Deafness in Society: Session 7 |
|||
| [an error occurred while processing this directive] | Clark Denmark
|
| You should read the book Deaf Liberation by Raymond Lee (1992). It contains a range of articles which were written by the members of the team and a number of other articles, most notably by Conrad and Harlan Lane. |
7.1 The National Union of the Deaf
The NUD was an organisation of deaf people, set up in 1976, rather like
the gatherings of the very first groups of deaf people in the 19the century. They wished
to challenge the status quo - the way things were for deaf people and they wished to make
deaf people aware themselves of their rights, their needs and the way in which these were
being refused by hearing people.
The National Union of the Deaf (NUD) was founded in Wimbledon, London, on March 13th 1976
when deaf people assembled to form an organisation exclusively run by themselves. It aims
were “To Restore the Rights of the Deaf” and since that time it has become a
pressure group, initiating and involving other deaf people in campaigns, usually focused
on issues of sign language and deaf involvement in decisions that affect deaf persons.
Ladd, 1982, Entry in Gallaudet Encyclopedia of Deafness.
The NUD began as a small group who wished to present a case for deaf recognition. They set
up a campaign to spread Total Communication and were very active in promoting signing in
school. They leafleted conferences and gatherings of teachers and they were highly
critical of what had gone on before.
Few of you seem to understand the strains of lip-reading used on its own, Over a long
period it is boring as if you yourselves had to listen to a monotonous mumble all the
time……
By the use of the oral-only system you are killing and impoverishing the deaf world. This
does not mean that the younger deaf are joining the hearing worlds. No; it means that they
come to us emotionally and socially retarded, offering older deaf no new ideas nor even
the ability to accept responsibility. The greatest disadvantage of the oral system is that
it creates in our language , the Dummification Process
Ladd, 1976, 2nd letter to Teachers
There is no doubt that the NUD was a significant and powerful aspect of the change in
teachers’ attitudes, yet as Ladd has pointed out, it also made enemies of the
establishment. The words of the NUD briefings and campaigns were highly emotional and in
some ways naïve. But it can also be seen that they had to be. In order to reflect the
frustration and exclusion which deaf people felt (no deaf people were in schools and so
there were no role models for deaf children), the language had to represent the reaction
of deaf people to finding out that their education did not prepare them for the world
outside.
Many teachers listened. The NUD had chosen a good time. A large scale survey of American
deaf children had been conducted in the early 1970s and had continued each year. Conrad
had completed a national study of deaf children’s achievements. People had begun to
question how effective education was. Things began to change.
7.2 NUD and Deaf Organisations
One of the targets for criticisms were there the national deaf organisations. None of hem
met the requirements which the NUD had. All of them had hearing directors. In fact all of
them had always had hearing people in control - even the BDA. In the first NUD pamphlet,
it set out its case clearly.
Of the RNID: “ it offers a good hearing aid service. But somewhere, it has lost its
way”. They pointed out that RNID had very few deaf people working for them and gave
the impression that deaf people could not do things.
Of the NDCS: “Most of their members are very middle class and this really puts
ordinary people off. Their biggest fault is their paternalistic way of life. Hearing
parents know what is best for you, so shut and don’t argue.” They believed that
NDCS did not have any understanding of deafness at all.
Of the BDA: “..it has become FOSSILISED. Deaf clubs are on the decline….. The
views of thousands of deaf people waiting to be acted upon. And what do we find? A small
bunch of hearing people who have run out of steam and energy, making noises and vaguely
trying to influence people ..” The main view was that BDA was incapable of working
politically and should leave this to the NUD.
Of the Breakthrough Trust: They were elitist and were dominated by deaf people who did not
sign well.
From this base, NUD did battle with all of the professions involved in deafness. They were
able to have an impact on may individuals but mostly the larger organisations closed ranks
and excluded the NUD. However there was still change happening around all these things.
The NUD succeeded in getting the Department for Education to discuss sign language and to
convene meetings about it. Up to this time, the NUD is still recognised by the DfEE as a
member organisation which should be included in all official mailings.
7.3 The NUD and Human Rights
Ladd (1982) explains that the NUD looked at the various legislation to
determine which might be relevant to deaf people. One special focus was the United
Nation’ Rights for Disabled people.
The NUD proceeded from the logic that Deaf people were a linguistic (BSL-using) minority
to see if the United Nation’s Rights of Disabled People protected them. Finding that
the rights did not, the NUD turned to the UN’s International Convention on Political
and Civil Rights and found protection there for linguistic minorities under Article 27.
The NUD then detailed the ways that this article and UN’s Charter of Rights of the
Child were infringed by oralism. The NUD also discovered three clauses relating to the
destruction of linguistic minorities n the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the crime of genocide that might be applicable to the situation faced by
deaf people in the UK.
The evidence was sent to e UN’s Human Rights Commission in 1982. The significance of
the document is as yet unmeasured but the NUD has suggested that oralist practices
throughout the world can be brought to a halt through legal means. Ladd (1982)
The representation to the UN did not change the laws but again it was part of the general
process of raising awareness.
7.4 The NUD and ordinary deaf people
A fundamental aim of the NUD was to make ordinary deaf people aware. This
was done by going to deaf clubs ad by talking directly to deaf people. It was recognised
that written material did not reach all deaf people but it was not yet possible for deaf
people to be reached by video.
…. The NUD provides help for individuals (members and non-members) and encourages
others to fulfil their potential in Deaf work. The NUD believes that it is crucial to have
grass roots deaf people involved in a activities rather than creating a deaf elite to
replace hearing one.
This made a major change in deaf people’s views of themselves and paved the way for
the great steps forward which were taken in the 1980s. Deaf people became more aware of
their own possibilities.
7.6 The NUD and the Media
One major success of the NUD was to establish sign language on television.
Because of their campaigning they were able to produce the first deaf programme - Signs of
Life. This led quite directly to the programming of See Hear in 1981. The impact of this
recognition by television which is supposedly a visual medium was enormous. Deaf people
could see each other and see signing on television.
In all their campaigns, the NUD made a point of ensuring media coverage. They used tactics
which would excite the Press and television. They had conspicuous success at the
Manchester Congress on the Education of the Deaf in 1986 when their protests at cochlear
implants and other issues reached the national news bulletins. These actions did not in
themselves change the implementation of programmes but they gave other deaf people
confidence and leadership and suggested possibilities which they had never had.
7.6 The NUD and Liberation
In many respects the NUD can be compared to a liberation movement in any
developing country. They chose to challenge the establishment and even chose to criticise
their own deaf colleagues. They used tactics which were outside of the system. They
presented their messages in an emotional way. They were determined to be heard and to use
the media. There have been fewer campaigns in recent years and there has been a greater
involvement in deaf organisations as they have all acquired deaf chief executives.
Education has changed although he major targets of mainstreaming and cochlear implants
still remain.
The NUD has still got a job to do.
