ASHA-PAC’s donation choices and its historical disconnect from social movements
“The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the national association for audiologists; speech-language pathologists; and speech, language, and hearing scientists. It represents the fields of audiology and speech-language pathology. ASHA views communication as an individual human right. Consequently, ASHA’s vision and derived strategic plans, ethics and scope of practice, aim at making effective communication accessible to all. Black, Indeginious, and People of Color (BIPOC) members of our professions are dissatisfied with the systemic barriers experienced in accessing our profession. ASHA’s calculated alienation from political and social matters should haunt all of us interested in the advancement of our professions to embody a culturally responsive community, genuinely committed to its mission of communication as a human right. The latest article by Kathleen Oppenheimer, entitled “ Response to ASHA-PACS’s call for donation: What to know before you donate” in Medium (10/13/2020), confirmed that there seems to be no map guiding ASHA’s political engagement through its advocacy in congress. Contributions from ASHA’s Political Action Committee, ASHA-PAC, funded politicians with A+ rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA), and an F rating from the National Education Association (NEA). The money given through these PAC donations plays against the needs and interest of the majority of ASHA members working in schools (51.3%) and health care settings (39.5%). This is incomprehensible. We argue that disengagement from taking a stance against racism, and lack of purposefully centered PAC donations, are rooted in historically systematic phenomena of which ASHA’s practices and policies explicitly chose to disconnect from social movements in the U.S. and the world. This puts us, the members of the association, on the wrong side of history if we do not speak up.
Historically, ASHA has not pledged staunch support for freedom of speech, or for anti-racism. This is exemplified by their choice not to endorse the 1940 statement on academic freedom and tenure of the American Association of University Professors. ASHA also did not take a clear stance denouncing racism in spite of its direct effect on its members. A 1969 paper by Professor Orlando Taylor presents that ASHA chose not to answer the call to denounce racism. ASHA was not unaware of the social circumstances and the choice that they were ethically expected to make during the Civil Rights Movement. It should be noted that these discussions were the impetus for the establishment of the National Black Association of Speech Language and Hearing (NBASLH) in 1978 aiming to address the biased services provided to BIPOC individuals with speech disorders from, the need for enhanced professional preparation of professionals in the field and to address the leadership discrepancies in ASHA (Wiggins 2014).
This is consistent with the specter of elitism that characterized the establishment of the “American Academy of Speech Correction”(AASC) in 1925 that became the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Membership to this group was conditioned by holding a Master’s degree at the time that Communication Sciences programs were not even established, excluding many practicing speech creationists at that time including those from teaching background who were organized as special interest group within National Education Association (NEA). (See Judith Felson Duchan, 2002.)Furthermore, the main goals of the founding groups of ASHA were focused on developing normative data for research and practice. History showed how such norms were consumed and the impact they had on marginalized communities.
BIPOC members and allies, today, are calling for the same change as Taylor wrote about; see the human in each BIPOC, don’t disconnect from the social and political struggles of the day because you have the privilege to do so. Take action not as individuals, but as an association, an institution, and a collective. Take action to open the institutional “gated community” that is ASHA to BIPOC students and faculty. Make curricular changes to prepare our professionals to be culturally responsive clinicians and make sure racism is not a racial issue, but rather, an issue of humanity.
Institutionalized racism in CSD can be observed through the disproportionate number of white audiologists and speech pathologists, making our profession one of the whitest in the United States. In addition, BIPOC students and faculty who do make it into the profession, are set up to survive and not to thrive. Here are a few thoughts I would like to share based on my modest experience and research as a Palestinian faculty and ASHA member who served as a chair of a department and saw first-hand how ASHA work. Through my experiences, I know that it is not individuals who can successfully bring about large systemic change, but rather only popular, institutional movements that are genuinely bringing about overdue progress in our field.
To contribute to the needed dialogue, I would like to point out how ASHA is experienced by BIPOC members and allies committed to social justice like myself.
1. ASHA’s stated vision is to make effective communication a human right; accessible and achievable to all. But for BIPOC members, whose lived experience is being impacted by ASHA policies would wonder: “how can an association stand up for such a vision when it is not taking responsibility addressing the social barriers created by racism to make the profession fairly accessible and achievable?”
2. ASHA as an institution is still focused on diversity, not social justice in its stated values. Diversity only focused on having members from different backgrounds based on different factors including SES, ethnic background, racial background, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, gender, etc.. Opening doors to diversity without addressing the systemic barriers within the profession and the association is obsolete. This can only be attained by focusing on social justice. This would also be consistent with the latest evolution in ASHA’s leadership on ethical standards. To focus on ethical standards should be to focus on social justice. ASHA’s diversity and inclusion statement focuses on individual inclusion, recognition of cultural differences, and diversity of thought. However, there is not one mention of the historical and social barriers created by racism that have fought back against inclusion and integration. While failing to mention social justice, the statement is absolutely crystal clear on the importance of being “pristine” in the “association industry.”
3. The culture that we live as ASHA members is that we, the BIPOC members, should have our own conversations on the side. That our place in the association is to be included in images as commodities, but not in conversations that catapult real change and progress ASHA needed to make since 1969. The organization is built so that change is impossible; so that the individual integration of BIPOC members, no matter how tough, smart, devoted, and brave they are, cannot change the system.
4. ASHA’s core values make it very clear for whom and what they stand. They stand for diversity, but bundles all diverse populations in one group, with no regard to unequal power relations, intersectionality, and historical backgrounds of marginalized groups. Take for example the percentage of CSD males in the association compared to the percentage of male chairs and deans. The wide generalization ASHA has made to put those two in the same bracket under the specter of diversity presents a deeper problem: ASHA states that their core commitment to cultural competence. This disregards the widely accepted understanding that anti-racist education is a process and is continuous. We need to move towards teaching cultural responsiveness and not cultural competence. Similarly, communication within ASHA after the murder of George Floyd just reflects this lack of commitment to social justice and anti-racism.
These values, and the mission and vision are inconsiderate of basic racial injustice. The choice to not engage with the social realities of the communities we serve and of those who make ASHA membership under the stance of being “ not political” is a fertile ground for the seeds of inequality within CSD. There is a myriad of outcomes from planting these seeds: being one of the ten whitest professions in the United States, alienating students and faculty of color at every step, racist publications which stereotype diverse populations, lax standards for accreditation that ensure equity, inclusion and antiracism, taking no stand against financially unrealistic tuition, certification, membership costs, increasing funding and grants to institutions that are drowning in resources instead of supporting universities with limited resources. All of the aforementioned events are happening while lecturing members on ethics, advocacy, and diversity, words that for us, BIPOC members and allies, is tantamount to ASHA siding with covert white supremacy under words that can serve as a cover. There are ample professional epistemologies and frameworks that support CSD profession few leaders in social justice in CSD have written about and expanded on (see both Hyter & Salas-Provance, 2018, and Pillay & Kathard, 2018 for a review). These frameworks are steeped in positivism and coloniality, and we should start our search for truth and self-reflection as a community to address the excruciating reality of our field in order for us to move forward towards dismantling racism in CSD and be in the right side of history this time.
In a latest meeting I had with a group of women leaders discussing our roles based on Deepa Iyer’s roles in a social ecosystem, I noticed that some of us focused on the pandemic crisis and the roles needed at the health care system, while others focused on racism and social justice, and some focused on healing and rebuilding the community only to discover all can be achieved once we start focusing on racism which is the origin of all observed systemic unequal practices, policies and social standards. The constellations of these dark days should be focused on reconciling with the history of the association and transforming the way forward based on a guiding map predicated on ethics, values and beliefs, and standing up and taking the hard steps to transform our professional association