Blogging about a Blog

The nature of the blog is that it is an online journal of sorts. From time to time, it is fine to journal about someone else’s journal. Last week, another blogger blogged about an article I wrote for Hearing Loss Magazine. The blog entry written by Shane Feldman can be found here.

Several people have written to me and asked for a response. I think the first part of my response may surprise some when I say that I found Shane Feldman’s writing to be very reasonable and articulate. He makes his arguments well, and has some good points.

I have no intention of going point by point through the blog entry. The main issue is that there are organizations and groups in the country who are confusing state and federal policy makers by stating or implying that if you provide sign language interpreting, then all 31 million people who have a hearing loss have access. I think this point was missed in the DeafDC Blog.

It is unethical to increase program and service funding using statistics made up primarily of a group of people you never intend to help at all, or provide token assistance. I am sure it makes the funding case stronger, but it is oppressive to the service and program needs of people who wish to maximize their residual hearing using technology and other strategies, and continue to verbally communicate.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Blogging about a Blog

  1. Terry,

    Thanks for your cordial response. Indeed, there are groups who mislead policy makers that sign language is sufficient to serve all 28-31 million deaf and hard of hearing people. Both sides have groups who are at fault. I think we have a responsibility to explain why it is wrong and suggest a better approach. They can craft more effective messages that are fair to both groups and will still win much deserved funding.

    Thanks for articulating the point that I tried to make in my DeafDC.com blog, but didn’t state as well as you did: “The main issue is that there are organizations and groups in the country who are confusing state and federal policy makers by stating or implying that if you provide sign language interpreting, then all 31 million people who have a hearing loss have access.” Perhaps that was what you were hoping to convey in your Hearing Loss column?

    I hope that our dialogue is read by groups across the country, so they can learn to work together and resolve their differences. Keep up the good work with the HLAA.

  2. Terry, Shane,

    I just had to point out that I REALLY (yes, I’m shouting) like the model for discussion and disagreement that the two of you have followed here! It is so encouraging to see an example of respectful dialogue emerge from leaders who have staked out differing views on a charged topic.
    Bravo!

    Teresa

  3. Interesting.

    Sadly, neither of you accepted the reality of the fiscal disparities.

    A bit like an alcoholic pretending that he doesn’t have a drinking problem.

    Can’t address the problem until you admit there is one, and deal with it. Smiling and pretending to resolve to not drink won’t last long.

    You’re both doing the same thing.

    :o)

    Paotie

  4. One must also mention our needs for captioning, and not only on tv.
    HOH and deafened people require real time captioning in many more work, school, and community places. Please include mention of CART in your HLAA agenda too, and I hope Shane understands this also and helps us advocate for this.

    I too understand the issues Shane raises. At the same time, there are reasons, good ones, that we use numbers now, and that we also are advocating for fair allocation of current funding – until the pot gets better for all of us; many of we hoh and deafened people and are surrounded by painful continuing exclusion; by unfair treatment from some federal, state, and local groups who do not want to work collaboratively, no matter how we try – we continue to try to collaborate also, in every way possible.

    LS

Comments are closed.