Anthony Nicholas wrote:
>So tell me, what is the better use of resources - providing a cochlear
>implant for ONE deaf person to benefit from, or ploughing the same money
>into a sign language interpreter, thereby benefiting far more deaf people.
I think this argument is a dangerous one. Saying that the choice is EITHER
the cochlear implant OR the interpreter itself creates discrimination and
competition for resources which works against social justice, especially
as, in all probability, the choice will be made for the implant simply
because that choice fits with the dominant discourse on disability. We
could carry on this argument ad infinitum e.g. there are even more people
who could use speech-to-text transcription services for access and there
are even less STT reporters than sign language interpreters. Thus the
argument says nothing about people's rights in relation to disabling
barriers and risks fragmenting the disability movement.
>
Whereas I agree that
>it's the fact that society is not comfortable
>with us, does not know how to deal with us, ad infinitum.
that doesn't mean that we have to re-produce society's tendency to
discriminate in pursuing the rights of particular interest groups above all
others or on the basis of number crunching.
Best wishes
Mairian
>
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|