Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:19:54 CST
From:         Roy Miller <GE0013@SIUCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Delivery Problem

I have appended a note which was sent to DEAF-L but for technical
reasons could not be distributed.  I have taken the liberty of
eliminating the header information which was causing the delivery
problem, and am reposting this to the list for the original
poster.

--Roy Miller  (ge0013@siucvmb.siu.edu)
  Owner of DEAF-L

=========================================================================
Message Date: 29 Aug 1992 20:09 -0700 (MST)
Message From: "Bryce Carey"  <CAREY_B@CUBLDR.Colorado.EDU>
Message Subject: Educator Bashing Instant Replay
Message To: deaf-l@siucvmb.bitnet

Todd Elliot writes:

>I don't mean to raise hackles, but it does seem to have a Todd Elliott Bashing
>going on around here, performed by several participants of Deaf-L. I don't mind
>about that part. (Fire away.) But if it was such a baseless and a personal
>attack/insult on Cathy Brandt's usage of the term, "hearing Impaired" quite
>some replies ago, then why hasn't she responded? (hint, hint) What I did mind
>was the cavalier attitude expressed by her since, (eg. What she should name her
>room after, etc.) that I find disconcerting. Pax, and have a nice weekend,
->-
>
>Todd Elliott

Todd,

I have the original reply Cathy made to you after you said she was
incompetent to teach deaf kids. Since it appears you missed it,
I am including  it after the following word from the sponsor:

(Advertisement:
As you can see in the message header below, I have no way to tell
who sends what messages unless they choose to put their names in the messages.
Even then, I cannot reply directly to the person without the address.
So, PLEASE everyone,  SIGN your messages.
This means you also,  Annie  :*)
Thank you for your consideration)

Our program continues with Cathy's reply:

(Material deleted by Roy Miller)

Subj:   RE: Educational interpreters

>Forgive my bluntness here. But the .sig file does clearly show that this
>"Cathy Brandt" knows nothing about educating deaf children. Sure, she may have
>a degree and all, but her attitude and heart is somewhat misguided. These are

Todd,

I certainly won't attack you personally or make judgments about what or how
much you know.  But, I don't think it is fair to assess my ability to "educate
deaf children based on a term that many deaf people accept and use.  Before you
make a claim about what I know about "educating deaf children" I'd like for you
to meet those children, their parents, deaf adults who are familiar with my
teaching, my principal or my supervisor.  Better yet, COME AND VISIT MY CLASS.
The people who know me personally and have witnessed my teaching can testify to
the  kind of teacher I am, what the kids are learning and how they feel about
themselves.  If after *those* experiences you decide I "know nothing" I will
accept your decision.  Because *then* it will be an educated decision based on
fact and not my use of one word.

>young kids, and why muddle their heads by saying they're 'hearing-impaired',
>while someone else outside of school calls them 'deaf', or some bully in the
>playground taunts them about their 'deafness'? They sense that they are
>DIFFERENT from other children, and therefore, need special attention, and they
>need to know that despite their loss of hearing, they are perfectly normal,
>healthy and happy kids, and should be proud of themselves, instead of
>confusion, and lowered self-esteem as a result. I, too see hope in this .sig,

Again, I would invite you to come and meet these children and observe them in
the school environment.  We teach respect for all children regardless of the
color of their skin, level of hearing or socio-economic condition.  We do not
have a perfect school.  But, our children do not experience negative reations
due to their level of hearing.  In fact many of the children in our school are
learning sign language in order to communicate with the children.  It is a very
positive environment.  Again, we are not perfect.  It is not utopia.  But there
are no perfect schools or environments.  Personal strength, identity and char-
acter is not built  in the midst of an easy life where everything is exactly
how we would prefer it to be.  Character, identity and integrity come as one
learns how to deal with all of the differences in the world.  *Everyone* must
deal with people who do not understand or accept them.  This is real life.  We
do children an injustice if we continually protect them from the world.  We
must teach them how to develop their own qualities to be self-sufficient, prod-
uctive members of society and to value their own abilities.  This is for *ALL*
children  -  no matter color, physical attributes, economic background etc.

Todd, I do sincerely apologize if I offended you.  As you were blunt I will do
the same.  It would be more productive if you would learn how to attack issues
rather than people and their abilities - especially when you know nothing about
that person.

Cathy Brandt - Teacher of children who have a lot to learn in order to deal
with the diversity of opinion that exists within their own culture.

---------


END-OF-INSTANT-REPLAY
Sponsor comments follow:

**Editorial Commentary (referee mode)**

Todd,
You definitely stepped in something squishy when you said that Cathy's .
sig line
"Teacher of the Hearing Impaired"

"...does clearly show that this "Cathy Brandt" knows nothing about
educating deaf children."

I have to ask why you put quotes around "Cathy Brandt" and used the
adamant tone of saying that she knows "NOTHING" about educating
deaf children unless you  were indeed engaged in making a personal attack
on Cathy?

The point in English rhetoric of your quotation style is precisely to reduce
the "enemy" to an object rather than to address her as a person deserving
of respect and a name.  (Aside to Lew Golan:... Rhetoric is supposed to
be a non-contact sport, but then, Basketball is supposed to be one too.)

When Matthew Norman objected to Cathy's use of the term "impaired", Cathy
quite reasonably asked what was a better term that would be immediately
understandable, short, and inclusive of  all people who have trouble
hearing.

You obviously have some points you want to make about the effect
of educational terminology on children.  Your point was mostly lost
in the context of your obvious hostile personal attack on Cathy's
competence to be a teacher of the deaf. You changed the issue from
a question:

'What is a good term for all hearing impaired children in the school system '

To a statement:
'
"Cathy is incompetent to teach deaf children because she used  the term
'hearing impaired.'  to describe those she teaches."

That's quite a flagrant foul, Todd!

I think you owe Cathy an apology for that one sentence saying she knows
'nothing' about teaching deaf children.

You are perfectly welcome to suggest that it is a mistake to put divisive
labels on kids. Or, perhaps you have another alternative in mind? Let us
read it without the overly broad judgements on people.

I also have made mistakes of rhetorical excess, and learned from them.
I know it's no fun being criticized, especially when one feels misunderstood.

I think the purpose for being in this forum is to learn from others.
It is not good pedagogy to belittle one's students. (Unless, perhaps,
one practices Zen, in which a major object is to admonish oversized
egos. )

-Bryce
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU