[PASSED] Language and Education Rights For Deaf Individuals

[Morover]

While I acknowledge the rights of the deaf and strongly support their fair treatment, I must oppose this proposal on the ground of national sovereignty.

Deacarsia already has a substantial network of privately run schools for the deaf.

OOC:

"I oppose this so that it does not infringe on my rights. We have already implemented the significant clauses."

[Potted Plants United]

I don't know. I need to think about it.

OOC: I can try to help you. Tomorrow. After many hours of sleep. Right now brain no worky so much and reserving what little juice is left for the following...

re CODA education: Now, I'm not an expert on childhood development, but I'd imagine that, while babbling is important, having the native language of children being a sign language is not "deny[ing] a hearing child normal development"

It's not the babbling. It's the feedback. Communication is a feedback loop. Look up some of the data that's available online about the horrible "child farms" of abandoned unwanted children in former Soviet Block nations and China that existed at least a decade ago, still, where normally hearing children were not given adequate socialization or the feedback loop necessary for developing verbal communication skills, and how that worked as an unfortunate chance to advance developmental sciences by studying the problems that continued even through extensive rehabilitation and therapy issues.

Basically, speech doesn't develope in a vacuum. And if a child with normal hearing does not get feedback from their environment that making noises is a good thing, they will eventually stop. Deaf children babble too, at a certain point of development, it's that ingrained into our species, but because in their case they lack the feedback loop from their own ears, even if their hearing parents responded adequately, they will eventually stop. For language development to progress from babbling to speech, there needs to be a lot of the feedback-looping. Sign language does not work as it's not a verbal language, it's not "meaningful noises" (which is what all spoken languages really are). Children learn to speak largely by mimicking. If they lack the example to mimic from, at the very least it's going to set back their language development of spoken language, and can lead to issues with socializing with other hearing people later on.

I honestly suggest looking up one of the million websites made for parents-to-be and reading about babies'/toddlers' language development. And yes I get that NS doesn't equal RL and that thus it's not 100% match, given the different species, but it's a start!

Furthermore, it's not as if I'm forcing hearing children to go to deaf schools - it's that I'm giving parents the option to send their children to a school that adequately corresponds to the way they were raised.

So a deaf child's hearing parents should be able to send their child to a school for hearing kids without any extra help given, simply because that adequately corresponds to the way they were raised? Do you honestly not see the problem?

I may add in something to the effect of "If a parent of a CODA is preventing their child from functioning with hearing society in a developmentally or socially detrimental way, local representatives may be brought in to resolve a dispute."

I think it'd go way beyond that and get picked up by the Child Abuse Ban resolution. I mean, given how huge DISSERVICE you're allowing the parents to inflict on their child (basically you'd be producing mute children who have no problem hearing, but never learned to speak/understand a spoken language, like would have been normal), I honestly cannot even fathom it wouldn't be called child abuse by deprivation of some kind even in RL.

You want to give deaf kids the same rights as hearing kids? Great, but don't do it by taking away hearings kids' rights just because their parents happen to be deaf.

OOC: Most of the issues were fixed to my satisfaction with the addition to clause 7 and the change of the definition of a school for the deaf.

[Morover]

OOC: Bumping this, with responses to Ara.

re CODA education: Now, I'm not an expert on childhood development, but I'd imagine that, while babbling is important, having the native language of children being a sign language is not "deny[ing] a hearing child normal development"

It's not the babbling. It's the feedback. Communication is a feedback loop. Look up some of the data that's available online about the horrible "child farms" of abandoned unwanted children in former Soviet Block nations and China that existed at least a decade ago, still, where normally hearing children were not given adequate socialization or the feedback loop necessary for developing verbal communication skills, and how that worked as an unfortunate chance to advance developmental sciences by studying the problems that continued even through extensive rehabilitation and therapy issues.

Basically, speech doesn't develope in a vacuum. And if a child with normal hearing does not get feedback from their environment that making noises is a good thing, they will eventually stop. Deaf children babble too, at a certain point of development, it's that ingrained into our species, but because in their case they lack the feedback loop from their own ears, even if their hearing parents responded adequately, they will eventually stop. For language development to progress from babbling to speech, there needs to be a lot of the feedback-looping. Sign language does not work as it's not a verbal language, it's not "meaningful noises" (which is what all spoken languages really are). Children learn to speak largely by mimicking. If they lack the example to mimic from, at the very least it's going to set back their language development of spoken language, and can lead to issues with socializing with other hearing people later on.

I honestly suggest looking up one of the million websites made for parents-to-be and reading about babies'/toddlers' language development. And yes I get that NS doesn't equal RL and that thus it's not 100% match, given the different species, but it's a start!

There's this article which discusses stuff similar to this. Specifically, it says: "ASL is a legitimate language for family interaction... Acquisition studies have also shown that Deaf or hearing children acquiring ASL from their Deaf parents learn that language from birth in a very conventional and natural way, attaining signed language milestones (e.g., babbling, first word, sentences) on a timeline similar to that of a child learning a spoken language (Newport & Meier, 1985)." Essentially, CODAs will tend to grow up bilingual regardless. It goes on to say that a CODA only needs about 5-10 hours of interaction time with hearing individuals in order to keep spoken language development on par with hearing children of hearing parents - an amount of time that does not warrant prohibiting parents from sending their children to schools for the deaf. In an ideal world, all parents will listen to their children's wants about where they go to school, but, unfortunately, that is not always the case. While it may be regrettable, I feel that it is less of a loss by putting it in the hands of the parents rather than relegating control over such an issue to minors, even if the parents do not act in the best interest of the children all the time.

Furthermore, it's not as if I'm forcing hearing children to go to deaf schools - it's that I'm giving parents the option to send their children to a school that adequately corresponds to the way they were raised.

So a deaf child's hearing parents should be able to send their child to a school for hearing kids without any extra help given, simply because that adequately corresponds to the way they were raised? Do you honestly not see the problem?

That's a different scenario. Deaf children being sent to a hearing school can directly hinder the educational ability for the deaf child, whereas sending a hearing kid with a foundational knowledge of sign language to a school that specializes in teaching sign language does not. Still, I leave it up to the parents to decide, with the condition that they are strongly urged to send deaf children to the schools for the deaf, which would likely entail educating them about the various positives that result from being sent to a school for the deaf, as well as the various negatives that may result if not sent to a school for the deaf. If it would ease your mind, I can add "or parents of deaf individuals" to clause 2(b), in order to better facilitate this transmission of information.

I may add in something to the effect of "If a parent of a CODA is preventing their child from functioning with hearing society in a developmentally or socially detrimental way, local representatives may be brought in to resolve a dispute."

I think it'd go way beyond that and get picked up by the Child Abuse Ban resolution. I mean, given how huge DISSERVICE you're allowing the parents to inflict on their child (basically you'd be producing mute children who have no problem hearing, but never learned to speak/understand a spoken language, like would have been normal), I honestly cannot even fathom it wouldn't be called child abuse by deprivation of some kind even in RL.

As mentioned prior, it may constitute child abuse if all contact with hearing individuals are cut, but that would occur in a drastic minority of situations.

You want to give deaf kids the same rights as hearing kids? Great, but don't do it by taking away hearings kids' rights just because their parents happen to be deaf.

This, uh, doesn't do that. I think a majority of nations would already allow parents to choose which school to send their child to, and not the child themselves, which is essentially all that this does.

I will work on changing "school for the deaf" to "educational facility for the deaf" or something along those lines now, and edit the post when complete with that.
EDIT: The change has been made, but the proposal is not slightly over the character limit (it is 5041 characters), so I may yet need to change things. Perhaps I can change the name back to "school for the deaf" but keep the definition change, as that would be equally effective but somewhat ugly. Input appreciated.

[Morover]

OOC:

So, to get the draft back under the character limit, I changed "educational amenity" back to "school" - but the definition retains the definition that it had under "educational amenity." It is now at 4889 characters.

As a tentative schedule which is very much subject to change, this will probably be submitted on June 9.

[Tinhampton]

Why do you need to define "hearing" and how does this not fall into the same trap as HR#170 did?

[Kenmoria]

“Putting ‘organisations’ in clause 5 worries me. There might be companies whose industries rely on spoken language to be effective. Singing is a good example. A company of singers would almost certainly need to require deaf students to sing in order to participate.”

[Morover]

Why do you need to define "hearing" and how does this not fall into the same trap as HR#170 did?

OOC: This is more centered around Deaf culture and the prevention of nations suppressing Deaf people and their culture - culturally, "hearing-impaired" is considered rude terminology, and I feel that the UN proposals you linked focus more on what deaf individuals are hindered by, rather than ensuring that member-states do not directly suppress the cultural communities that arise from a shared trait - specifically, deafness.

“Putting ‘organisations’ in clause 5 worries me. There might be companies whose industries rely on spoken language to be effective. Singing is a good example. A company of singers would almost certainly need to require deaf students to sing in order to participate.”

"The intention is to prevent anybody from forcefully putting hard-of-hearing children through speech therapy if they do not wish to undergo it. I may very well change 'organizations' to 'educational or other childcare organizations,' though I don't know if it's currently an issue. I'll think about it."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Only a few brain cells still firing, so quick notes:

1. I see deaf camps are still a thing, and that deaf parents are still allowed to cripple their hearing children's normal development.

Like, seriously, must a separate school - that is, a separate institution and likely building - be set up, if either integration or separate classes (meaning classrooms and students and courses) in an otherwise hearing kids' school work just fine? As in, if this system already exists and works, why MUST it be replaced with a deaf camp?

And same for why it's so difficult for you to add just a few words somewhere that require CODAs to also receive the same developmental support given to other hearing kids? (Could be added to end of clause 7 as "as long as their child also receives the same developmental support as other non-deaf minors". That way the deaf camp school would have to have a hearing teacher to also teach the CODAs to actually speak a verbal language. If you want equal treatment to minority kids, please extend the same courtesy to majority kids as well.)

2. Clauses 4 & 5 seem to disagree with one another. You "opt in", that is, you start a class to learn to speak (clause 4), but then the teacher can't require you to actually do your homework and rehearsals that you signed up for (clause 5)?

3. I wonder what is a local sign language for an international announcement?

EDIT: Saw the post about the character limit issue. I'll try to think of a way to shorten my suggestion after much sleep has been had.

[Morover]

OOC: Only a few brain cells still firing, so quick notes:

1. I see deaf camps are still a thing, and that deaf parents are still allowed to cripple their hearing children's normal development.

Like, seriously, must a separate school - that is, a separate institution and likely building - be set up, if either integration or separate classes (meaning classrooms and students and courses) in an otherwise hearing kids' school work just fine? As in, if this system already exists and works, why MUST it be replaced with a deaf camp?

And same for why it's so difficult for you to add just a few words somewhere that require CODAs to also receive the same developmental support given to other hearing kids? (Could be added to end of clause 7 as "as long as their child also receives the same developmental support as other non-deaf minors". That way the deaf camp school would have to have a hearing teacher to also teach the CODAs to actually speak a verbal language. If you want equal treatment to minority kids, please extend the same courtesy to majority kids as well.)

2. Clauses 4 & 5 seem to disagree with one another. You "opt in", that is, you start a class to learn to speak (clause 4), but then the teacher can't require you to actually do your homework and rehearsals that you signed up for (clause 5)?

3. I wonder what is a local sign language for an international announcement?

EDIT: Saw the post about the character limit issue. I'll try to think of a way to shorten my suggestion after much sleep has been had.

OOC:
1. Deaf camps no long a thing - terminology remains consistent, due to character limit (as you said you saw), but the definition is still changed. I'll try and add something in on the CODAs since I see your concern, despite the fact that it's largely a nonissue.
2. I think the meaning is clear, but I'll put a small clarification in there.
3. I mean, it would technically be any well-known international non-audial language - though, I'll admit, it's not strictly clear, so I'll edit it slightly.

Will edit the post regarding characters following these changes.
EDIT: Character count was slightly over, but after some finagling of the preamble, it rests at 4986 characters - just fourteen short of the limit.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: A wild suggestion: Would you consider splitting up the educational rights and the deaf schools into separate proposals? Character limit makes addressing both in the same a struggle, as you've found, and also there are so many things that should be added to the part of the schools, like indeed integration into regular schools, since that's a real thing in RL. You could make this one about the rights, and then write a sister proposal about the actual schools and learning institutions. You could expand that latter proposal beyond the basic education as well.

[Morover]

OOC: A wild suggestion: Would you consider splitting up the educational rights and the deaf schools into separate proposals? Character limit makes addressing both in the same a struggle, as you've found, and also there are so many things that should be added to the part of the schools, like indeed integration into regular schools, since that's a real thing in RL. You could make this one about the rights, and then write a sister proposal about the actual schools and learning institutions. You could expand that latter proposal beyond the basic education as well.

OOC: I thought about it initially, though, but the intention of the proposal is to ensure that nations allow sign languages to be allowed and that deaf children are permitted to use those sign languages in their learning, so as to further the cultural heritage of the Deaf communities around the world. While it's possible to make this into two proposals, it is unnecessary to do so when it can be encompassed in one.

In regards to integration into regular schools, the current proposal allows that so long as there is a classroom or set of classrooms/teachers that specialize in teaching deaf students.

[Morover]

OOC: This has been submitted.

[Maowi]

OOC: Good luck!

[Marxist Germany]

"This has my support."

[Isaris]

"Isaris wholeheartedly supports this resolution and applauds the delegation from Morover for its dedication to this issue."

[Grey County]

I tentatively oppose this bill for a couple of reasons. 1. the mandatory audial language class that students can opt into and other restrictions on schools that I feel will put many out of business. I will go over it in more detail and listen to any arguments put forth. I will also consider my WA delegates recommendation. I also feel this threatens our national soverignty. It is a commendable intention but I am leaning towards voting no.

[Christian Democrats]

The Most Holy and Grand Empire strongly supports education and the rights of the disabled. It gladly votes in favor of this proposal.

[Grey County]

After hearing argument,reviewing in depth and considering my WA delegates recommendation I have decided to look over what I don't like about it and vote YES to this resolution. I wish you luck on passing this resolution.

[Comfed]

I take issue with this line:
Forbids nations, schools, or other organizations from requiring deaf students to learn how to speak audial languages, unless explicitly opted in to by the relevant deaf student;

It seems to imply that it is acceptable for deaf students to not learn their countries language in that countries publicly funded schools.

Furthermore, encouraging children to attend a separate school may entail discrimination. During university admissions, there may be an unconscious bias when an administrator may rank a student who attended a school for the deaf lower than a student who has not.

And an even BIGGER NO for making hearing children go to a school that doesn't treat them as hearing children and where they would not have the chance to develope and use their natural form of communication.

Against.

[Kenmoria]

I take issue with this line:
Forbids nations, schools, or other organizations from requiring deaf students to learn how to speak audial languages, unless explicitly opted in to by the relevant deaf student;

It seems to imply that it is acceptable for deaf students to not learn their countries language in that countries publicly funded schools.

(OOC: That is the implication, but I don’t think this is necessarily a bad one. Speaking an audial language is much harder for deaf people, and also might not be of that much use given that a deaf person wouldn’t be able to hear the response. The proposal does not prohibit the mandatory learning of the written form, only the spoken.)

[Morover]

I take issue with this line:
Forbids nations, schools, or other organizations from requiring deaf students to learn how to speak audial languages, unless explicitly opted in to by the relevant deaf student;

It seems to imply that it is acceptable for deaf students to not learn their countries language in that countries publicly funded schools.

How would they speak or understand the language? And, as Kenmoria pointed out, they would still have full access to learn the written form of the language.

Furthermore, encouraging children to attend a separate school may entail discrimination. During university admissions, there may be an unconscious bias when an administrator may rank a student who attended a school for the deaf lower than a student who has not.

And an even BIGGER NO for making hearing children go to a school that doesn't treat them as hearing children and where they would not have the chance to develope and use their natural form of communication.

Against.

Well, first of all, you missed the part of the definition that included the fact that it could just be a classroom in an otherwise hearing-oriented school. Additionally, I feel any inadvertent bias that would arise through the attendance of a school for the deaf would be negated by the fact that, y'know, the Deaf students would actually have a viable and effective way to learn.

[Heavens Reach]

This is one of the best written proposals that we've seen. We do have some concerns that an integrated environment, where education is aimed at teaching non-audial language to hearing children, would, based on research about the benefits of integrated environments, and some concerns about potential segregation, be a better strategy for ensuring that deaf children and CODAs receive an equal quality of education, and live in a society that is both fully equipped to engage in, and fully conscious of the need to, be integrative and egalitarian in all of its aspects, but, barring the appearance of what we might feel to be a stronger repeal and replacement, we are willing to support this resolution fully in its present form.

[Willow Gate]

*snip*

but particularly:

tl;dr: A big YES for making sure deaf individuals have the same rights to learn and partake the socity and culture and such, as everyone else. But a big NO for having a separate school for them as the only possible way of going about it. And an even BIGGER NO for making hearing children go to a school that doesn't treat them as hearing children and where they would not have the chance to develope and use their natural form of communication.

I meet the proposal's definition of "deaf individual", and am voting AGAINST.

I attended a primary school (for age 4-11) with an integrated Deaf Unit. D/deaf children attended classes with hearing children, and where necessary the teacher wore a special microphone tuned into the hearing loop. The D/deaf children also had some lessons in the Deaf Unit, and hearing children additionally had some lessons in sign language (BSL, as this was in the UK).

Supporting D/deaf and HOH people shouldn't be about giving those people skills to navigate a hostile auditory environment; it should be about adjusting the environment to give them as full access as possible. I can see why the proposal is superficially attractive, but it does not address systemic bars to access, or outright discrimination.

Better legislation supporting D/deaf and HOH people might, for example:

(1) require interpretation into local sign language and subtitles of all government broadcasts
(2) recognise the local sign language as an official language of that nation
(3) require schools to offer the relevant local sign language as a MFL option for both hearing children and CODA (e.g. would be BSL in the UK, Auslan in Australia, WGSL in Willow Gate, etc)
(4) require schools to offer the relevant local spoken language as a MFL option for D/deaf and HOH children and CODA (rather than forcing them to learn it as a first language only)
(5) require closed captions on all commercial and official tv/video output, including advertising*
(6) require businesses with phone services to offer video calls or text chat
(7) prohibit businesses with in-person contact from placing visual barriers at face/mouth level (e.g. high glass counters/sneeze guards with signs or products near eye level preventing lip reading)
(8) require all announcements over PA to be duplicated in visual format (e.g. screens with written information)

* this and other examples would be mirrored by requirements for audio description or alt text for images and videos.

[Kenmoria]

(1) require interpretation into local sign language and subtitles of all government broadcasts
(2) recognise the local sign language as an official language of that nation
(3) require schools to offer the relevant local sign language as a MFL option for both hearing children and CODA (e.g. would be BSL in the UK, Auslan in Australia, WGSL in Willow Gate, etc)
(4) require schools to offer the relevant local spoken language as a MFL option for D/deaf and HOH children and CODA (rather than forcing them to learn it as a first language only)
(5) require closed captions on all commercial and official tv/video output, including advertising*
(6) require businesses with phone services to offer video calls or text chat
(7) prohibit businesses with in-person contact from placing visual barriers at face/mouth level (e.g. high glass counters/sneeze guards with signs or products near eye level preventing lip reading)
(8) require all announcements over PA to be duplicated in visual format (e.g. screens with written information)

* this and other examples would be mirrored by requirements for audio description or alt text for images and videos.

(OOC: The majority of those actions are not disallowed by this proposal. It would be possible for all of those requirements to be instituted both at the national and international level with this proposal having passed.)

[Potted Plants United]

And an even BIGGER NO for making hearing children go to a school that doesn't treat them as hearing children and where they would not have the chance to develope and use their natural form of communication.

Against.

OOC: That was actually fixed. See clause 7 latter part.

Also, while I'm not a fan of the banning of integration of deaf kids into a hearing class when technology and interpretor presence so allows, at least the definition change on what counts as a school for the deaf allows them to go to the same schools with hearing children.

So I've voted for.