On March 1, 2010, ASHA's latest revision of its code of ethics became effective. It includes a controversial revision, but you won't find a single word about it in the latest issue of The ASHA Leader. Zip. Nada.
Maybe the ASHA Leader should be renamed "The ASHA Misleader."
ASHA's code of ethics was revised to include protection for gender identity/gender expression along with race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.
Take a look:
"Principle of Ethics I, Rule CASHA's code of ethics now covers transsexuals and cross-dressers.
C. Individuals shall not discriminate in the delivery of professional services or the conduct of research and scholarly activities on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity/gender expression, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability." (Italics mine).
"Principle of Ethics IV, Rule K (formerly H)
H K. Individuals shall not discriminate in their relationships with colleagues, students, and members of other professions and disciplines on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, gender identity/gender expression, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability." (Italics mine).
Don't you just love surprises?
ASHA, the country's largest gay rights organization - whoops! I keep forgetting! ASHA is the country's largest speech, language, and hearing organization - loves surprises.
The revision was approved by ASHA's board of directors.
How much ASHA time and resources were used to accomplish this revision? Were ASHA offices, office supplies, computers, phones, travel allowances, etc., used? And how many of ASHA's 306 employees worked on this during salaried time (meaning salaried time your dues paid for)?
Oh, did I mention that ASHA can impose serious sanctions on ASHA members who violate its code of ethics, including revoking membership and certification for life?
A life sentence; imagine that. Do ASHA's thought police have their own version of Gitmo hidden away in Rockville, Maryland headquarters (you know what they say: no headquarters is complete without a soundproof interrogation room). Will cross-dressing commandants use Gucci purses to flog SLPs found guilty of thinking politically incorrect thoughts?
Question: do you get the feeling that ASHA might have - perhaps, maybe, possibly - slipped this revision past the membership?
What’s that you say? You don't think transsexual and cross-dresser rights have anything to do with speech, language, and hearing? You don’t remember the ASHA Leader giving this revision the attention that it deserved? You don't remember the pros and cons of this revision being widely and freely discussed? You don't think ASHA handled this in the way that a transparent, responsible, accountable, and trustworthy organization without anything to hide would have handled it?
Who cares what you think? Who are you? You are nothing but a measly, insignificant, dues-paying member, and your opinion doesn't mean squat.
Just hand over your dues, shut up, and submit!
And there are people who still claim that ASHA only throws its weight behind issues instantly recognizable as being relevant to speech, language, and hearing professionals; that ASHA is apolitical, unbiased, and non-partisan; and that ASHA cares what its members think.
Whatever.
Remember what I wrote in a previous post:
An organization whose purpose it is to promote the professional interests of its members strays from its mission when it makes another unrelated goal a priority. At the very least, this could be a sign that the organization has lost its focus and clarity of purpose.
And at worst, it could mean the organization has been hijacked by individuals within the organization who are using it to pursue their own political agendas - agendas that may be antithetical to the values and beliefs of the organization's members.
Posts
