Audism and Discrimination
The Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD) describes audism as the assumption the all Deaf people should become more like non-Deaf people and to disempower the Deaf by making choices about their education, language, and services that they may require (CAD, 2012). Harlan Lane has gracefully summed up this idea with the quote, "Hearing people have enormous control over the lives of Deaf people (Lane, 1992)."
Closed Captioning is a service that should be provided to the Deaf community. It is unfortunate that hearing people have control over the accuracy of closed captions, and the decision to close caption. The lawsuits filed by NAD against Netflix, Harvard, and M.I.T are an example of the proper steps being taken to help fight audism and discrimination.
By making the choice to not use closed captioning, one is choosing to discriminate against the Deaf community and exclude them from being able to fully access materials such as YouTube, television, online materials, and educational materials. Not only is it discriminatory and audist, but it is also a direct violation of both the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which were put in place to make the world fully accessible for everyone, not just hearing or fully able people.
It is true what NAD said before, if Netflix chose to silence their streaming service 70%-80% of the time, the hearing population would not accept this provision. Closed captioning is a service that should be provided, and to withhold this service from the population is audist, discriminatory, and a violation of civil rights (NAD, 2011).
The Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD) describes audism as the assumption the all Deaf people should become more like non-Deaf people and to disempower the Deaf by making choices about their education, language, and services that they may require (CAD, 2012). Harlan Lane has gracefully summed up this idea with the quote, "Hearing people have enormous control over the lives of Deaf people (Lane, 1992)."
Closed Captioning is a service that should be provided to the Deaf community. It is unfortunate that hearing people have control over the accuracy of closed captions, and the decision to close caption. The lawsuits filed by NAD against Netflix, Harvard, and M.I.T are an example of the proper steps being taken to help fight audism and discrimination.
By making the choice to not use closed captioning, one is choosing to discriminate against the Deaf community and exclude them from being able to fully access materials such as YouTube, television, online materials, and educational materials. Not only is it discriminatory and audist, but it is also a direct violation of both the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which were put in place to make the world fully accessible for everyone, not just hearing or fully able people.
It is true what NAD said before, if Netflix chose to silence their streaming service 70%-80% of the time, the hearing population would not accept this provision. Closed captioning is a service that should be provided, and to withhold this service from the population is audist, discriminatory, and a violation of civil rights (NAD, 2011).