This site is not in any way affiliated with ASHA


Learn The Truth About The American Speech-Language Hearing Association

The Website ASHA Doesn't Want You To Know About

79,850 Better informed visitors Since March, 2010!







3/29/10

Lifetime Cost Of ASHA: $18,600

If you plan on having a thirty-year career as an SLP, it could cost you $18,600 over that period to both maintain your ASHA membership and pay for ASHA CEUs. And that amount doesn't even include your state licensing renewal fees and the cost of CE Registry (more about that in a future post).
ASHA currently charges $225 for renewal for certified members (of course, that's the current cost; we all can expect that to increase in the future). Multiply that times thirty years of practice:
$225 X 30 yrs = $6,750.
That's just the beginning of ASHA's cut of your salary, though. You need CEUs (ASHA decreed that you needed CEUs, so - presto! - you get another financial burden added to your practice).
Looking at ASHA's latest catalog , we find that the average cost of 0.2 ASHA CEUs is $79. You need 3.0 CEUs every three years to maintain your CCCs.
$79 X 15 (3.0 divided by 0.2 = 15) = $1,185.
$1,185 X 10 (you'll need to buy CEUs ten times over the course of a thirty-year career) = $11,850.
$11,850 plus $6,750 = $18,600 - Lifetime cost of ASHA
Let me put that into better perspective for you:
If the average hourly SLP salary is $30.34 (based on an average of school-based slp salaries found on the internet),
$18,600 divided by 30.34 = 613 hours
613 hours divided by a 7.5 work day = 81.7 days = 16 weeks = 4 months





This means that you will spend four months of your life working to pay off your ASHA fees:


September, October, November, December - that's almost half a school year spent working to support ASHA.






Just keep repeating the following phrase to yourself, over  and over:
"ASHA is worth it, ASHA is worth it, ASHA is worth it..."

3/22/10

Latest Issue Of ASHA Leader Fails To Mention Controversial Ethics Code Revision

(Be sure to read ASHA's Gay Policy Agenda Exposed )

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 C
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).
ASHA's code of ethics now covers transsexuals and cross-dressers.
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.

3/21/10

ASHA Leader Describes Catholic Letter Writer's Opinion As "Anti-Gay Viewpoint," Allows Letters Describing Same As "Homophobic," "Bigoted Viewpoints"

Back in the January 19, 2010 issue of The ASHA Leader, an ASHA member expressed her concern that
...our profession, its science and integrity have become subordinate in this particular venue to what is now considered politically correct.
She went on to state:
As a practicing Catholic first and a practicing speech-language pathologist second, it is in direct opposition to my faith to support the "social platform" of those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle and its promotion. 
As I showed , ASHA includes support of a gay rights bill as part of its 2010 Public Policy Agenda, so the writer had valid cause to raise the issue of a possible "moral compromise" between ASHA membership and her Catholic faith. Of course, if ASHA would keep its nose out of politics and not let itself be used for political ends that have nothing to do with speech, language, and hearing, ASHA membership would not be in moral conflict with any member's faith. ASHA appears unwilling to do this.
For anyone who respects religious faith, individual moral integrity and character, and the profession, it was a painful letter to read. This is what ASHA has come to; this is the politically correct quicksand that ASHA has walked into and is now sinking deeply into, dragging every one of its 140,000 members along with it.
So does ASHA show the same respect for this Catholic ASHA member that it shows to its gay, bisexual, transsexual, and cross-dressing members?
Let's take a look:
On the very bottom of this page on ASHA's website, the Catholic reader's viewpoint is described by someone at ASHA as an "anti-gay viewpoint." Since the writer was doing no more nor less than stating the official moral position of the Roman Catholic Church, you have to wonder if this is equating the Catholic position with an "anti-gay viewpoint." Ms. Estlack's letter is also specifically referred to in a response on this page , where the phrase, "these homophobic letters" is allowed by The ASHA Leader's editors. In a second letter replying to Ms. Estlack, The ASHA Leader allows the phrase, "bigoted viewpoint."
"Anti-gay," "homophobic," "bigoted."
Would The ASHA Leader publish letters from heterosexuals, Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons that called homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers "anti-family" and "heterophobic"? And does anyone besides myself detect the subtle whiff of anti-Catholic bigotry in this whole incident? Is bigotry forbidden against one group but perfectly allowable when practiced against another? Are insults against some groups and individuals in ASHA (homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers) forbidden in the pages of The ASHA Leader, but those against Catholic women like Ms. Estlack (whose viewpoint - based on her religious beliefs and the beliefs of over one billion other Catholics - was smeared as homophobic and bigoted) welcomed?
Double standard?
Things at ASHA are getting uglier by the month.
ASHA allowed itself to get distracted from its mission in order to join the culture wars. If ASHA's leadership thinks its members are going to follow them like sheep, unquestioning, without a struggle or a bleat of protest, they are sadly deluding themselves. And before ASHA's leadership joined the culture wars, politicizing the organization to support goals having nothing to do with speech, language, and hearing, they should have heeded some good military common-sense advice:

Generals shouldn't march into battle unless they are absolutely certain their troops will follow them.

3/15/10

ASHA’s Gay Policy Agenda Exposed

Okay, fellow SLPs, it's time for a true or false test.
1) ASHA’s sole purpose for existing is to promote the professional interests of speech-language pathologists and audiologists. True or False.
2) With so many serious problems facing SLPs, ASHA would never waste its time or resources on an issue as divisive as gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. True or False.
3) Knowing that ASHA's membership is diverse and includes many people of religious faith, ASHA would never be so insensitive as to support an issue that blatantly contradicts the personal morals and beliefs of its members. True or False
Answer key: 1) False 2) False 3) False
How'd you do? Flunk? Don't blame yourself. You see, ASHA has a gay policy agenda that most members know nothing about.
Every year, ASHA develops a policy agenda for the organization (ASHA Policy Agenda). This agenda prioritizes the advocacy activities of ASHA according to the following designations: 1) highest priority, 2) priority, 3) monitoring, and 4) planning. Issues designated as highest priority are those that ASHA has determined require “major” ASHA resources. Issues designated as lower priority are deemed “important,” “relevant,” or in need of “a concerted planning effort” to develop objectives that can be acted upon.
Under the advocacy issues section listed as monitoring, ASHA includes this statement (same webpage):
“Support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Legislation, and Association policies that promote non-discrimination based on gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and cultural or ethnic heritage.”
Before we get to ENDA, let's pause for a moment and think about the last half of that sentence, the twenty words that follow the first comma. Why on earth would ASHA have to make supporting and monitoring its own anti-discrimination policies a priority? Has ASHA been secretly engaging in some pattern of discrimination based on “gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and cultural or ethnic heritage” that we don’t know about? Are male staffers being groped by randy ASHA female staffers (this cougar movement has really gotten out of hand!)? Are Hispanics being denied prime desk space in ASHA's offices because of their cultural and ethnic heritage? Are ASHA's bathrooms wheelchair inaccessible?
My guess is that ASHA only mentioned its own policies in that statement because it wanted to divert the reader’s attention away from its support of ENDA. ENDA is mentioned and then - whoosh! - it quickly disappears from your consciousness as you plow ahead to the end of the sentence. Like a carnival worker playing a shell game, it’s important to ASHA that you not look too closely at what it is doing or saying, or you’ll realize that you’ve been had. It's the secret to most magic tricks - divert your audience's attention from what you are really doing. Penn and Teller would be proud. As we shall see, there may be some very good reasons why ASHA did this.
What is ENDA? Let’s go right to the bill to find out. You can read the entire bill by clicking on Bills, clicking on "bill number," and typing "H.R. 2981" in the search box.
ENDA is bill H.R. 2981, S.1584. Sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the bill clearly states its purpose:
“ to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity”
Notice that the bill doesn’t say anything about disability, race, religion, cultural or ethnic heritage - although ASHA lumps everything together in its statement about ENDA. ENDA is about one thing, and one thing only: creating a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (meaning transexuals).
Does that sound like a law that promotes the professional interests of speech-language pathologists? It sure doesn’t to me. If it does to you, you need an audiological evaluation. Whether you are for or against ENDA is irrelevant here; that's not the point. What is absolutely clear and should be to every SLP and audiologist is this:
this bill has absolutely positively nothing to do with speech, language, or audiology.
So why does ASHA include it in its policy agenda?
Back in 2007, then ASHA president Noma Anderson made this statement regarding ASHA's support of ENDA (Statement):
"We feel strongly that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or sexual orientation, should be given the opportunity to work in an environment free from discrimination and bias.”
Okay, who is this "we" whom Noma presumed to be speaking for?
Noma, I have news for you: you had no right to speak on behalf of the membership of ASHA on this or any other moral issue: that's not your gig. I'll make you a deal, Noma: I won't presume to speak on behalf of African-American women such as yourself if you agree not to presume to speak out on moral issues on behalf of white, blue-eyed Lutherans such as myself. Noma, who gives a rat's tail about how you feel about ENDA? There are many members of ASHA who feel very strongly that abortion is nothing but cold-blooded murder of the defenseless, but I don’t see ASHA making a pro-life policy part of its agenda.
By making ENDA a part of its policy agenda, ASHA has assumed for itself authority to make pronouncements on moral issues, a role traditionally and very wisely left to carefully trained and educated theologians, philosophers, ethicists, and clerics, not speech therapists and audiologists (what's next? Hearing aid vendors listening to confessions in Beltone stores?). ASHA's endorsement of ENDA is a breathtaking act of arrogance on the part of an organization that began in 1925 with the modest and noble intent of studying and treating speech defects, but which has since morphed into a Godzilla-like monstrosity that even the Japanese army couldn't defeat.













ASHA making pronouncements on moral issues? What does ASHA think it is?
Let me rephrase that question: What the hell does ASHA think it is?!
I suppose we should all stay tuned for future ASHA pronouncements on such issues as stem-cell research, euthanasia, premarital sex, masturbation, and whether or not divorced men and women can receive communion in the Episcopal church.
Now here comes the real zinger (if you're having a cocktail while reading this, you may want to refresh your drink before continuing: you'll need it):
ASHA “view(s) the placement of these objectives as flexible. If a particular issue becomes more visible politically or appears to be headed toward consideration, the Association's level of activity will be adjusted accordingly” (zinger). In other words, an issue that was originally prioritized as something that only deserved monitoring could be moved up the ladder and become an issue that ASHA thinks “requires major resources on the Association’s part." 

Pause. Take drink. Feel blood begin spurting out of your eyes.

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.

3/8/10

A Look At Asha’s Finances - Part four in a continuing series



ASHA Is Proud To Use The Latest In Cost-Saving Communication Technology 
(Note: You can read the other posts in this series on ASHA's  finances by clicking on the following links: Part One Part Two Part Three )
ASHA’s 2008 tax return reports the following expense:
 $738,239 for travel. 
Read that amount again. $738,239. That’s how much was spent on travel by an organization that employs 306 people. We don’t know exactly how many ASHA employees traveled at our expense in 2008 (and how they traveled: was it first class? Coach? Private Jet? Holiday Inn? The Ritz-Carlton?) but assuming that 5% of ASHA’s employees traveled on company expense (meaning membership expense), that means that in 2008 ASHA could have conceivably spent $49,215 for each of its employees who traveled.
I guess ASHA doesn’t think much of telecommuting, even in an age of ubiquitous blackberries, iphones, and near-zero cost tele-conferencing. So much for ASHA - an organization whose ungainly motto is ”Making effective communication, a human right, accessible and achievable for all" (don't bet on anyone at ASHA winning a Pulitzer Prize for poetry in the future) - being on the cutting edge of effective and, I would add, efficient and inexpensive communication.

3/5/10

ASHA Is Clueless

Let the delicious irony of this website sink in: ASHA is supposed to be an advocacy group for speech-language pathologists, but if ASHA was really doing its job of advocating for us, of working in our best interests, there would be no need for the existence of this site - an advocacy site for speech-language pathologists who feel a need to defend their best interests against ASHA! 
ASHA Watch’s rapid growth in such a short period is proof that ASHA is not doing its job, and that many of us are fed up and see ASHA as our adversary rather than our ally. ASHA is clueless. The Board is out of touch. ASHA's actions demonstrate indifference and contempt for its members - the women and men whose dues and fees keep it alive. ASHA acts more like a greedy tyrranical ruler than an advocacy group representing us.
ASHA won’t care about its members until they speak up, fight back, and organize - and we are doing that now. I’m proud of the way that so many of us have begun to channel our anger and disgust into action. This is what America is all about! We are powerful and we are growing! As long as members remain silent and consent to ASHA’s anti-member actions, ASHA will continue to take advantage of us. But ASHA can’t exist without us: it is our money, our silence, and our consent that keeps it alive, and without those it would be on life support, gasping for breath, desperately struggling to phonate its dying pleas:
Come back! Come back! I won't take advantage of you again! I promise! This time I mean it! Please give me another chance! Just don't let me die all alone and broke!

3/4/10

The ASHA Leader's Approach To Journalism











(panting) "I love you, ASHA! I love you ASHA! I love you, ASHA! I love you ASHA!I love you, ASHA! I love you, ASHA!"
Woof!

3/2/10

A Look At ASHA’s Finances - Part three in a series













"Just hand over your membership dues and CEU fees and no one gets hurt!"
"Gee, Thelma, if I knew that robbing school SLPs was going to be this much fun, I would have become an ASHA employee years ago!"

ASHA employs 306 employees and spends $23,832,092 on “salaries, other compensations, employee benefits.”  That works out to an average of $77,628 per employee. But wait. The highest compensated employees make several times that amount.
ASHA executive director Arlene Pietranton’s total compensation in 2008 was $456,241. That includes $294,558 base compensation, $139,389 deferred compensation, and $22,294 in nontaxable benefits.
Charles M. Cochran’s total compensation was $395,901.
Vicki Deal-Williams’ total compensation was $217,775.
Lemmietta Mcnelly: $216,621.
Margaret Rogers: $203,503.
Vic S. Gladstone: $330,408.
James G. Potter $199,664.
Paula Starr: $290,974.
Stan Dublinske: $202,324.
Michael Guerrieri: $187,157.
I would be the last one to complain about the high salaries of ASHA’s officers and directors if I thought that ASHA was doing a good job of promoting the professional interests of SLPs and audiologists. But I don’t think that ASHA is doing a good job of promoting our professional interests; in fact, I think ASHA is working against our best interests. Rather than consistently acting as our ally, ASHA often acts like our adversary. ASHA has become the problem, not the solution. Here’s just one example: no one - and I mean no one - charges more for SLP CEUs than ASHA. If you were to get all of your CEUs from ASHA at the typical cost that ASHA charges members, it would cost over $1,000 every three years to maintain your CCCs. That means that if you plan on working for thirty years, it will cost you more than $10,000 over the span of your career simply to maintain your CCCs. Add the cost of your membership dues to that and you end up with a grand total of over $18,000 of your hard-earned cash flying out of your pockets and into the golden coffers of ASHA (and that doesn't include your state licensure renewal fees). That’s a ridiculous amount of money to spend for a cheesy cardboard membership card and access to a website that you probably only click on once or twice a year.

3/1/10

A Look At ASHA’s Finances - Part two

How rich is ASHA? On its 2008 tax return, ASHA listed total assets of $93,966,900. Revenue for 2008 included:

$26,372,809 from membership dues
$4,253,311 from the annual convention
$2,420,369 from continuing education

Because ASHA files its tax returns as a 501(c)(6) professional association, it is tax exempt.
What is a 501(c)(6) professional association?
According to the IRS, “A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. ...To be exempt, a business league's activities must be devoted to improving business conditions of one or more lines of business...”
In other words, ASHA is tax exempt because it claims to exist solely to promote the professional business interests of its membership. Not everyone sees ASHA the way that ASHA sees itself. Many of us would argue that ASHA frequently acts like it exists to promote its own interests - the interests of the 306 people that ASHA employs - rather than the interests of its 135,000 members and affiliates.

A Look At ASHA’s Finances - Part one in a series: getting ASHA’s tax returns

If you look for a copy of ASHA’s tax returns on its website, you won’t find it: ASHA chooses not to publish their tax returns on the ASHA website. What most ASHA members don’t know is that they have a legal right to a copy of ASHA’s tax returns. ASHA is a tax exempt professional business association and federal law requires that tax exempt professional business associations provide a copy of their tax returns to anyone who requests one. Federal law, however, does not require that ASHA publish that information on their website where members can conveniently examine ASHA’s finances with a click of a mouse. It’s an interesting omission from a website that cost ASHA $1,628,989 to run (according to the 2008 audit committee report). You would think that for $1.6 million, that ASHA, in the interest of transparency to its members (who are footing the bills), would include the information from its tax returns on its website. They could easily do this, but they don't.
Anyone can request ASHA’s tax returns. And ASHA is legally required to provide them. Yes, ASHA can charge you a fee, but that fee can only be a “nominal” fee for making copies (the 2008 return was 53 pages long). If you want ASHA to send you a copy of their 2008 tax returns, make a request to the action center at 800-498-2071 or the ASHA office at 301-296-5700 (ask for the 990 Tax forms. Do NOT let ASHA direct you to the financial statement prepared by the audit committee that is found on the ASHA website. Demand the 2008 form 990 federal tax returns. ASHA has no right to inquire about why you want their tax returns, so don’t let them interrogate you. Politely but firmly remind them that they are required by federal law to make the tax returns available.) Federal law also requires that ASHA fulfill all requests for tax returns in a reasonable amount of time. If ASHA doesn’t fulfill your request in a timely manner, you can file a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service at this link: