Thread by @TheeDrP

You are probably aware by now that ASHA has proposed to remove “culture, language, and dialect” from the anti-discrimination clauses of the Code of Ethics for the profession. Their explanation is that “these concepts are already covered under…the term ‘national origin.’”

They cite the US Dept of Labor and the Dept of Justice as justification, as statements from these divisions explicitly describe discrimination based on national origin as including discrimination based on language, accent, and culture.

Some colleagues, particularly those in SIG 14, have pointed out that this is problematic for a # of reasons, a major 1 being that it excludes the languages/dialects of US-born linguistic communities & centers whiteness + monolingualism as normative for who’s considered “American”

I bring this up to point out a few things:

1. ASHA’s reasoning highlights how grossly underdeveloped the profession’s understanding of race, language, and culture is. Removing specific protections with little understanding of the targeted “concepts” is bound to cause harm

2. This reasoning is rooted in anti-Blackness & anti-Indigeneity. I am certain the Board is unaware of this. That doesn’t make it less harmful. It perpetuates (allows for) the discrimination that minoritized groups already experience as a result of our professional practices

3. If the goal is to be equitable in our practice, we need to be more explicit about what that means, not less. The removal communicates to me a walking back of commitments to equity & re-entrenchment of white monolingual norms that keep “diverse” clients pathologized/in services

…I say *if* because ASHA has yet to make a clear and strong statement regarding the maintenance and communicative force of minoritized linguistic practices. (Valuing/respecting/being responsive to “differences” in communication is not a clear path to equity)

I also say *if* because ASHA has a vested interest in *making disorder*; and equity requires that we interrogate/deconstruct how we define disorder and why it constitutes a disability in the first place (i.e., equity not good for ASHA business)

So if ASHA continues the pattern of asking for feedback just to say they did & continuing with the proposed changes regardless, it will be consistent with ASHA’s values. The question I ask you then, #SLPeeps, is how will you reject ASHA’s reasoning with your *practice*?