Glenn Beck: Did You Ever Really Lose Your Voice?

Although Glenn Beck has asked a very important question that I have never thought about. If today was the last day you had a voice, what would you say? I began to think about the question and I realized a few important things.

Glenn Beck relies on a narrow definition of the word "voice." He uses it as using your vocal chords to express your thoughts, feelings and ideas. And based on that, it can be a scary thing if you are not able to talk. It also might prompt people to begin to reconsider their words and the effect it has on other people and how they might choose their words more carefully.

Like Glenn Beck, I make a living communicating. I am an attorney. I use my words to defend clients in court or to help them resolve their legal problems. I write memorandums, briefs, letters and other documents for my clients. I understand how important words are and how powerful our voices can be.

I am also an individual with a profound hearing loss. Not only can I communicate by talking but I use my hands to speak. I learned American Sign Language (ASL) when I was in high school. I use ASL to speak with my Deaf clients or to talk with my friends.

Because of my hearing loss and my profession, You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. EVER. You might lose the ability to speak as a result of some medical condition. You might have your voice restricted, suppressed or silenced by a repressive government.  Someone could physically prevent you from speaking by putting duct tape over your mouth or throwing you in prison. 

How you feel, think and see the world can never be suppressed. The Soviet Government is a good example of this. No matter how much they tried to control people's speech, the good people found a way to make their voices heard. An underground movement known as Samizdat was formed in which people wrote letters, poems, articles and essays expressing their views. With all the might that the former USSR had, it  couldn't suppress speech. 

As a result, our 1st Amendment right can never be taken away. It will always be there. You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. The 1st Amendment takes a broad view of speech. It protects all forms of communication. But our voices doesn't have to be made by sound or put down on paper.  That's the cool thing about American Sign Language.  Your voice is also found in your hands, eyes, and body. That is what makes ASL beautiful and awesome.What is in your heart or in your mind can be expressed through your body. Even ASL is protected under the 1st Amendment. 

So Glenn, you might lose your ability to talk, but you will never lose your voice. I recommend that you learn American Sign Language. You are a passionate man with lots of things to say. However, I suggest you expand the way you use your voice to include American Sign Language. You will never see the world the same again and how you express yourself and your ideas will never be the same. 

I know you might not be able to talk, but you will always have your voice.

What Is The Accurate Definition For Audism?

Recently, the Online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has added a new word to its dictionary: audism. Many deaf people are excited about it since Deaf people have been fighting hard to get the word included in the dictionary. 

However, the Online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language's definitions is not the full, complete and accurate definition of the word audism. They define it as "discrimination or prejudice against people based on the fact that their ability to hear is impaired or absent."

Let me explain why that definition doesn't fully capture the meaning of that word. 

Audism, like all prejudicial labels (racist, sexists), does not specify who the direction of gave the offense and who received the offense. Thus, audism can go both ways. Gallaudet has a better and more accurate definition of Audism. They affirm the fact audism is an act of discrimination that can go both ways by stating that "persons who practice audism are called audists. Audists may be hearing or deaf." 

Linguistically speaking, the Online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language's definition for audism is questionable when this term is compared with other prejudicial terms such as racism or sexism. Here, audism as generally used by the deaf population and provided on the net, does not work with well other similar labels because audism is defined as only goes in one direction (people who are against Deaf culture) whereas the definition for racism, fore example, can be applied to any person of color who is prejudicial towards other people of another color. 

As Gallaudet explains in its website, audism comes from two latin words:  (1) Latin audire, to hear, and (2) -ism, a system of practice, behavior, belief, or attitude. Thus, based on the way the word is put together, "audism" should to mean simply "discrimination based on one's deafness or hearing status," in the same the way racism means "discrimination based on race" or sexism means "discrimination based on sex." Thus, audism ought to include Deaf people who discriminate against hearing people. 

Thus, Online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language's definition of audism is incorrect since it describes discrimination and oppression as only going in one direction (hearing against deaf) and not going the other way (deaf against hearing). 

When Deaf people use the word audism, it doesn't accurately describe what the deaf people actually mean to say. When Deaf people use this term, they use it describe oppression or prejudice those who have a hearing loss. To resolve the incorrect usage of audism, it has been suggested that "Deafism" be used as the word to correctly demonstrate oppression or prejudice. This suggestion seems to be an acceptable solution to this linguistic problem.