Would Deaf People Be Drafted?

If they brought back the military draft, would deaf people be drafted? Probably not, because the last time I checked, disabled people were not drafted. However! Times have changed since the Vietnam era; today's modern warfare is largely driven by technology and other efforts that do not require the ability to hear. So, could deaf people be drafted?

Improved FCC Captioning Petition List

The FCC Captioning Exemption Petition List that I created last week, has been improved. The petitions are now organized into categories. It is far from just churches! The categories are Abuse Prevention, Cars, Community, Computers, Educational, Entertainment, Faith, Food, General, Infomercial (includes many cars), Medical, Music, News, Real Estate, Recreational, Sports, Telethon, Tourism, Travel, and Weddings. Also added are clear, easy to follow instructions on how to access each petition directly in the FCC database.

Millions of $ But Wants Partial Exemption

At present, the FCC exempts new networks from captioning for the first four years of operation. This rule MUST change or be eliminated!!! It is downright ridiculous and unfair to the deaf community now that there are so many captioning service providers!

According to their petition to the FCC for a partial captioning exemption, ReelzChannel has tens of millions of dollars in investment, but has petitioned the FCC for a partial exemption "to be relieved of the obligation to pass through captioning of already captioned programs" due to undue burden. See the image opposite.

To add insult to injury, they say that passing through previously existing closed captioning would be of "little value" to deaf and hard of hearing viewers. They think that the presence of closed captions on previously captioned program segments would be confusing.

Oh, and they say on page 7 of their petition, that they are committed to providing closed captioning for their originally produced programming "no later" than four years after they start - and the start date was September 27, 2006. And they have the nerve to say
that they expect the FCC to be "especially protective" of them as a new,
independent network.

Only $60 to Closed Caption for 30 Min? You've Got to Be Kidding!

But I'm not kidding. It IS indeed possible to closed caption for a church for only $60 for 30 minutes, and even I didn't know that! I didn't know that until I came across this letter from Aberdeen Captioning in the FCC online comment files. I don't know how they do it for so little, and I am posting this at the risk of making Aberdeen Captioning's phone line ring off the hook.

Jewish Temple Does Not Want to Caption

The "Temple of the Air" in Beverly Hills, California states in their captioning exemption petition that it would be "cost prohibitive" to closed caption a once a year, 30 minute program on Yom Kippur services. I thought that meant they were just a small program aired locally. I was wrong! Google unearthed a September/October 2006 newsletter at TempleoftheHearts.com that states "Temple of the Air will broadcast the Yom Kippur service for the homebound again this year on PAX TV to millions of viewers." Not only that, the same newsletter states that they are planning "state of the art" improvements to their facilities for future broadcasts and webcasts. Yet they say they can't afford to closed caption for 30 minutes a year? The FCC has not yet decided whether to grant their petition for a closed captioning exemption.

Is This "Careful Consideration?"

Here is an example of a "poor church" receiving a captioning exemption on the basis of a very skimpy letter with no supporting documentation. All the pastor did was say that he could not afford it and that all contributions went to pay for air time.

• Original Letter Requesting Exemption
• FCC form letter granting exemption, with the canned language "after careful consideration we grant your petition for exemption.."

Maybe this is a dumb question, but if the congregation knows that all their donations are going to pay for air time, why couldn't the "poor churches" tellt heir congregations the truth about the need to closed caption the programs that they are paying for? That would justify asking their congregations to increase their donations.

So HOW MUCH Does It Cost to Caption Anyway?

Many captioning companies will not post their prices publicly on their websites. Guess what, the prices are not a secret anymore! Many of the petitions filed for captioning exemptions with the FCC, included examples of price quotes. See the images below, taken directly from various petitions.

Aberdeen

All Captioning

Allied Vaughn

Caption Max

Caption Midwest

CCMaker

CPC

Custom Captions

National Captioning Institute

Network Captioning Services (BCS)

Raycom Post Production

Talking Type Captions

Transcription Company

Video Caption Corporation

Visual Data Media Services

Poor Churches Never Required to Caption?

As we already know, in September the FCC granted many exemptions to churches from having to caption. Now, it looks to me like poor churches may never be legally required to caption?

(Update: A commenter pointed out that these exemptions are self-implementing exemptions that do not require a petition. For an explanation of "undue burden" see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/caption_exemptions.html. However, I have seen these reasons (11 and 12) from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/exemptions_from_cc_rules.html cited in petitions)

Self-implenting exemptions

(11) Captioning expense in excess of 2% of gross revenues. No video programming provider shall be required to expend any money to caption any video programming if such expenditure would exceed 2% of the gross revenues received from that channel during the previous calendar year.

(12) Channels producing revenues of under $3,000,000. No video programming provider shall be required to expend any money to caption any channel of video programming producing annual gross revenues of less than $3,000,000 during the previous calendar year other than the obligation to pass through video programming already captioned when received pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

So does this mean that the deaf community can not expect "poor" churches to caption, ever? Should we be pressuring the FCC to change its rules for exemptions? I'm not sure that can even be done, because the regulations are based on legislation passed by Congress.

What DOES have to change, is attitude! The attitude that producers of any video programming do not have to plan for captioning costs as a matter of routine! Captioning has been around for many years, yet as I read petition after petition, many of the petitioners were claiming that they found out about the requirement to caption "too late" to budget for it. Or they "didn't know" about the requirement to caption.

Captions in Our Future? Depends on the FCC!

I didn't think I would ever get done! After I saw the alerts from Ed and Mishkazena regarding the huge number of requests for captioning exemptions to the FCC, I decided to tackle a huge project. It took most of the weekend! The huge list of requests in a Word doc, and the list on the FCC website, was not organized by state. So I decided to organize it myself to make it easier for people to submit their comments in the SHORT time frame we have for action.

The result can be seen at http://www.captions.org/FCC_List.cfm (Object to Captioning Exemptions). Scroll down the list (sorry the page is wide because the titles of some petitions were very long!) Select the ones near you, then use the result in a personal letter to the FCC (e-mail addresses are provided).

While I was working on this project, I made some interesting observations:

1. Many petitioners are using high-priced DC lawyers! They cry poverty, yet they are paying expensive lawyers to file the petitions for them! The use of law firms made it difficult to figure out the actual location of the petitioners, but with the help of Google I was able to identify at least the states that they are actually in. In a few cases I created additional records to reflect the fact that the companies had a presence in multiple locations.
2. Several are production companies that specialize in making infomercials for multiple clients. Infomercials are not exempt from captioning requirements (see FCC page at
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1997/da972701.txt and search on keyword "infomercials.")
4. Some were filing multiple petitions for different shows from same producer - e.g.
U.S. Media Concepts. I created a single record for U.S. Media Concepts.
5. Some are actually owned by larger media companies.
6. Although the majority are churches, it is not just churches! The list includes real estate companies, doctors, universities, community colleges, car dealerships, tourist organizations, an entire city, a school district, a state department of education, a show on parenting, and high school sports.

Gallaudet Faces a Catch-22?

The information in today's Washington Post article "A Conflict on Integity Surfaces: Gallaudet is Roiled by Charges that Academic Standards Have Been Compromised" contains information that is not new to those of us who have been following deaf blogs. The paragraph that got to me the most:

"There are some students who cannot multiply 4 x 4 and come up with 16 without a calculator," and others who cannot read English well enough to comprehend a basic news story, faculty members reported to the board last year.

We already knew about the low graduation rate. We already knew that many Gallaudet students arrived at school ill-prepared for college-level work. What stunned me about this paragraph is that I did not know it was THAT bad. How in the world can students who can't multiply 4x4 in their heads or read a basic newspaper article, be expected to handle college-level work? They can't.

As the article reports, Gallaudet faces a dual challenge: get enough warm bodies in seats AND also educate these ill-prepared warm bodies. It is a catch-22. If Gallaudet raises academic standards, it risks not being able to get enough warm bodies because today's deaf/hoh students with adequate skills, have so many other options educationally. If Gallaudet lowers academic standards in order to admit enough students to meet enrollment goals, Gallaudet puts its own reputation at risk.

If the horror stories I heard today from an interpreter are any indication, Gallaudet's reputation is ALREADY suffering! Today an interpreter told me the following tales:

1) a deaf Gallaudet student intern who majored in computers, was unable to open up Microsoft Word to type, on the job. The employer was so distressed that the employer swore to never again hire a Gallaudet student intern.
2) another Gallaudet graduate with limited skills was found to have falsified an academic transcript by putting their name on someone else's transcript.
3) another employer found themselves with a poorly-skilled intern from Gallaudet. This employer could have rejected the student, but fortunately the employer had previous experience with higher-skilled deaf employees, and was able to be patient with the deaf student. However, as the interpreter remarked, if this had been the employer's first encounter with a deaf person...

Gallaudet's alumni need to be really involved in the effort to "fix" Gallaudet because the alumni's careers may suffer if Gallaudet's reputation does not improve. I am thankful that I already have a job, because as more and more prospective employers become aware of the quality of Gallaudet's students as described above by the interpreter, it could become harder for alumni to find jobs even if they have been employed for awhile.

On my way home from work, I had a cyber-chat with a parent of a learning disabled Gallaudet student who explained Gallaudet's remedial program to me. I started the conversation by asking the parent what they thought of the article in the Post. The parent thought that the students described in the paragraph quoted above, had learning disabilities. The parent also wondered if Gallaudet was evaluating students differently from the way they were being evaluated in high school. According to this parent, Gallaudet uses a special test called the Compass test. The Compass ESL test, given by ACT, is used to rate students in English and math.

There is no information on Gallaudet's website about their remedial program. The parent told me that if you do not pass the remedial courses within two years, you are kicked out of Gallaudet. The remedial program consists of the following courses, which do not count towards graduation: ALT (Applied Literacy) courses, and MAT (Math) 011, 012, and 013. The course descriptions are available in the undergraduate catalog. Students in these courses must pass BOTH the courses AND the Compass test to become full-fledged Gallaudet students.

I asked the parent where their child would go if the child did not successfully complete the remedial program. The parent said they hoped their child would succeed because there was "no place else." For ill-prepared students, Gallaudet may be their only hope for a college degree to help them compete in a modern job marketplace that demands at least a bachelor's degree for most professional jobs.

During the protest, Fernandes had remarked that she wanted those ill-prepared students to attend community colleges before coming to Gallaudet. One problem with that idea - if these ill-prepared students did not develop enough skills when they were mainstreamed, in a deaf center program, or in a deaf school, how can they be expected to learn those missing skills in a community college program with interpreters?

Former candidate Ron Stern had said he wanted to focus on strengthening the educational programs that Gallaudet's students were coming from, instead of rejecting unprepared students outright. Did Stern have the right idea? Or should Gallaudet be focusing on bringing unprepared warm bodies up to speed? As one commenter on MishkaZena's site put it, should Gallaudet officially re-establish a preparatory program? It would just be a re-named remedial program, with some extra features. It would probably cost $$, but the cost to Gallaudet if they don't set up a new prep program, could be far greater.

Howard University Versus Gallaudet University

People are still reacting to the recent Gallaudet protests, as evidenced by today's letter to the editor by Frank Nicolai in today's Washington Post newspaper. Nicolai blasts Kathleen Wood's earlier letter that said the new Gallaudet would not be for everyone. He questions whether the Federal government should be supporting a "noninclusive vision" for Gallaudet to the tune of $100 million a year (actually $108 million in FY 2007).

According to that man's logic, the Federal government should not be supporting Howard University either! Howard's funding is $237 million in Fiscal Year 2007 - twice what Gallaudet gets. Howard University is a BLACK college. It does welcome white students in limited numbers, just as Gallaudet welcomes hearing students in limited numbers. However, Howard has remained a BLACK college just as Gallaudet should remain a DEAF college. Therefore, can Howard be called a "noninclusive" college?

Let's get one thing straight. Gallaudet IS an inclusive place. People who do not sign are welcome to attend Gallaudet. But, they ARE expected to at least try to learn sign language. They can be as oral as they like in private among other oral people, but in public - meaning the classroom at least - they should be at least trying to use sign language. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

In recent articles, people have been quoted as saying that deaf people have plenty of choices on where to attend college if they prefer oral communication. "Can't we have one place where we can sign?" That's a quote from the recent news articles that sticks in the head, because it makes so much sense. There are plenty of community colleges, plenty of four-year colleges, and plenty of deaf programs on the campuses of hearing colleges, that both oral and signing deaf can attend. Even Gallaudet's sister college, NTID, is on the campus of a hearing college. But, as someone put it earlier, "There's only one Gallaudet."

Boston Globe Op_Ed Gets It All Wrong

Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young has written an editorial column on the Unity for Gallaudet movement that gets everything wrong. Not only that, it is very biased against the Unity for Gallaudet participants. The FSSA's work is far from done - there is a lot of misunderstanding in the hearing world, and even among deaf (not Deaf) people, that needs to be corrected as a result of the far-reaching coverage of the Unity for Gallaudet protest.

1. She refers to Elizabeth Zinser, the hearing temporary president from 1988, as "Singer." She obviously did not do her homework.
2. She promotes the image of "identity politics gone mad" when the Unity for Gallaudet participants have made it clear that it is not about identity politics at all.
3. She zeroes in on the "not deaf enough" thing. We bloggers have already debunked that, ad nauseum. She also claims that the protestors "backed off" from that "argument" when the argument was never made in the first place. It was NOT the protestors who made the "not deaf enough" remark but the media picked it up from the original source and ran with it.
   
4. She blasts the short but excellent letter written to the Washington Post by Kathleen Wood.
5. Her definition of deaf culture would be accurate if she had not used the word "radical." Deaf culture is not radical.
6. Like many hearing people, she has a hard time grasping the concept of deafness as a disability, yet we do not consider ourselves disabled because we are quite capable people. Our deafness is a disability only in that it creates barriers, and we have to deal with discrimination.
7. She claims most deaf people do not belong to Deaf culture. That may be true, but oral deaf people do belong to the deaf community even if they are not "culturally" deaf.
8. She mischaracterizes many schools for the deaf. She says they pay only lip service to auditory skills. That's an insult to the many schools for the deaf and programs for the deaf that work to teach children to both sign and speak.
   
9. Not only that, she claims oral deaf schools have been targeted for protests? Can someone explain that one to me?
10. She claims deaf people have railed against cochlear implants. Like many in the hearing world, she continues to believe that deaf people as a majority are strongly opposed to implants. As we already know, more and more Deaf people are getting them. Plus she says deaf parents have denied implants to their deaf children? At the protest march to capitol hill, I saw deaf parents with implanted deaf children in strollers.
11. She claims deaf people oppose research into deafness in an effort to find "cures."
12. She has totally swallowed the argument that the protestors don't accept technology. I am not going to bother repeating what other deaf bloggers have said to debunk this statement.

Low Expectations from Teachers

Gotham Gal reports on a fundraiser for the League of Hard of Hearing. Near the end of her blog post, she gives the example of a teenage girl telling the audience how her teacher had told her she could only expect to work at McDonald's. That had me wondering how many teachers out there are telling their deaf and hard of hearing students they have low expectations of them? Fortunately, this girl did not listen and had higher expectations for herself.

However, there may be deaf and hard of hearing students out there who have teachers who are telling them similar things. Some of them may actually believe it, and lower their expectations of themselves. How can the deaf community prevent that from happening in an era where most deaf and hard of hearing children are mainstreamed?

Fire Destroys Part of Deaf Home in Liberia

Just saw via a blog that there was a fire that destroyed part of a deaf children's home in Liberia. Details are on the website of ChildrenConcerned.org. They are working on building a new home, and also a school for the deaf. I don't know if this will be the first school for the deaf in Liberia or not.

No Deaf Teens in Archie Comics?

Remember Archie and the gang? All perfectly normal hearing teenagers. I have never seen a recurring deaf teenage character in Archie comics. (One of the gang, Moose, does have dyslexia.) Aside from Moose, the only disabled teenage Archie characters I have seen have been in public service announcement comic strips. As far as deafness in Archie comics, I know of only two stories in Archie comics that featured deafness: the first one was Archie meeting a little deaf girl in the early 70s, and the other one was about a hearing teen girl with a deaf mother.

If you want to see a deaf recurring character in Archie comics, you can send them e-mail via their Talkback page. In case the link goes dead, the e-mail address is talkback@archiecomics.com.

Why am I blogging about this? I am blogging about it because as silly as it may sound, I believe Archie comics is presenting an unrealistic picture of teenage life to their young child readers. When I was a child, I eagerly read Archie comics, wondering if my own teenage years would be like that. When today's children read Archie comics, they are seeing a world in which none of the teenagers has a disability except for Moose, and his dyslexia is not mentioned much.

The newspaper comic strip "For Better or For Worse" does have a recurring teenager with a disability: April's friend Shannon.

Hey, after all the Gallaudet stuff, I wanted to post something fun...what can be more fun than comic books?