It seems that my comment on the People of the Eye’s blog was not published – so I’m posting my comment here on my blog.
I don’t agree with what Barry Sewell is doing to CAD – but the fact that Deafhood’s image is tainted has to be addressed. Why is it in CAD’s bylaws?
And let’s be honest here: If it was not for the Deafhood Foundation, the community colleges in California would not be offering these courses. The Deafhood Foundation has TREMENDOUS influence on the theory of Deafhood here in the United States.
They do make a lot of money from the workshops and promotions. They might not get paid by the community colleges, if they aren’t teaching the classes themselves, but make no mistake about it… They ARE profiting from this.
Furthermore, like Ann_C said above, there are SO many instances on the v/blogs of where people have abused and twisted Deafhood to their own ends, in order to blacklist and castigate their own fellow Deaf.
The bottom line is, if you do not follow the philosophy of Ella and her group’s version of Deafhood, and you dare to speak out publicly against it, or question them… In their eyes, you are an audist and have an anger problem.
Is this appropriate? And does CAD follow the Deafhood Foundation’s version of Deafhood? If so, is it appropriate for an organization to be tax-exexmpt and promote this warped version that is causing so much hurt and damage in the Deaf Community?
—
I also want to add in response to Linda Slovick’s #92 comment – found here – there is an extremely good reason why the links are dead. It’s because there was such outrage at presenting the evidence, that they were removed. People didn’t like having the evidence presented to the entire world to see.
On another note: My expanded definition of audism will be coming soon – I’m busy with school right now, so I don’t know exactly when I’ll finish it… but it’ll be posted sometime soon.
It seems that my comment on the People of the Eye’s blog was not published – so I’m posting my comment here on my blog.
I don’t agree with what Barry Sewell is doing to CAD – but the fact that Deafhood’s image is tainted has to be addressed. Why is it in CAD’s bylaws?
And let’s be honest here: If it was not for the Deafhood Foundation, the community colleges in California would not be offering these courses. The Deafhood Foundation has TREMENDOUS influence on the theory of Deafhood here in the United States.
They do make a lot of money from the workshops and promotions. They might not get paid by the community colleges, if they aren’t teaching the classes themselves, but make no mistake about it… They ARE profiting from this.
Furthermore, like Ann_C said above, there are SO many instances on the v/blogs of where people have abused and twisted Deafhood to their own ends, in order to blacklist and castigate their own fellow Deaf.
The bottom line is, if you do not follow the philosophy of Ella and her group’s version of Deafhood, and you dare to speak out publicly against it, or question them… In their eyes, you are an audist and have an anger problem.
Is this appropriate? And does CAD follow the Deafhood Foundation’s version of Deafhood? If so, is it appropriate for an organization to be tax-exexmpt and promote this warped version that is causing so much hurt and damage in the Deaf Community?
—
I also want to add in response to Linda Slovick’s #92 comment – found here – there is an extremely good reason why the links are dead. It’s because there was such outrage at presenting the evidence, that they were removed. People didn’t like having the evidence presented to the entire world to see.
On another note: My expanded definition of audism will be coming soon – I’m busy with school right now, so I don’t know exactly when I’ll finish it… but it’ll be posted sometime soon.