Deaf Girl Wants To Be In The Girl Scouts: Who Should Pay For The Interpreter?
Naomi Nix writes in the Chicago Tribune about the family of 12-year-old Megan Runnion, who is deaf, suing the Girl Scouts for disbanding her troop after the cost of the interpreter (paid for by the Girl Scouts) got too high:
The suit alleged that the Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana excluded Megan because of her disability in violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act."She can't be part of the group if she doesn't understand what's being said," said her mother, Edie Runnion.
...But in the fall of 2011, the Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana told Runnion that the "council does not pay for these services," the lawsuit alleged.
...Runnion said she later learned from the Girl Scouts that the group would pay only a maximum of $50 a month for support services for girls with special needs. Megan's family would have to pick up the added expense.
...The cost of an interpreter in the Chicago area averages between $55 to $60 an hour for a minimum two-hour assignment, said Jill Sahakian, director of the Chicago Hearing Society. Sahakian, who has not seen Runnion's lawsuit, said the cost might be higher for evenings and weekends.
Some interesting comments over at Overlawyered, where I found the link to the story:
Allan 08.14.12 at 10:14 am
...Is this a societal cost or a personal cost?I believe that this is a tough question. The liberals in the country have an answer. I am not sure the conservatives or libertarians do.
Don 08.14.12 at 10:29 am
I assume that the parents can communicate with their daughter. Why didn't they provide themselves as interpreters for their daughter.No cost to them, no cost to the girl scouts.
Oh wait, I forget, it might have inconvenienced their schedule
gasman 08.14.12 at 1:59 pm
For every dollar spent by council, thousands of hours of volunteer time is spent. It sounds like her parents are trying to monopolize the dollars and efforts of this organization taking way more than they deserve.So why is this girl not learning to read lips, use a cochlear implant, or otherwise herself become a capable and functioning member of society? It is not up to Scouting to do this for her, but her parents.
Businesses face this problem all the time--especially in the medical field.
My thought is that if the government demands interpreters, the government should pay for it. However, the government has no money of its own--it can only forcibly take from those of us who work.
How would the free market tackle this? Well, I think people are generally compassionate and if we weren't taxed up to our eyeballs may be willing to donate money to charities that do this kind of thing. Additionally, if the parents knew that the only way their daughter would get interpreters is if they provided them, they probably would make arrangements to either be there themselves, or volunteer to teach the girls some basic sign language.
The other girl scouts would learn quickly and the solution would not only provide interaction for the deaf girl, but give her friends that could communicate directly with her.
Suzanne Lucas--Evil HR Lady at August 15, 2012 2:07 AM
Suzanne just said what I was thinking:
"The other girl scouts would learn quickly and the solution would not only provide interaction for the deaf girl, but give her friends that could communicate directly with her."
I do wonder why a "merit badge" wasn't created for this type of situation?
Charles at August 15, 2012 3:25 AM
Charles,
I was a Boy Scout in the '70s, and my younger sister and her friends were Girl Scouts. Then, the organization was tragically mediocre in their methods and expectations for girls. There was no rank/achievement system analogous to Eagle Scout, and they had no clue what empowerment was. Things were largely unchanged 10 years ago when my daughter was a Brownie, although she did enjoy strong troop leadership.
DaveG at August 15, 2012 4:33 AM
When my younger daughter was in a Girl Scout troop at her school, there was a mom there who got mad at the troop leaders for something or other, and accused them of being racist, of all things, which they were not! Her daughter was somewhat of a handful, and the leaders were hard put to figure out a way to get her to listen. Long story short, the leaders disbanded the troop, and started up a different youth group, which the girl did not join, because it wasn't affiliated with the Girl Scouts, and I guess her mother was looking for money or something. ANyway, the new troop was into doing things in the community and with the help of a group of high schoolers, who had their own group that they called a "multicultural" club, which my older daughter was in, well, they got together with this new group of younger kids and taught them sign language. At no cost to anyone, imagine that? The girls even put on performances at one of the local churches, and a couple of local nursing homes, interpreting for the hard of hearing in the audience. At no cost. What does it take for people to work together on things like this without money always getting in the way?
Flynne at August 15, 2012 5:26 AM
Then, the organization was tragically mediocre in their methods and expectations for girls.
Except when it comes to cookie sales. God, I hated pushing those damn things.
Astra at August 15, 2012 5:39 AM
I understand the need for an interpreter at concerts or lectures or other big events, but in small settings like this she needs to be able to read lips and communicate. If her parents aren't teaching that, they really ARE handicapping her.
NicoleK at August 15, 2012 6:01 AM
Me too! I hated selling cookies! And the girls who sold the most got prizes, and it was always the troop leaders' daughters because the moms were SAHM who took them around to sell cookies. It sucked.
If I lived in America I would enroll my kid in Spiral Scouts and suggest a homemade cookie business.
NicoleK at August 15, 2012 6:04 AM
this is a tough question. The liberals in the country have an answer. I am not sure the conservatives or libertarians do.
The liberals have the same answer to every tough question: raise taxes (someone else's — certainly not theirs!) and pay for a new bureaucracy to regulate it.
dee nile at August 15, 2012 6:19 AM
For a merit badge in Girl Scouts I had to learn sign language. It was by no means "proficient" but enough to get by.
I am sure had this gotten more of a free market exposure - this could be handled by donation, or maybe a non-professional interpreter (kid, student, cousin of a deaf person or someone taking college courses in education) who would be willing to donate their time or provide interpretation services at a minimal cost (gas and minimum wage?).
Whatever way they handle it - the government is not the route to go.
I don't believe people give society in general enough credit for taking care of their own. I think it's the people that want the taxes increased, are the least likely to open up their wallets or donate their time in these scenarios....I think their (tax) philosophy in life mirrors this perfectly.
Feebie at August 15, 2012 7:03 AM
Except when it comes to cookie sales. God, I hated pushing those damn things.
So, you admit to dealing cookies?
(I'll grant you that I like being on a low carb diet, means I can turn down GS cookies with a good excuse)
I R A Darth Aggie at August 15, 2012 7:40 AM
So the parents, instead of paying an interpreter, pay a lawyer! How completely fucking brilliant. What a pair of asshats.
Assholio at August 15, 2012 8:08 AM
I completely agree. AND it probably cost them at least ten times the cost of an interpreter, but they "got even" you see, by suing them. Then you wonder why this great society of ours is falling on it's face, rapidly.
davnel at August 15, 2012 8:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/15/deaf_girl_wants.html#comment-3306756">comment from davnelI bet the lawyer is working for publicity/winnings.
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2012 8:51 AM
I can see it both ways. On the one hand, the troop had been absorbing the cost for five years, so the parents may have been saying "why can't they keep doing it?" It looks like the parents don't have a bunch of money, and with four kids, the mom may not be able to volunteer.
On the other hand, policies may have changed in what the council would reimburse, the troop might need money for other thing sand the number of activities that the girl is participating in is going up as she gets older - rock-climbing, camp, etc. It's no longer a weekly meeting, at say $50 a time (or maybe they had a interpreter who was volunteering who couldn't do it anymore). It's lousy for the girl whose deaf, but in a way, what they did was more sensitive - they disbanded the troop rather than tell one girl they couldn't afford for her to come.
However, if she's been a member of the troop for six years, isn't there one trooper who could pick up enough sign language to volunteer to be an interpreter for her? Or is there too much scout turnover for that to work (or will none of the other kids work with this girl?)
Janie4 at August 15, 2012 8:54 AM
Amy:
Off topic - why are we hearing NOTHING about the fact that the Whitehouse killed the petition to get the TSA to fess up and hold hearings?
davnel at August 15, 2012 8:54 AM
Janie4- "what they did was more sensitive - they disbanded the troop rather than tell one girl they couldn't afford for her to come."
You and I have different definitions of sensitive, what they did is disappoint/punish many other girls for the requirements of one. Not sensitive at all to the other girls. It was probably legally sensible, since not being able to handle the girls situation and not disbanding, would open them up to even more lawsuit potential.
Personally I'm seeing a lot of irony in this lawsuit, my own experience with dealing with the GSA was they were an extrememly left leaning group, who would be fine helping push such requirements on other groups. It is very ironic that they are being sued and disbanding for not being able to deal with what they would push on others.
Joe J at August 15, 2012 9:18 AM
I think Janie4's response is similar to what I was thinking and better said.
From my knowledge of the scouts it was almost all volunteer & donations. The regular weekly meetings was run by volunteers (usually some of the kids' parents) with one of them donating the use of their home - or for some of the older groups -- a church would donate the use of room in their building. The cost was generally $0. Generally scouts brought there own equipment though the troop had some donated stuff too. May guess would be paying for interpretator would be far and way the largest cost for the year. Things the scouts actually did pay for was like a group campsite permit.
The Former Banker at August 15, 2012 9:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/15/deaf_girl_wants.html#comment-3306780">comment from davnelThey apparently didn't. Lisa Simeone posted a correction about this at TSA News Blog.
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2012 9:29 AM
Thanks. Sorry for the distraction.
davnel at August 15, 2012 9:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/15/deaf_girl_wants.html#comment-3306788">comment from Amy AlkonPlease just email me if you have a question instead of posting off-topic on another post. Yes, it takes that extra 10 seconds, but come on...!
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2012 9:39 AM
Back on topic:
When will we be able to face up to the fact that no, you don't get to do everything if you're handicapped?
Missing arms, can't be an astronaut? Sue!
Radwaste at August 15, 2012 10:10 AM
in all of this there was not one person, adult or child who said: "let's make this a troop thing and learn American Sign Language."?!?!?!?
Or is this all about how an adult can use knowledge of the legal system to bludgeon other people with it.
And teaching all these children a life lesson sad to learn.
SwissArmyD at August 15, 2012 10:41 AM
And that is perhaps the worst part of this whole fiasco. The child does not learn about accomodation, cooperation, and teamwork. The child, instead, learns that the only response to any perceived slight is a legal attack.
davnel at August 15, 2012 10:46 AM
@swiss
"in all of this there was not one person, adult or child who said: "let's make this a troop thing and learn American Sign Language."?!?!?!?"
There is even a merit badge for this...I know, I earned one!
http://store.gscsnj.org/store/product/16277/Signing-Badge/
This is one for NJ, but I did the California one ("hang loose"). heh.
Feebie at August 15, 2012 11:20 AM
@swiss
"in all of this there was not one person, adult or child who said: "let's make this a troop thing and learn American Sign Language."?!?!?!?"
Playing Devils advocate here, what if they had a scout with only one hand, talk about excluding someone then: Everyone this is the sign for embarased, oops everyone besides of Suzie, this is the sign for embarassed.
It also sets a dangerous precident, the group lerns sign language for her, next week a kid who only knows Spanish joins, so to be fair, everyone now learns Spanish, then a German girl.... and so on. SImpler and easier for the one kid to learn to deal with the rest of the world rather than change the world for one kid.
Joe J at August 15, 2012 12:20 PM
I agree with the comment about it being kinder to disband the troop than to exclude the one kid. I also think this is one of life's hard situations.
I would like to think that, if the parents had been willing to work with the leaders - maybe volunteer more, help pay part, teach some signs to the other girls, etc. then it could have been worked out.
Unfortunately, that's not how things usually roll.
What I don't get - are they pursuing litigation because the troop disbanded? Unless they could prove that it was somehow illegal to disband (which equally denies the option of that troop to ALL the kids), this is a merit-less loss of time and money for everyone involved. Note that troops disband all the time for lots of reasons - mine did when I was a kid because the leader moved away and they couldn't get another one.
Why not put THOSE resources into something useful? I'd bet you could get some college student to program something to recognize speech and display the signs (or text) on a monitor for less than a lawyer would cost.
Shannon M. Howell at August 15, 2012 1:06 PM
You guys- I am soooo disappointed in many of your comments!
Deaf girl need to learn how to lipread!? Get a cochlear implant! I find these comments EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE!!!!!!
I am DEAF myself and use ASL as my main form of communication. FYI- it's IMPOSSIBLE to lipread people 100% accurately AND especially in a GROUP SETTING! So many words look alike on the lips- time/dime, ball/mall, mom/bum.... I can lipread enough sometimes to figure out what the person is saying but it's TOUGH and not always accurate. Other factors impacts the difficulty of lipreading such as lighting, if the person talking has a mustache or beard (hiding lips), or moves around while talking. Another factor is by the time you finish lipreading what a person talks, you have to look around to see who else has started talking and by the time you figure out who the next person talking was, you've missed over half of what they said.
Cochlear implants are NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!! Believe it or not, most of the deaf people PREFER to be DEAF. Also, you do not wear the cochlear implant all the time so it's not a 100% 'fix'. It also does not give full hearing back to the deaf person. I personally am very opposed to cochlear implants since I've seen what it has done to many of my deaf friends. One friend went through MANY years of agony, surgeries to fix, fix and still not fixed. A friend DIED from having a cochlear implant surgery. Several have spent thousands of dollars on cochlear implants, etc. Many doctors have asked me to have a cochlear implant. My reply was NO WAY !!!!!!! I am happy as I am- DEAF and I am PROUD of it. I am not the only deaf person who feels this way.
Also, about parents interpreting- I find that such an IGNORANT comment. Sadly, MOST parents of deaf kids do NOT take time or effort to learn sign language. IF they DO learn sign language, often it's sufficient for BASIC communication. Most of the time, it's impossible for the parents to be able to interpret for a deaf child.
Also, having parents interpret can be very awkward and inhibiting - how many of you want your mommies and daddies tagging along for ALLLLLL the events where you are to interact with other kids?! I KNOW because my mom interpreted for me for one year in grade school and I HATED it. I know my mom meant well but that meant no privacy or freedom for me at school since mom was there for all the classes, saw me interacting with others, etc and this prevented me from being like other kids learning to be more independent.
LUCKILY, the next year, I was able to get another interpreter so my mom didn't have to continue interpreting. Also, the kids and teachers in my hearing school were GREAT and took time to learn sign language. By 4th grade, 90% of my class knew enough sign language so that helped me interact with other kids. Unfortunately, most of deaf people I've talked with about their experiences attending hearing/mainstreamed schools did not have the same experience as I did with hearing kids who were willing/wanting to learn sign language.
It really depends on the community, the school, kids, leaders and teachers to help the deaf kid become part of the community.
It's obvious that the kids and leaders in that girls scouts were NOT willing to work with the deaf kid to include her, learn sign language and work with the parents to find a 'volunteer' interpreter or come to a copromise.
Again, I find many of th ecomments here very OFFENSIVE and DISAPPOINTING. this really shows me how STUPID and IGNORANT many hearing people are -like YOU. This reaffirms to ME why I prefer associating more with DEAF people than with you hearing people who posted here!
pamela at August 15, 2012 2:04 PM
Nice going, Pamela. Broad brush and all that.
But - just like me, you're not going to make the world bow to you.
Radwaste at August 15, 2012 2:30 PM
I agree with what pamela has posted above. My brother and sister are deaf. My sister lip reads and has many, many difficulties and doesn't get much of the conversation going on around her. My brother has a cochlear implant and can't hear very well at all, particularly in group settings. I too am very dissapointed in how much is misunderstood about people in the deaf community. I too find many of the comments hurtful and offensive.
I don't know what the answer is for the girl, this is a very complicaated issue and one that does not have an easy solution.
Beth Hubbel at August 15, 2012 2:31 PM
Pamela,
I don't know if my comment was among those that offended you. However, I'll freely admit that I am ignorant - of a lot of things.
I am not deaf - although I did temporarily loose my hearing (almost completely) for a few days once. It was HELL in meetings and EVERYONE made a joke about it when I'd explain and ask them to repeat themselves when discussing a project (I got notes from others for meetings).
I was with you on offensive, ignorant, and disappointing, but I draw the line at calling us all stupid.
I'm sorry people (including myself) didn't know most of what you wrote about being deaf. I am sorry that we were disappointing. However, unless every person who posted here is being a jerk, insulting us ALL really doesn't help us be less ignorant (although you did provide some great information that I would otherwise not know).
If somebody who was deaf made a stupid comment about people who are blind, would it be fair to say all deaf people are stupid and ignorant? Wouldn't it be more helpful to everyone if we just tried to fix the ignorance and keep the stupid comments to ourselves?
Shannon M. Howell at August 15, 2012 2:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/15/deaf_girl_wants.html#comment-3306936">comment from Shannon M. HowellPamela, lotta exclamation points in your comment; not a lotta solutions suggested.
What would you suggest?
Who should pay?
And regarding this -- "I am happy as I am- DEAF and I am PROUD of it. I am not the only deaf person who feels this way." -- you're "proud" of being deaf? I can understand not being ashamed of it, but "proud" of it?
I'm not "proud" I have red hair. It's just genetic.
I'm likewise not "proud" that I have ADHD. I think it probably benefits me in some ways (I can probably pull pun connections together because of it) and it's a negative in other ways.
I learned sign language in elementary school and worked with deaf kids. Deaf people aren't stupid; they just don't hear as well as most of the rest of us.
A lot of people aren't that informed about every area. I can understand that you're upset about some of the comments here, but why not tell people where they go wrong and actually tell us what you think the solution is to the question posed in the post.
The Girl Scouts aren't some big bucks organization. Should they really fund the costs of this girl's interpreter?
To me, this would have been an opportunity to teach the girls in the troop to communicate with this other girl.
Who pays for an interpreter the rest of the time for this girl? Is that really a workable solution for her life?
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2012 3:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/15/deaf_girl_wants.html#comment-3306938">comment from Amy AlkonAlso, Pamela, you say you're happy as you are.
You really wouldn't rather be able to hear as well as most people do?
What are the benefits to being deaf? (You contend that being deaf is beneficial for you, so please tell us how it is.)
Personally, I'd rather have every part of my body function in optimal condition: Not need glasses to drive or to see the TV, to hear better than I do, to not get motionsick at the drop of a curve in the road.
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2012 3:12 PM
If the Girl Scout troup had unlimited funds, this wouldn't be an issue. But it doesn't. What right does one child have to soak up so much of the group's resources? Do the other girls not get to go on trips and do other things because so much money has been spent on a translator?
What if the family convinced one of the deaf girl's friends to join? Then they could split the cost of a translator. There are so many options here.
Pamela: I was prepared to be sympathetic to your argument until you turned into a complete harpy. Calling people stupid because they disagree with you is not the way to convince anyone. Also, you tell us you're offended and disappointed IN HUGE CAPS like that alone is supposed to make people retreat. It won't.
The Girl Scouts offered to pay $50 a month. They were willing to contribute something. A lot of the other solutions tossed out here might not be perfect ones for the deaf girl, but life is full of imperfect solutions. She has a physical disability that requires other people to compensate so she can participate. Why should the other people be the only ones working to make it happen?
MonicaP at August 15, 2012 3:37 PM
Hmmm.. I know that some of my comments were STRONG. I just got really fed up and offended with what I saw with comments from certain people.
Also, please remember I mentioned previously that I was very lucky in the school where I grew up since the hearing kids and hearing teachers took time and effort to learn sign language. so I KNOW NOT ALL hearing people are stupid. :) In every culture, country, world, there are ignorant vs stupid people(even for aliens! Grin).
To me, ignorance means people who honestly doesn't know but are willing to learn while stupid means people who doesn't know and doesn't want to take time to learn.
One comment which I found very offensive is:
"So why is this girl not learning to read lips, use a cochlear implant, or otherwise herself become a capable and functioning member of society?"
WHOA... I AM a capable and functioning member of society while being deaf and communicating mainly through sign language. I do NOT want to lipread because it often leads to misunderstandings but I DO try to lipread if I HAVE to. If I go out to order or do shopping, I tend to write back and forth instead of lipreading since this ensures no misunderstanding on either side.
Another specific comment I found very offensive was "I understand the need for an interpreter at concerts or lectures or other big events, but in small settings like this she needs to be able to read lips and communicate. If her parents aren't teaching that, they really ARE handicapping her."
I'd love to challenge that person who wrote this to put ear plugs in his ears and try to lipread in a group setting then tell me if it's doable!
I've done that in elementary, middle and high school and it was impossible. I finally told my hearing friends who didn't know sufficient sign language that I preferred spending time with them 'one on one' instead of in a group setting and they were fine with that.
Also, my parents always strive to teach me to be independent (now they complain that I'm TOO independent lol) but they knew that I needed interpreters in school to help me communicate and understand better what was going on in classes. they did not 'handicap' me with this method. I don't lipread unless I HAVE to and if I do, I only get maybe 20% of what was said and I HATE that.
Another offensive comment was: "It also sets a dangerous precident, the group lerns sign language for her, next week a kid who only knows Spanish joins, so to be fair, everyone now learns Spanish, then a German girl.... and so on. SImpler and easier for the one kid to learn to deal with the rest of the world rather than change the world for one kid. "
WHOA....That person made it sound so easy for the deaf person to learn to deal with the world than change the world for one kid and this is NOT TRUE and is offensive. We (deaf people) adapt by signing which does not require hearing or speaking since we can't learn to hear. YOU as hearing people CAN learn to sign. My whole hearing family and some of hearing friends signs with each other even though they can hear because sometimes they're across the room or in cars and it's easier to sign than yell across the room or roll down car windows to talk.
Some of the comments I liked were as following:
"in all of this there was not one person, adult or child who said: "let's make this a troop thing and learn American Sign Language."?!?!?!?" I agree totally with this. Like I stated earlier, my school class and teachers worked together to learn sign language. That was a perfect example of 'it takes a village to raise a child.' I was very lucky to experience that.
Another comment I liked was: "Additionally, if the parents knew that the only way their daughter would get interpreters is if they provided them, they probably would make arrangements to either be there themselves, or volunteer to teach the girls some basic sign language.
The other girl scouts would learn quickly and the solution would not only provide interaction for the deaf girl, but give her friends that could communicate directly with her."
BUT one note with this like I stated in my previous posting was that unfortunately a high % of hearing parents with deaf children do NOT take time or effort to learn sign language or if they do sign, it's very basic and it'd be very tough for the parent to try to interpret AND for the deaf girl to understand what the parent was interpreting.
Having girl scouts learn sign language would provide her with more friends which would be benefitical to both the girl scouts and to the deaf girl. NOTE: I had a few hearing friends who knew SOME signs who tried to interpret for me and I couldn't understand them, they couldn't keep up with the speakers and so forth. It really takes a lot of training to be able to interpret. It's a very challenging role as an interpreter for the deaf. so please don't think that if girl scounts learn to sign that they would be able to interpret for the deaf child. it would not be fair to the girl scouts if they had to interpret also because it's hard to interpret and participate at the same time.
I'll post another posting to answer some of the questions posted recently soon but this is already a LONG post.. :)
Pamela at August 15, 2012 5:05 PM
Now, I'd like to address one posting
=====
"Pamela, lotta exclamation points in your comment; not a lotta solutions suggested.
What would you suggest?
Who should pay?
And regarding this -- "I am happy as I am- DEAF and I am PROUD of it. I am not the only deaf person who feels this way." -- you're "proud" of being deaf? I can understand not being ashamed of it, but "proud" of it?"
First- yes I know I used a lot of exclamation points. That's one of my 'weaknesses'.
=====
I did make a few comments in my first posting that are also 'suggestions'. Let me re-post and add.
"It really depends on the community, the school, kids, leaders and teachers to help the deaf kid become part of the community.
It's obvious that the kids and leaders in that girls scouts were NOT willing to work with the deaf kid to include her, learn sign language and work with the parents to find a 'volunteer' interpreter or come to a copromise." So from these comments- let me clarify- this means possible solutions would be for the girl scouts (including the leaders) to learn sign language just like my school class and teachers did and that would help the deaf girl be included. Another suggestion is to find a 'volunteer' interpreter. There are many certified interpreters out there who are willing to volunteer. Certified interpreters are also required to meet a certain amout of time for 'volunteer' interpreting so there are ways to find volunteer certified interpreters. It would just take more time and effort.
I was able to find a 'volunteer' interpreter to interpret for my family reunion last summer since I wanted my mom and sister who tend to interpret to be able to relax and enjoy themselves and at the same time, allow me to be able to communicate equally with my aunts/uncles and cousins since none of them know sign language.
Paying- that's a TOUGH question. As someone stated, Girl Scouts are not 'rich' and are mainly run by volunteers. HOWEVER, parents or the deaf person won't be able to afford paying interpreters plus girl scouts uniforms, badges, etc. My copromise would be to find a volunteer interpreter then parents/girl scouts pay for transportation costs which is definitely cheaper.
Now about questioning why I'd be proud of being deaf. Being deaf has made me who I am. I cannot imagine being hearing and I have no desire to become hearing. It can be challenging as a deaf person navigating through the hearing world BUT I wouldn't trade it in to become hearing.
This is same as if you asked a black person if they'd take a 'magic' pill to become white- would they? Most of the black people would refuse because they are proud of being black. Being black has made them who they are.
We have a 'deaf culture and community' similiar to what ethnic groups would have.
Pamela at August 15, 2012 5:20 PM
another question posted which I'd like to discuss is ====
"Who pays for an interpreter the rest of the time for this girl? Is that really a workable solution for her life?"
======
I am now 41 years old and I do not have interpreters with me all the time. I do request interpreters for doctor/medical appointments, meetings, live theatre and so forth. ADA helps ensure that we get equal access to services as hearing people do.
In the work environment where I work, I work with both deaf and hearing people. If there's a meeting, the company would provide an interpreter to ensure that both deaf and hearing would understand and be able to communicate with each other. At other times, if I needed to ask a hearing colleague who doesn't know sign language, I'd either call them through video relay services on a videophone using an interpreter, email that person or go in person, type back and forth on computer monitor, write notes back and forth or text.
In this era- it's a lot easier for deaf people to communicate with hearing people since there are more technology available to use.
Pamela at August 15, 2012 5:27 PM
another posting I'll like to discuss is:
==
you say you're happy as you are.
You really wouldn't rather be able to hear as well as most people do?
What are the benefits to being deaf? (You contend that being deaf is beneficial for you, so please tell us how it is.)
Personally, I'd rather have every part of my body function in optimal condition: Not need glasses to drive or to see the TV, to hear better than I do, to not get motionsick at the drop of a curve in the road.
===
Nope, I don't want to hear like you guys do.
Being deaf has made me a stronger person. All the challenges I've faced throughout my life has made me stronger and a better person (I hope).
I honestly don't see that there's a lot to miss from not hearing.
I know hearing people LOVES music. Well, most of us deaf enjoys music also even though we can't hear them.. We FEEL them through vibrations. If you go to a concert or to a musical thing, you can bring a balloon and you'll be able to feel the vibrations OR be right next to the boom box (if that's what it's called), put your hands on it and you'll FEEL all the vibrations. it's GREAT.
There's captioning for most of movies and TV shows thanks to ADA law so we know what is being said. I am not too crazy about subtitling though since that only shows what is being said while with captioning, it captions everything that's being heard such as phone ringing, doorbell ringing, footsteps, etc.
Being deaf, I am part of a great, inclusive and deaf community and we are like a big family. I've moved from here (Utah) to DC (lived there for over 10 years) and within a few days, felt like I was part of a family with the deaf community there. When I moved back here from DC about 4 years ago, within a couple days, I developed strong and close relationships with some deaf people here.
With the hearing community- it's so big and it's easy to get lost and feel alone. When I moved around, I knew I'd know some deaf people in various locations since the deaf communities here in USA AND in the world are 'small' compared to hearing community. My hearing brother moved to Arizona which is only one state away and didn't know anyone there. He said it was lonely and took him a couple months to be able to develop friendships/relationships.
That's one big difference in my eyes- no matter where I move or go, 100% of the time, I will know someone in that area in the deaf community OR I'd know someone who knows someone there and they'd help hook me up with people there. Isn't that great?
The deaf community is more loving, open-minded and welcoming. I often have to catch myself with the hearing people and make sure my behavior/social skills matches hearing community and their expections versus deaf community. The first time a deaf person meets another deaf person, they will immediately hug and start asking each other questions such as do you know this person, etc from this deaf school, etc? From there, they can quickly build up a rapport. We also are 'tactile' people. We often would tap each other on shoulders, arms, etc to get each other's attention.
With hearing people, the first time you meet, you tend to shake hands and make polite chit-chat like Where are you from? What do you do for a living?
Several times, I forgot myself and would tap to get attention or hug a hearing person and I could tell they were uncomfortable and freaked out by that. That was NOT my intention. That's the normal way of greeting each other in the deaf community and it feels natural.
Deaf people have experienced oppression since dark ages and I think that is one huge factor of why the deaf communities are so close-knit. If I decide to go to England, I know of at least 4 deaf friends here who would help hook me up with their deaf friends in England. Same goes for other parts of Europe.
So again, nope, I have no desire to become hearing. Even when I die and go to heaven, I'd want to remain deaf. I know this is a very difficult concept to grasp and understand. I've talked about this so many times with other deaf people and they feel the same- when we go to heaven, we all want to remain deaf. That's who we are.
Hope this has answered the question posted here. :) If not, let me know and I'll try to answer better.
Pamela at August 15, 2012 5:51 PM
last posting I'll like to discuss for tonight is:
====
If the Girl Scout troup had unlimited funds, this wouldn't be an issue. But it doesn't. What right does one child have to soak up so much of the group's resources? Do the other girls not get to go on trips and do other things because so much money has been spent on a translator?
What if the family convinced one of the deaf girl's friends to join? Then they could split the cost of a translator. There are so many options here.
Pamela: I was prepared to be sympathetic to your argument until you turned into a complete harpy. Calling people stupid because they disagree with you is not the way to convince anyone. Also, you tell us you're offended and disappointed IN HUGE CAPS like that alone is supposed to make people retreat. It won't.
The Girl Scouts offered to pay $50 a month. They were willing to contribute something. A lot of the other solutions tossed out here might not be perfect ones for the deaf girl, but life is full of imperfect solutions. She has a physical disability that requires other people to compensate so she can participate. Why should the other people be the only ones working to make it happen?
======
You're right- a group shouldn't suffer due to one person but why should that ONE person suffer based on a group? If the group works together, then things coulde be worked out. Yes, the girl scouts offered to pay and that's great. It looks like the parents are 'sue-happy' which is very unfortunate. I feel that USA in general is very 'sue-happy'.
I also love the idea of convincing another deaf girl to join and split the costs. That's another great solution and would provide moral support for the deaf girl.
The reason I sound like a harpy is because some of the comments made sounds like they're from other harpies. :) I need to stand up for myself as a deaf person and for other deaf people because it's so easy for heairng people to not know that they are 'oppressing' or discriminating against the deaf person. It's easier to just sit, be quiet and not make waves. However, that would mean that we would be deprived of equal access to services that you experience and that is not fair or right.
LIke I said earlier, it takes a village to raise a child. The same thing applies to deaf children- the communities (hearing and deaf) need to work together and copromise on things to help the deaf children experience the same things that hearing children experiences. Is it fair to say no deaf girls could experience being in girl scouts? Not be able to experience playing school sports? Not be able to experience being part of student body government in school? Not be able to be part of something?
These are vital to children's growth, success, health and intelligence.
NOW, I'll be quiet for tonight. :)
Pamela at August 15, 2012 6:00 PM
Life's not fair. Deal with it.
Assholio at August 15, 2012 6:33 PM
Thank you for expressing yourself so beautifully Pamela. I was boiling as I read some of the comments left by other readers.
I am not deaf, but I have been touched by deaf culture and the deaf community. My grandfather and five generations that preceded him were all deaf. I've always understood why deaf people not see themselves as handicapped, but I never could understand why a deaf person would say they preferred to be deaf. Now I understand.
Jen at August 15, 2012 7:57 PM
So Pamela let me get this straight. you are offended by even the suggestion that she learn to be able to at least partally (no way is ever 100%) communicate with the other 99% of the population. But You are fine in suggesting requiring the scout leaders and all the other girls to learn a different imperfect language to communicate with her. Proud doesn't scratch the surface.
Joe J at August 15, 2012 8:28 PM
The entitlement attitude at its Proudest! "I was born deaf, so all you stupid morons who hear owe me and everyone like me special priviledges, and your children must go without so deaf children can have. Also, I wouldn't give up my deafness for the world, so I don't even consider myself handicapped! Double dumbass on all you ignorant hearing people! Yeah me!"
Honestly, the adjective "deaf" is so interchangeable here it is not even funny.
Thank you, and all like you, for keeping my niece from enjoying girl scouts due to your selfishness.
Life's not fair and she has to live with that.
Assholio at August 15, 2012 10:01 PM
Assholio put it mildy cruder than I would have, but I feel the same.
Getting pissed and yelling at people for being mildy ignorant is not a good way to endear others to you cause.
As for the WHOAs, might I suggest you grow up?
whoa#1 - they werent talking about you, unless you as a 40yr old have been masquerading as this couple teenage daughter
As far as any person not interacitve with deaf people goes cochlear implants have been billed as damn near perfect for those who arent really paying attention, and might I add that you are stupid for not knowing that no deaf people are not conversent with the problems related to the implants (hopefully your sense of sacrasm works enough for you to understand what I did there Pamela)
whoa#2 Why is it more offenseive for the many to suggest for the one to adapt than it is for the one to suggest for the many to adapt? Or does it only apply when your the one? When you are in the majority of any goven situation do you strive to be just as inclusive or do you tend to be exasperated by the few who do not adapt to your majorites?
And FYI $20 bucks says your other non parental interpreter ratted you out to your parnets when they felt it was appropriate, and I'm allso betting that your freinds werent as unihibited around the non parental interpreter as they whould have been if they werent around.
Oh and one other thing, EVERYONE has been oppressed since the "dark ages" aside from those in power, and even they were oppressed on occasion
lujlp at August 15, 2012 11:43 PM
Welcome to the entitlement culture. Making slaves of all of us.
Sio at August 15, 2012 11:59 PM
Pamela,
A couple of thoughts:
First, it's one thing to take pride in what one accomplishes even though one is deaf (or given some other unusual physical characteristic), and another thing to claim some kind of pride for simply being deaf.
The first is admirable, and represents an ability to overcome difficulty. The second is, at best, kind of odd. Pride (as opposed to hubris) is, for the most part, about recognizing and celebrating our accomplishments. Being born a particular way is an accident, a (currently, at least) uncontrollable expression of genetics.
To take pride in what is simply an expression of genetics is to claim ground that you don't own.
Second, as much as I believe that all people should have an equal ability for self determination, and to be able to interact with the rest of society as much as is possible, I tend to resist the idea that the rest of society should have that interaction imposed by force (and government and law *is* force).
It's been my experience (for what it's worth) that most people are basically quite willing to accommodate people with different needs in most cases. However, that is also predicated on the idea that we're accommodating someone who is making at least some effort to be accommodated.
If we're giving everything, and they're giving nothing, are you really surprised that we're not really getting behind that idea?
For example, how would your position be altered if it were the majority who were deaf, and the few who were hearing? Would you feel as disposed to accommodate their demands (i.e., that you should 'speak' to them instead of using other methods)? Suppose they have the same argument against signing (for example) that you have for lip reading, and that, for them, the most reliable way to communicate is verbally. Would you truly be as willing to accommodate them as you expect us to be toward you? Would you appreciate being forced (by government fiat) to do so?
And it isn't even that some of the legal frameworks involved don't have some legitimate benefit. It's the idea that every group or organization needs to jump through their own asshole to accommodate the cause du jour or face some kind of legal assault.
And that's the kind of thing that causes those organizations to disband rather than face the cost of 'compliance.' And no one wins (except maybe a lawyer).
In a case like this, ultimately, it *has* to be the parents who help make this work. If the parents are sincere in their effort to want to include their daughter in this group, they can make the effort to help with the process (defray the cost of an interpreter, do the search for volunteers, or so on). And the thing is, if the parents make this kind of contribution, it's a lot more likely that the members of the group will also step up to help, since the onus of compliance is no longer entirely upon them.
There's nothing (at all) wrong with accepting being deaf (or whatever), and being proud of what you accomplish regardless. What's wrong is trying to force everyone else to help you accomplish it.
Give people the opportunity to help, and most will. Try to force them to help, and most will resist.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at August 16, 2012 12:12 AM
I can't fly like Superman, but if I found somewhere where everybody could fly and I couldn't, I wouldn't be "proud" of my obvious handicap.
But I might fool myself into thinking it was a virtue. I've read that birds don't know what it is to climb.
Radwaste at August 16, 2012 2:42 AM
Sorry, Pamela, but nobody cares. My wife didn't speak English well when she came here, and not a damn one of her co-workers learned Japanese to help her out. Did she sue? Ask for an interpreter? Hardly.
It's called reasonable accommodation for a reason. The world doesn't revolve around you, my wife, or me.
However, all ends well in this fairy tale. The evil scouts are banished and nobody has anything. Enjoy the win, kid.
MarkD at August 16, 2012 5:50 AM
My cousin is deaf and has never expected anyone to make unreasonable accommodations for her. She lip reads like a champion, and the rest of us are happy to do what we can to help with that. We speak directly to her face and speak slowly. We concentrate to understand her through her speech impediment. When we need to speak with her over the phone, we use a translator and she uses TTY. The Internet has given her a lot more options. When her deaf friends are around, no one complains that they speak mostly in sign language and we can't understand them. We understand that it's much easier for them to communicate that way. She misses some things, and we are fine with repeating them until she understands.
The thing about my cousin is that I have never once heard her insist that people bend over backward to accommodate her. We do it because she is wonderful and we want to, and she is clearly working very hard to manage the way the majority of us communicate, which is through speech.
MonicaP at August 16, 2012 7:12 AM
Just guessing here, but I think most people thought the parents were being unreasonable when they decided to litigate after the disbanding.
I disagree with the comment about being proud of something that is genetic - we do it all the time (proud of our hair, teeth, build, skin, etc). Not that we don't still do are darnedest (ok, I don't, but most people) to improve those, but you get the idea.
Shannon M. Howell at August 16, 2012 9:39 AM
The ADA allows exceptions to the accommodation rules for "undue hardship". But in practice, it's nearly impossible to prove in court. The EEOC standards put the burden of proof entirely on the defendant; all the plantiff need do is make an accusation, and then it is up to the defendant to disprove it. I did a bunch of searches last night for cases where a court accepted an undue-hardship defense in an ADA case, and I only came up with a few, none recent. And I suspect that even in those cases, it cost the defendant millions to defend the case.
Per the EEOC's reading of the ADA, non-disabled employees can be required to work harder and take on additional tasks to make up for anything a disabled worker can't or won't do. Organizations can be required to spend very large amounts of money on an accommodation, on the theory that they might be able to recoup some of it from unspecified federal or state grant or tax credit programs (which one would have to hire a consultant to sort through). The law mandates that the size of parent organization is a determining factor in what accommodates a reasonable accommodation, so if the Girl Scouts is a large national organization (which of course it is), it can be required to spend a large amount of money even if the mandate is imposed on an individual troop which is flat broke. Further, cumulative costs of a large number of accommodations is specifically excluded as a defense; every case is to examined individually. The EEOC's definition of "reasonable accommodation" is circular; it states that a reasonable accommodation is "one that is reasonable on its face". Great. That helps a bunch. A more cynical person than me would suspect that this lack of guidance is deliberate, so that he EEOC has maximum latitude in deciding who it wants to extract its vengance on.
Cousin Dave at August 16, 2012 9:50 AM
Pamela,
I'm glad you explained yourself. Thank you.
I do think there's something to consider in what you said. When comparing the deaf community to those who are not deaf, you referred to the "hearing community." I would argue that there is no such thing, and that is exactly the difference you have identified.
I'm pale-skinned, so unless I move to Africa or something, I'm going to likely be in the majority. That means that unless the population is small enough to BE a community in and of itself, I'm not going to be in a pale-skinned community. I'm just another person. Just like being paste-colored in suburbs in the US doesn't put me in a pasty-skinned community, having hearing doesn't put me in a community (there's just too many of us!).
HOWEVER, there are other ways people make communities. You have and treasure a community you love based on being deaf. I know people who have that community based on being gay, just as you described it. I'm in a community (physically, where we live), a religious community, a school-based community, etc.
My point with this is perhaps we can consider it less "us vs them" and more different groups - some of which overlap. For instance, you are in the deaf community, but you are also in the community of people who comment here (which might not be as warm and welcoming, but not all are).
Sorry to wax on about this, but I really hate the binary us/them mentality people get around these sorts of things. I think it gives us more problems than solutions.
Community is wonderful, but you can't compare one with something that just isn't (like, a sewing club vs everyone NOT in the sewing club). :)
Shannon M. Howell at August 16, 2012 9:53 AM
Shannon. "Just guessing here, but I think most people thought the parents were being unreasonable when they decided to litigate after the disbanding."
Actually I think it goes furthur, since I suspect that the parents being unreasonable caused the disbanding. It is an assumption, but do you realise how unreasonable somone has to be to make a group of volunteers decide to quit.
Joe J at August 16, 2012 9:53 AM
Yes, Joe, I do. I just quit one myself. Scout troop leaders are usually just 1-3 people (we lost one to a move and our troop disbanded). In a case like this, I doubt any one else will volunteer.
However, I have also seen other people say, "You know, I've put in my time, my other kids have new things I'd like to volunteer at, this is kinda annoying, so I'm just moving on."
I agree that the parents likely were a reason for disbanding. Based upon their decision to sue, I would guess they weren't going, "Hey, this is really important to little Lisa, how can we make this work?" But more like, "Well, Joanie wants to do this, so you have to accommodate!"
Obviously, I don't know this, just a guess, but here are some things I've seen from MY volunteer time on a Homeowner's Association that make me think this is how many people work.
Somebody parked on a public street adjacent to the community and wanted the community to pay for sap removal from their car since the car was on community property.
Somebody doesn't like a tree behind their house on community property, so we're supposed to remove it (in their opinion).
Somebody WANTS a tree behind their house, so we're supposed to plant (a mature) one.
There is a storm water drain in a common area that's always been there, but we should fence/cover/remove it because they had kids and the kids might fall in or get hurt (all things in compliance w/code).
We didn't shovel the sidewalk to their home (listed as a homeowner responsibility).
Shannon M. Howell at August 16, 2012 10:07 AM
There's another thing that came across in Pamela's missives that I wanted to comment on, because it's something that really chaps my ass. We have a huge number of various minority and subgroups these days who demand access to the mainstream of society, yet they also demand the right to maintain their own exclusive sub-cultures in which people unlike themselves are not welcome. However, there are a few groups in America who are legally and morally prohibited from doing this, and I'm a member of two of them: straight white male, and Southerner. (Not coincidentally, these are two of the few groups of whom it is still socially permissible to stereotype and mock.)
I recall an incident some years ago at a government agency, at which I worked as a contractor. A division manager who happened to be a person of minority group X sent out an invite to a big party he was throwing at his house. However, he also made it clear in the invite that the party was only for employees of minority group X, and that others were not welcome. This went out through the agency's email system. Of course, the agency's EEOC rep saw absolutely nothing wrong with this: "They just want some time when they can be around people like themselves, and not have to deal with anyone else. What's wrong with that?" Of course, what's wrong with it is that if I did the same thing, I'd be hauled before a hanging judge.
If you are a member of one of these dis-favored groups, you are, legally and morally, a second-class citizen. Other people have legal rights and privileges that you do not have, and such are based totally on the circumstances of your birth. This is indisputable.
Cousin Dave at August 16, 2012 10:07 AM
There is a real irony about discrimination in favor of some minorities: it locks them in place.
When you cannot joke about a group, they simply are not equals. End of story.
Radwaste at August 16, 2012 3:37 PM
"Organizations can be required to spend very large amounts of money on an accommodation, on the theory that they might be able to recoup some of it from unspecified federal or state grant or tax credit programs (which one would have to hire a consultant to sort through)."
That (along with the rest of what you said there really) is a big reason a lot of companies are afraid to hire anyone with a disability. They're afraid of the possibility of eventual lawsuits. Even if the person turns out to be a poor employee, trying to fire them, even with due cause, can result in expensive lawsuits.
There was an ep of Penn & Teller's Bullshit on exactly this, with interviews with several disabled people, who were on both sides.
Miguelitosd at August 16, 2012 3:50 PM
Where I worked there was a piece on the internal company page about various things....one was a story written by a disabled person (little to no use of legs or arms). She was so thankful for the company. As she described it she has some one to perform her job - well just the physical parts like typing - because she cannot because of her disability. She is basically a boss of one. This not some rare skilled job - I am sure after a month or so the assistant could do the job all on her own. Oh, and she thanked her co-workers for helping her use the bathroom while visiting another site which didn't have the special equipment. She said it was a horrible 40 minute experience for all, but they were a stronger team for pulling thought it.
The Former Banker at August 16, 2012 10:54 PM
I am hearing impaired in a hearing impaired family, and we do a ton of lipreading and elevated tone (shouting) and all that. Most of us wear hearing aids, my brother and mother have cochlear implants. We have been mainstreamed and aside from a few implements paid for by our schools, don't rely on anyone else to help us out.
Lipreading is hard work. I've been doing it for my entire life, and it's much, much less accurate as being able to hear 100%. Insisting that the girl just lipread and work harder to communicate is a moot point because even if she could lipread well, she likely cannot function well in group settings.
It's a shame that so many people in the deaf community don't "believe" in cochlear implants. It sounds like Pamela has had friends with bad experiences, but my brother functions beautifully with one. He's had his for 16 years so I believe that people who get theirs at a very young age can function like they've never been without. It has opened up avenues that he might not have had if he remained a fully deaf person.
I agree with Pamela and a few of the commenters that the solution isn't obvious or simple because in this case, everyone loses. I don't see why parents can't be bothered to learn sign language for their children - that boggles my mind. However we can't bemoan the "us vs. them" mentality without providing workable solutions that allow everyone to compromise. I think the payment of the transportation costs of a volunteer interpreter, or teaching each other ASL, attending sign language classes at local community colleges, using dry erase boards for communication as a fun exercise, etc etc are all good options. I also think the parents should take on the responsibilities since it's important enough to sue about.
Katie at August 17, 2012 3:45 AM
Couple more years and technically white people will be in the minority. I look forward to blaming the imperial actions of 18th century Spain for all the worlds problems
lujlp at August 17, 2012 6:10 AM
Pride is something to be reserved for an accomplishment. Not a handicap. Pride in having accomplished something in spite of a handicap, cool, pride in the handicap itself is something only people without accomplishments resort to. One might as well be proud of a heart murmur.
Teddy Roosevelt didn't take pride in his physical weakness and sickliness as a boy, he took pride in the strength he gained in overcoming it.
Whats more, you make a point of saying multiple things are "offensive"? Suppose they are, what of it? There is no special right to not be offended. Indeed it is virtually impossible to hold an opinion that is not offensive to someone in this world. Now call me hard hearted if you will, but I cannot imagine a situation in which someone saying that they are offended by a comment will either strengthen their argument, or weaken their opponents.
Yes, hearing people can learn to sign, and deaf people cannot learn to hear. Not to make light of the matter, but even the blind could see that fact. But again I must ask, what of it? The point hear is not that hearing people could learn to do it, but that this private organization should not have to pay out of its own pocket to adapt to the needs of one individual. Why should her handicap impoverish them?
The cold hard truth Pamela, is that like it or not some doors will be closed to the disabled, even without any malice, or even indifference, on the part of society as a whole. You cannot compel people, justly, to pay for anyone else's weaknesses. And more importantly, I can think of nothing more likely to handicap someone (no play upon words intended for once), than giving them the impression or belief, that the rest of the world, must do exactly that. Overcoming disabilities, frailties, or injury, is a matter of character and courage and strength of will that creates not only a functional member of society, but a powerful asset.
The injured, the disabled, the frail, expecting that others will adapt and expend precious resources in abundance to suit them…is the best way to ensure that those injured, disabled, and frail become a drain.
I personally think it would have been a very good idea for the troop to have learned ASL. Knowing another language, studying it, learning how to learn, so to speak (again no play upon words intended) are important building blocks in creating strong citizens and learning how to think.
But all this gets away from the question central to this blog entry?
Whom should pay for this child's particular needs in order to participate?
Should a troop pay? If we were talking about a public school and she were a citizen, I would say yes. But we're talking about a volunteer organization that gets its money from donations, cookie sales (love that one) and other small time engagements that pay for all of their activities. And even if they were wealthy beyond measure, ability has nothing to do with obligation. They had no duty to expend limited resources on this one would be member.
You ask
"Why should that ONE person suffer based on a group?"
A fair question. But what is she suffering exactly? Certainly she wants to be part of that organization, but there are many organizations that people would like to join, for which they are not qualified. Life is full of little disappointments, and to answer your question: The greatest good, for the greatest number.
She is but one, they are many. If adding "one" will injure "many" then the one must not be added.
If that is disappointing…well I wanted to be president as a boy. Life is full of such undisney like endings, and childhood is when we start learning how to deal with those when they occur.
To elaborate further, you argue for "fairness" to deaf girls, but where is it fair in your mind, that a small organization on a limited budget must sacrifice its means for someone else? If life must be unfair, it must be unfair in favor of the majority needs. You want all the "hers" of the deaf community to be engaged or able to be engaged in all aspects of life from girl scouts to student government, and it is laudable for anyone to make the attempt, but disabilities are called disabilities for a reason, because some things will be out of the easy reach of those without a disability. Some will achieve, some will find a way to participate, but not in everything and not every time.
Equal opportunity for participation in public school life is something I support, within reason. (by way of example, offering an ASL language course as one of the options in high school, though truth be told all languages should be studied much earlier, that is a separate issue) or perhaps hiring an interpreter that works during the school hours for that student.
But no, a private organization that does not accept public funds owes nothing to the individual person, whatever their desires. If they choose to offer assistance, well and good, but such legal suits have failed consistently for a reason. Because private clubs can include whomever they wish.
Ironically enough, I'm partially deaf myself. Hearing is not what it used to be.
Some of it I lost as a reckless youth, listening to my favorite symphony over and over again as loud as it could go. Beethoven's 9th "Ode to Joy".
Some more I lost while overseas, a few very loud booms to shoot for the goal of understatement of the year. I do still hear, thankfully, as I would very much hate to lose the music I love. But there may very well come a day when I do not hear at all.
And should that occur, it is "I" who will adapt.
Robert at August 17, 2012 6:18 AM
Robert,
Very nice summation. Your words coalesce on what I was thinking.
Jim P. at August 18, 2012 8:09 AM
Leave a comment