The National Association of the Deaf had recently joined an action against AGB by a group called “Audism Free America,” composed mostly of Deaf people fighting against perceived audism—situations (created or natural) where Deaf people experience discrimination. During this action – which was mostly people and children holding signs, peacefully – one person defaced a sign on the building, crossing out Deaf and hard of, leaving the words hearing. The NAD distanced itself from the person who performed this action. So why is Noelle Bell calling out the organization?
The argument, you see, is about the inclusion of ASL (American Sign Language) in the education of Deaf children. Most Deaf programs, and Audism Free America, include some type of American Sign Language or one of its dialects or pidgins to help communicate. They also provide speech lessons, English classes, and have many teachers who hear. Oral programs, on the other hand, often expressly forbid the teaching of sign language and concentrate on the goal of polishing Deaf children until they can pass well within hearing culture. To me, the whole dialogue felt like talking to creationists fighting against the inclusion of evolution, or even admitting that research shows the science behind evolution is correct. I’ve even seen creationists use the same arguments – against teachers and scientists who gave a little and advocated the inclusion of both perspectives. Further, the accusation that writing on a sign (the sign appears to be made out of metal; the writing appears to be made out of chalk, and not permanent) is militant seems to echo similar drummed-up charges against people protesting in support of science; people protesting in support of free choice, etc. And again and again I was told that I was taking freedom and choices away from parents (which is ridiculous: hearing people guide parents in hearing communities all the time. It’s as if it’s just Deaf people who don’t have the right to prepare or provide feedback.)
The fact is that a deaf child in an oral program who expresses a desire to learn ASL will likely have his or her choice opposed by professionals – without proof to justify their opposition. I and my family have been told, by turns, that ASL will make me mentally retarded, a congenital idiot, unable to function in the hearing world, unable to speak, etc. etc. etc. If the child is an abject failure in the program, “other options” might be discussed, and, like we’ve seen with charter schools, failing children get “phased out” into Deaf schools. This has been documented since the 1800′s; programs that attempted to teach children to speak would hide those who couldn’t, or only bring forward those expert speakers who could wow an audience and help raise funds. Today, many parents “try” ASL as a last resort.
The fact is that a deaf child in a “Deaf program” or “ASL-only program” (as Noelle calls it; again, there are NO ASL-only programs in America) who expresses a desire to speak and improve their English skills will likely get all the support needed to explore this type of learning from school officials. While I have sometimes had peers mock my ability to speak, in both mainstreamed and Deaf schools—mocking that comes the way any child mocks another child’s artistic, reading, mathematical or other skills—I have yet to see a professional in such a school call such programs a waste of time. Further, all Deaf schools have full English curriculum, and spend much more time teaching English (in many classes mind you) than ASL. I recently visited a Deaf school that used ASL. They were reading Jane Smiley and Ken Follett. English was clearly present, despite the use of both languages. During my discussion with Noelle Bell, in comments on her blog and on Twitter, she persisted in using the term “ASL-only schools” and in describing such schools as exclusive.
To me, it’s the former program which is exclusive and the latter sort of program which is giving the child as many options as they like. The assumptions are that there is an ASL-only program (there isn’t), that oral-only programs give child options (they take them away). And the even more entrenched underlying assumptions about ASL (it’s bad, it interferes with English and other language development, it doesn’t help the child, etc. etc.) are a huge roadblock impeding the ability of most people to realize that. Plus, from my own experience and that of others, learning a second language which one can completely access helps tremendously in learning the first language. Strategies used for communication with one language strongly affected another.
When I tried to share this more sensible perspective, which makes much more sense given the facts at hand – again, why WOULD Deaf people prevent themselves from learning beneficial skills? – I was told about experiences being mocked by Deaf people for speaking skills.
Yes, there are such people, and I’m not apologizing for them. I’ve been mocked myself, and I think it’s stupid. I can place this mocking in context, however. I’ve studied other communities. I’ve heard about the whole “acting white” thing, I’ve heard of “passing,” I know about gay people who act straight, I know that in every culture there’s always going to be a point of cultural contact and interaction where people act in a nasty way. I’ve seen plenty going in both directions, in my feminist/gender studies courses, in gay/lesbian courses. It’s a repeating pattern with a hundred thousand iterations. Bernice Jonson Reagon, one of my favorite writers, once described such conflict as an inevitable outcome for coalition building. If you aren’t uncomfortable, it means you aren’t trying hard enough. A rough statement, but maybe all the more true because of that. Noelle Bell showed me a photo of a girl holding a sign saying “Oral-only is baloney.” I pointed out the sign was perfectly correct. Oral-only programs may work with specific individuals – nearly anything works for someone – but as a cohesive plan to help the widest range of students, they’re certainly not effective.
At this point my opponents fall back on a final statement: “But- but- you’re taking rights away from parents!” At this point, like gay people when told about God, we are supposed to be quieted. But it, again, DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. Nobody’s talking about this particular idea except knee-jerk reactionaries. There are no evil Deaf groups leading legal charges to wrest rights away from parents, and never were. What Deaf people want is the opportunity to speak to parents of Deaf children-and we are often cut off from this opportunity at every turn. Many of us have hearing parents ourselves. We feel our lives and experiences have value. We think that parents who listen to most of our stories will conclude that children should be given the opportunity to learn all languages – whether they have an implant, a hearing aid, or grew up in an ASL- and English-using family. Most other options seem like a form of experimental control – if we keep children away from this information, they won’t be affected by it! History shows such an attitude isn’t successful. If it were any other group – if, say, it were Black groups trying to speak to White parents who adopted Black kids about culture and sensitivity – there would be problems, but most would agree their perspective should be taken into account, and almost every single website and book I’ve seen about the issue talks to kids who’ve grown up in such families.
Here’s a real question, or a few: Should NAD support the AFA – or any one Deaf program over another? Here’s another: WAS the AFA a militant group for defacing a sign? To answer the first question – for many people, this will seem like a Deaf-on-Deaf fight – but look at the composition of the AFA, the NAD, and A.G. Bell. Which organizations have most Deaf adults? Who supports programs which give Deaf children the most options? Yes, there are Deaf people who do well in oral programs – but how many? How many are leeched away over the years and given to Deaf schools to “try ASL when the oral methods prove unsuccessful?” How many oral programs would have students who speak better and have a better command of English – if they would open their eyes and read research and use two languages (or more) in tandem to achieve an even greater mastery of both? Few people have the answers to these questions – yet they are being asked by AFA, and by and large ignored by everyone else.
What percentage of any of these programs “work?” And what does “working” mean? And how are we testing “working?” And who are we asking; who’s giving us this information? Recently, the New York Times wrote a series of articles about Deaf schools. How many were Deaf kids who had attended such schools? How many were teachers working at such schools?
Here’s a parallel: as a teacher of hearing children, I often face a conundrum. We have to focus on the subjects currently being tested in our nation—English, Math, Science, and Social Studies. Our nation’s dialogue demands this narrow focus, because we want to see the results. But research shows me that such a narrow focus on such a tiny portion of subjects produces less literate, less educated students than a broad range of topics! The narrowing of education seems smart – until you see the results. So it is with Deaf children—Deaf adults want to see honest results, and we know from experience this isn’t going to happen with the narrower kinds of education options offered us. Is it any wonder AFA fights for the broader ones? Is it any wonder NAD agrees? To us, it makes sense; we see all sides of the story. To people fed a line of hokum, the attitude of the AFA and NAD makes no sense—and this hokum should, therefore, be treated with suspicion.
