not just covering the protest, but also for my personal opinions expressed in my blog. I don’t recall the exact number, but I believe it was at least five times. Not only I, but also other prolific pro-protest bloggers faced a constant barrage of ruthless bashing, vilification, and threats as part of an intimidation scheme practiced by a small minority from the other camp, in a futile attempt to scare us into silence.

After I did several posts on Canadian Diamond Traders after some concerned Deaf people contacted Maryland General Attorney, I was informed indirectly that the company had implied a possible lawsuit against me for libel if I don’t remove the offending posts.  These posts are still up as I stand behind my findings. After further investigation, I’ve found several other bloggers slammed with the similar threats from that organization. 

So far these threats of lawsuits haven’t materialized.

We are unique in that we are usually not paid for our reporting, unlike professional journalists. Also, unlike reporters, our posts are interlaced with our personal opinions. Some of the blogs are closer to the traditional journalistic reporting  with the writers honoring the journalistic code of ethics, while with some other blogs, the journalistic integrity isn’t closely adhered. In yet other blogs, the writing is more in line with personal diaries.  Nevertheless, these are our personal opinions, afforded to us by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the freedom of speech.  Even though we may be diligent, reporting facts and making personal comments while avoiding plagiarism and libel, more now than ever, our rights to express our opinions are being attacked with harassment, threats, and lawsuits as weapons to intimidate us into silence. 

With time, the power of blogging is on the rise as recognized by agencies and corporations as a potential threat. My blog received national attention when I exposed problems with the qualifications of interpreters in the judicial system faced by deaf people, such as during Daphne Wright’s death penalty trial. WalMart recently withdrew its claim against a brain-injured woman to recoup its losses in health insurance expenses, due to the negative coverage by blogs harshly condemning its actions. Our Karen Putz’s experience in being denied service by a fast food restaurant, Steak and Shake, due to her inability to use the speaker brought on negative national spotlight on that franchise.

There is even insurance coverage for bloggers wishing to be protected from financial losses due to libel lawsuits. 

So it is imperative that all of us the bloggers and vloggers unite in support for Kathleen Seidel.  After all, it may happen to us. MZ

. 

From an anonymous blogger:

Bloggers Under Attack: How We Can Fight Back

I am Kathleen.

No, that’s not my literal name. That’s the rallying cry for all bloggers
and vloggers who care about the freedom to blog or vlog.  That’s my way of
seizing our freedom back–yours, mine, everyone’s.

The most precious tool that a blogger has is not something you can see,
hear, or feel. It’s not a computer or blogging software or a nifty pay-pal
arrangement. It’s called “Freedom of Speech.” Without it, we all might as
well demolish our blog sites. Well, that freedom of speech is under attack
for all of us everywhere–regardless of gender and gender-identity, race,
sexual orientation, disability (or lack thereof), country, cultural
background, religion, or what have you.

In case you hadn’t already read about it, one particular blogger, Kathleen
Seidel, recently committed the shocking offense of having an opinion.
Specifically, she made some comments on a particular multi-million dollar
law suit. No, she has no special, inside knowledge of the legal case.
She’s simply a one-person journalistic blogging operation who did her
homework. Meaning, she looked up the public facts of the case in the same
way that any other public citizen could have done. The difference being,
she had the audacity to actually share what she found with the public via
her blog and included her opinion criticizing the basis of the case. This
was in late March 2008.

Somebody must not have liked what she said because within four hours, she
was served a subpoena requiring her to show up in court and turn over
absurdly excessive and burdensome amounts of information in just about
every sphere of her life, whether or not it has a plausible connection
with the case. As just one small example, they want records of every
single email correspondence or verbal conversation she has had with every
single blogger in her blog roll for the past umpteen years. These bloggers
number more than 100, and most of them have written nothing about the
legal case at hand. And that’s just the start.

Now, a supoena by itself is not inherently evil. It’s simply a tool for
gathering information that could shed important light on a court case but
that might otherwise not be made available. It can be put to a great many
positive uses, including setting innocent people free or seeing justice
done.

But in this case, Kathleen Seidel knows nothing special about this case
that the lawyers couldn’t have gathered on their own far more easily. Both
lawyers and lay people who have read through the subpoena agree that its
primary purpose–perhaps its sole purpose–is to intimidate and silence
Kathleen. In other words, it was served not to turn up valuable
information but because Kathleen Seidel expressed an opinion that was
inconvenient to one of the parties in the legal case.

I won’t even tell you who because, frankly, I think that’s irrelevant.  In
any case, you can look that up on your own via the links I provide further
below.  What matters more is that this is an attempt to make one blogger
afraid to exercise her freedom of speech.

Well, Kathleen is not giving in to these pressure tactics. And neither
should any of us who care about one of the most basic freedoms any human
being can have. Because if Kathleen could be attacked, then so could you;
so could I; so could any person with an opinion and the courage to make it
public.

Don’t believe me? Well, try this: Kathleen is not even alone. One blogger
has collected examples of several cases from around the world in which
attempts have been made to suppress the views of bloggers.

An attack on Kathleen or any other blogger is an attack on all of us. That
means we all need to stand together on this–including those of us who
might ordinarily disagree with vehemence at other times. Only with freedom
of speech can we be truly free to disagree.

And tell the world, “I am Kathleen.” 

.

Hat Tip to Andrea Shettle  of Reunify Gally:  Is any blogger safe? The “I Am Kathleen” Campaign « ReunifyGally

Kathleen Seidel’s post on her subpoena: neurodiversity weblog: Subpoenaed 

Mishka Zena’s Post on Canadian Diamond Traders : Mishka Zena » Blog Archive » CDT A Pryamid?

From another blogger: Canadian Diamond Traders wants to silence me? 

Government of Western Australia: Canadian Diamond Traders is a Pyramid Scheme: http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/scamnet/Scams/Canadian_Diamond_Tra.html

From South Wales, Australia: Canadian Diamond Traders is an illegal pyramid scheme: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA20060921018

email contact: mishkazena@aol.com