This week has crucial implications for the future of this country where civil liberties are concerned. I wrote a post on Tuesday talking about Congress taking up the FISA bill yet again, and some of the problems that I had with the wiretapping that the gummint has been conducting– illegally, I might add. At the time, I was cautiously hopeful that perhaps the groundswell from liberals, progressives, and others who support civil liberties in this country might actually prevail. But the pragmatist in me knew that it probably wasn’t going to happen; as such, I dreaded what I saw as the potentially inevitable outcome.

True to form, Congress appeared ready to cave in earlier today– a deal was apparently reached between the Senate and Smirk, and the Senate Intelligence Committee handed over power and looked the other way approved immunity for the telecoms, in effect allowing them to escape legal consequences for breaking the law. Apparently our Congressfolks aren’t interested in upholding the law, in oversight, or in doing much of anything. It really doesn’t matter who’s in power: they deserve the low poll numbers they’re getting. The Senate Judiciary Committee is making some noises, but it looks like they’re just talking, as usual.

But, wait! Hold the wire(tapping)! Who’s that riding in from stage left? It’s a Connecticut Yankee, and he has declared that he’s going to put a hold on the legislation. There isn’t much in the news yet about this, and looking at tomorrow’s papers online, there isn’t a lot of buzz yet, but there should be. Civil liberties are important for all of us, and constitute the foundation of what it means to be American.

Civil liberties are what this country has been about. If we lose them, we are no longer the United States as it has been historically known. True patriots must stand now to protect civil liberties, or forever hold their peace. I’m hoping that Dodd has truly submitted a hold, and I hope that he stands steadfast in the face of the opposition he’s sure to have. Those of us who support and wish to uphold the law and what it means in the United States of America need to support people like Dodd, because right now, they’re all we have.

I still haven’t made up my mind who I’ll support in the primaries, let alone the general election. But if Dodd follows through on walking the walk when it comes to civil liberties, it’s very possible I’ll be casting my ballot for him.

So hold the wires– here’s Senator Christopher Dodd! I wish there were more like him.

In the past few days, I embarked yet again on what has become a depressingly familiar scenario: looking for work. While I’ve had jobs here and there over the last couple of years, they’ve been mostly short-term gigs or part-time limited jobs, and none of them came with the comforts of health benefits. These days, in an era of vanishing benefits and pensions, I suppose if I can just get a permanent full-time job, I should consider myself lucky.

But for those readers that are just dropping by or haven’t fully immersed yourself in the Sandbox, it’s a bit more tricky for me, and for many of my friends. I’m deaf, which means not only do I have to get my foot in the front door with my resume and all the pluses and minuses I have, but also get past any preconceived notions potential employers might have.

It’s kind of funny that I’m seriously looking again right now, because it’s National Disability Employment Month. It’s not well-known, and probably is just one of those feel-good government-designated observances that governments do. Yet it does highlight the fact that deaf people, among other minority groups, face hurdles in employment. (As an aside, it’s interesting how many work-related observances there are in October. National Work from Home Week was October 1-7; I could definitely celebrate that. This week, October 15-21, is “Freedom from Bullies at Work Week.” Don’t have to worry about that one yet! October 23-27 is officially “Celebrate Job Loss Week.” I guess that’s when you celebrate that you don’t have to see the bullies at work anymore, because you now work at home, or something similar, I guess…)

I’m not even the only deaf person commenting on the challenges of job hunting. Andrea Shettle over at Reunify Gally wrote a post on the legal issues surrounding employment of the deaf and others with disabilities. Her opening line resonates with me:

Some employers have an unfortunate tendency to assume that any worker with a disability, or any worker who is Deaf, deaf, or hard of hearing is automatically disqualified.

Oh, yes. I’ve run up against this attitude before. So have many of you. Richard Brklacich surely has– he wrote an entry on the occupational disparity between the deaf and hearing regardless of education for Deaf DC. He argues that deaf people “can only thrive in non-competitive positions within the public sector (i.e., teaching) or jobs within entities that cater primarily to the deaf…”

He has a point, although I don’t fully agree with him. I think some deaf people can thrive wherever they want to, but they will have to be prepared to search four times as hard for a job, then fight like hell to prove that they are more than capable of handling (and keeping!) the job. I also think a lot of otherwise well-qualified folks choose to remain in government, education, and social services because of their comfort zone. It’s frustrating day in and day out to not only work twice as hard as the guy in the office across the hall, but continually battle communication barriers within the job itself, during office breaks, lunch hours, and off-hours social events, and constantly “prove” to clients that they are able to do their job without passing on the customer/client to a co-worker. Why wear oneself out doing that when for less pay and potentially less job advancement opportunities, one can work for an agency, a government bureau, or teach, and be able to communicate effectively most, if not all, of the time?

In a similar vein, “Gingerpaws” at Along the Yellow Brick Road ponders what to do on the resume: what’s the best way for potential employers to contact a deaf person? Is there one successful answer? What works best?

I’ve often wondered that myself. I’ve tried hinting that e-mails work best. I’ve tried using the IP Relay number. I’ve tried blatantly slapping the acronym TTY on the resume. I’ve tried just about all the options listed in this particular post. None seem guaranteed.

In the end, I think it will just require a certain amount of luck, a large amount of self-discipline, a endless supply of internal faith and hope, and an ongoing sense of stamina. I’m not looking forward to it, but my bank account says I don’t have much choice.

Since I’m musing on the subject, I want to use this forum of mine to share a message with all employers, potential or otherwise.

To the supervisors, managers, business owners, and human resources personnel out there:

Use the mind you have to realize that any time a deaf person applies for a job, that most of the time they have a mind too, and that is what should count. Expand the horizons of your brain in terms of communication, and try to envision alternative means of conversing. In an era of e-mail, text messages, and IM programs, having a conversation or relaying orders doesn’t have to be limited to opening your mouth. Non-verbal communication involves writing, body language, and in a pinch, a lively game of charades. Old-fashioned techniques work too: there’s nothing more low-tech, more effective, and more frugal than a pad and a pen or pencil. In the end, what should count the most is that the employee, deaf or hearing, is competent, hard-working, and most of all, gets the job done.

Hiring a deaf person doesn’t have to be expensive. I (and many others) don’t need an interpreter 24/7. What we *do* need is open-mindedness, patience, and accommodations where needed. Setting up VP on our computer or adding a cheap analog TV for VP reception will do wonders. Allowing those of us who can speak to have phones that assist VCO will ease inter-office communication, as well as client contact. Permitting us to install IM programs and encouraging co-workers to communicate via IMs will foster working relationships much better than anything else could.

In the end, the real expense is up to you. Look at it this way: you have a job opening. You already have budgeted for this position. When I (or any other deaf person) apply, you will be paying for my services. But when you decide, in a moment of short-sightedness and unthinking (or deliberate!) discrimination, that you can’t be bothered to offer me an interview, let alone a job, you will pay for me anyway, through your tax dollars. I will need them for basic health services offered through the government. I will need them for unemployment compensation. It’s not just me, either. Deaf people with less skills than I do, who have less education than I do, often end up on SSI. That’s your tax dollars at work. Either you will pay for a deaf person to be gainfully employed and contribute their tax dollars back into the system to help people who genuinely need assistance, or you will pay for someone who is as equally capable of working as you are to remain unemployed (and most likely in the process suffer depression, low-self esteem, and anger) and unable to contribute to society. So, you pay either way. It’s your choice.

We like to talk in our society about the need for a level playing field. This is true, whether the applicant is deaf, black, Asian, female, highly educated, possesses only a high school education, or fits any number of other categories. Like it or not, as an employer, you have an advantage in ensuring fairness across the board.

It’s your move. Good luck.