The Topic That Would Not Die (or: ASL or No ASL? That is the question.)

Wow. I am blown away by the response to both of my recent posts discussing thoughts for all hearing parents. Both Amys continue to weigh in and other people continue to add their thoughts.

It's clear that we are far from being on the same page here and we need to continue this dialogue in order to consider and understand varying perspectives. That said, here's *mine*: the most important thing, to me, is that no parent ever makes their child feel like they need to "become hearing" and like they aren't good enough if they can't be hearing, and that they are never denied opportunities to learn ASL and to meet other deaf people. This is true for me, regardless of whatever educational, communication, and technological choices parents make for their children.

Before I go on, I really, really appreciate everyone who took the time to write in. There are some wonderful thoughts . Thank you, Barb, Mark both Amys, cali, Cy, Melissa, Aaron, White Ghost, Dianrez, Dawg, VB, Ella, and the hearing father of 3 deaf children for sharing your thoughts and extending the discussion! (If I missed anyone, I apologize.) Thank you!

Let's keep talking about it. My two posts on the topic can be found here and here.

One situation occurred that made me realize I need to discuss house rules for comments. This really has not been an issue in general, but maybe I should be proactive and establish house rules. I generally publish every comment that is relevant to the post and that is respectful toward others. This is an open forum and one that does not practice censorship. However, one commenter posted Amy's last name and Amy wanted her last name removed from the comment, which is very understandable. The commenter gave a very strong rebuttal about how Amy's last name is already pretty public information. Since Blogger does not allow me to edit comments (Blogger, are you listening??), I had two choices: leave the comment up or to remove it completely. Neither choice seemed acceptable. I opted to copy and paste it into a new comment and remove Amy's last name, then remove the comment in question. It's not ideal, but... *sigh* To everyone involved in the situation, I apologize for the inconvenience and I hope this solution is satisfactory for everyone who was directly involved in the situation.

Speaking of house rules, I'll try to post them in the next few days. They'll be in the sidebar. But here is a rough idea:
1. Peruse Mr. Sandman's house rules for his blog. My rules will basically be pretty similar, with some minor differences and tweaks.
2. I've only had to delete one comment, and that was the one described above. It was deleted only because of a privacy concern and the person involved asked. I've declined maybe 3 or 4 comments without publishing and that was only because they were either:
a. comment spam - something that was posted on multiple blogs to promote one person's agenda, or
b. hostile and rude, calling someone nasty names.
3. This is a place for freedom of expression. I welcome widely diverging opinions, as long as we remain respectful (and you guys have been respectful thus far! Keep it up! *smile*)

Let the discussions continue! I'm looking forward to more gems like Mark Drolsbaugh's, Amy Cohen Efron's, hearing parent of 3 deaf children's, and many others' comments and to hearing the other side, such as Melissa's, Amy's, and VB's.

More Thoughts for Hearing Parents and for Us to Consider

I've been so torn up about Amy insisting that her children are fine the way they are. I've been thinking a lot about this whole thing, because it *is* much bigger than one mom and two deaf children.

Before I go on, I do appreciate Amy's willingness to continue to talk with us. She clearly wants us to understand her choices. While we may strongly disagree and continue to worry about her children, she does have the right to make the choices she's made and we need to remain courteous in our dialogue with all hearing parents, regardless of their choices. They are part of our community, period, because their children are deaf. This is true whether they want to be or not.

One thing that's concerning me is how some people are confusing two issues. The issue at hand with Amy is her denial of the benefits of sign language as well as spoken language. Some people are making this about cochlear implants, and it's not. Yes, we have different opinions about whether children should be implanted or not, but that's a separate discussion. What's troubling many of us is the idea that parents are being misinformed and getting the erroneous idea that sign language hinders spoken language development in deaf children. That's a crock. Hooey. Pure hooey. There's research proving it *enhances* spoken language development.

The majority of us would not deny that there are benefits to speaking and listening. We just don't want part of a child suppressed and denied. We want language to be fully accessible to everyone.

Very few of us would say "Don't encourage spoken language development." I should know. I learned language purely visually, and for some reason, I "lost" all of my hearing from childhood until college. (I suspect a psychological block, and it's a long story, which I don't want to go into right now.) I've experienced life as a completely deaf person, relying exclusively on sign language and as a deaf person with some hearing and who can function around hearing people in some situations, so I have an appreciation and understanding of both ways of being.

I won't deny that I've benefited in many ways from hearing and lipreading. There are so many little things that flash into my consciousness when I think about this topic. I remember when I was in grad school, a deaf classmate and I were in the train station and someone ran up the escalator. My classmate started to run up, looking at me as if to say "hurry up," and I said, "I don't hear the train. No need to hurry." He gave me a very weird look, probably because I don't emphasize my hearing or act like I have it in general so my remark confused him, and rushed up the escalator. I caught up with him after a leisurely ride up and he stared at me, shook his head, and shrugged. Other benefits include being able to take water aerobics without an interpreter and *not* being one step behind everyone else because I lipread the instructors with little difficulty. I'm able to enjoy accents, and between you and me, I can even imitate a couple. There are situations where I can function without signing nor pen and paper. The truth is, I appreciate the advantages I have.

What I just said is something I rarely talk about with most deaf people. The reason for that is because, while I acknowledge the advantages, I've lived life as a stone-deaf person and I was quite content. It's a perfectly valid way of being. It's possible to function just fine without speaking, hearing, or lipreading. Is life different? Heck, yes. But what's wrong with that??? If I had not gotten my hearing back, I would've been happy and satisfied with whom and what I am. It's perfectly OK, and yes, even *healthy* to not speak, hear, or lipread and be happy with that.

That said, I see nothing wrong with speech and listening training as long as the whole child is emphasized and language/learning about the world takes top priority. If a child benefits from audition and speech training, so be it. Don't deny the child that. BUT no matter what technology the child has, spoken language is STILL not 100% accessible 24 hours/7 days a week in all situations. The child is still deaf, period.

There is so much research out there on the advantages of being bilingual for both hearing and deaf people. There are even a few studies showing that hearing and deaf people who are bilingual in a variety of modes (speaking/listening, reading/writing, *and* signing/watching) show even more cerebral and intellectual advantages in a variety of areas. Most articles and books that I know about aren't online, but here is what I have off the top of my head. Jim Cummins, a noted bilingual researcher, has written extensively on advantages of bilingualism for hearing people. He has an unpublished paper that he presented last November that puts together a dozen or more research studies conclusively proving that signed language and majority-language bilingualism offers so many cognitive advantages and strengthens the deaf person's grasp of the majority language to the point where the deaf person is proficient in the majority language. Jim Cummins, if you're reading this, please publish your paper. We need to be able to use it as a resource and to be able to disseminate it. There's one study showing that hard-of-hearing children with deaf parents have far better ASL skills, written English skills, and far better spoken English skills than those with hearing parents. The presumption is that fully accessible language (ASL) helped enhance English-language learning. (If any of you know the author or the title of the study, please let me know. I haven't been able to find it again.) François Grosjean, a hearing Swiss researcher with few ties to deaf people, has written several compelling articles, drawing on research on deaf bilingualism. Colin Baker, one of the most respected bilingual researchers in the *world*, comes down strongly on the side of sign language/majority language bilingualism for deaf children. Chapter 16 of the fourth edition of his acclaimed book, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, draws on many studies to illustrate this fact. Baker has zero connection to deaf people that I'm aware of. Therefore, for him to draw this conclusion, the existing research must be very strong. There are so many more articles out there. But the evidence is clear: Bilingualism for the deaf child is a big advantage and makes spoken/written language even better than it would be without a signed language.

One thing that really bothers me about Amy's position is her assertion that her children are not a part of deaf culture and her implication that parents are forced to make a choice between ASL/deaf culture and English/the majority culture. That's not true. Both are compatible. My mom, who is *very* hearing in every sense of the word, allowed me to be deaf yet made a huge point of enveloping me in the majority culture. She made sure I always had deaf peers and hearing peers. She worked hard on my English development by playing word games with me, making puns, on and on. She was my best speech teacher and I give her full credit for my lipreading skills. She took an interest in ASL and deaf culture by asking questions and learning. We've had so many discussions about language and culture in general. It was never "either/or" for us. I have both and I believe I'm a better person for it. My English language skills are better for it. The best advice I can give for all hearing parents, regardless of their choices is: let your child be deaf. Expect your child to be part of your family and culture and make your family, values, traditions, and culture accessible. Give your child all the tools to be a whole person in every sense of the word.

Dianrez said here that there's no point in trying to change Amy's mind and we need to focus our efforts elsewhere. She's right. Amy is as immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar, and she has that right to remain steadfast. If she ever changes her mind or opens up some, we are here for her and we will always be here for her sons. That's why I'm writing this entry. It's for us as a community to talk about, for other hearing parents, for teachers and audiologists/speech pathologists, and for industry insiders to read, consider, and hopefully listen. We are the experts on what deaf children need, no matter what technology and teaching techniques are developed. We deserve to be heard *and* heeded.
*******
Previous posts on the topic for your convenience:
John Egbert's original entry
Barb DiGi's entry
My first entry on the topic
Deaf Tea Time's entry
This morning's entry
Barb DiGi on why it's OK to be part of the AGB protest

For All Hearing Parents of Deaf Children

This is a message directly addressed to Amy and other parents of deaf children who do not support sign language. Amy, I've read your comments on Barb DiGi's entry that responds to your comments on John Egbert's site. I know you love your sons dearly and would do anything for them. I believe that you weighed everything very carefully before making your decision and that you truly believe you did and are doing the right thing by your sons. Your passion and the strength of your convictions come through very clearly when I read your comments. Thank you for loving your sons so much.

I have some thoughts and questions for you and for all parents of deaf children who do not want their children to sign. I'm not questioning your choice to implant them, nor your choice to provide auditory and oral training here, just the choice not to sign with your children.

One, do you realize that your children are not hearing? How will they respond to an alarm clock? I imagine that for now, you are waking them up. But eventually, they will need to take responsibility for waking up on their own. It's rather unlikely that they would wear their implants to bed just to hear an alarm chirp, buzz, or blast out the latest Hilary/Britney/Christina song. Have you considered this? Also, they are not going to have their implants on all the time. Shower? Swimming? It'd probably be a good idea not to wear their implants when they're playing sports. How will you or anyone else communicate with them then? Lipreading has its limitations. Studies have shown repeatedly that the most skilled of lipreaders has only a 30% success rate.

Two, do you understand that you are placing all of your hopes and dreams on pieces of technology, which fail? Your sons will outlive the devices in their skulls. They have no back-up means of communication, except for lipreading, which is difficult. What if an implant short-circuits, dies, or gets broken from a blow to the head? How will your children interact with the world in the intervening days and weeks between device failure and surgery? What's Plan B here?

Three, hearing babies who learn to sign have far better language development, their IQ scores are higher, and their spoken language development is not hindered at all. Why can't we do the same thing with deaf babies? Why can't we give them both languages and modes of communication? What's wrong with that?

Four, you believe that your children hear a lot. That may be. That may very well be. However, we deaf people can adapt amazingly well and we do fool hearing people many times. A new water aerobics instructor didn't know I was deaf for close to 3 months. (And I was in the water, so amplification wasn't happening in this situation.) The only reason she found out in June was because I had my head turned away once. She was stunned and after a bit, she said it was sooooo cool that she had no idea that I was deaf. I told her not to do anything differently, except to make sure she faces me when she talks to me. I could go on and on with examples and I'm sure many people in DeafBlogLand have their own stories that prove how well we adapt. I invite them to share their stories. I'd like to talk with your children in 15 to 20 years and have them share their stories about how well they adapt even though they don't hear everything.

Five, why are you so willing to ignore us deaf adults? Your children will become us. Many of us from all walks of life and from all educational backgrounds have weighed in on this topic, asserting that ASL or a natural signed language needs to be part of the package, regardless of whatever else the parents decide (implants or not, spoken/auditory training or not, et cetera). We are the experts on deaf children, not the doctors, audiologists, and cochlear implant companies that are in this to make money. Why are our voices going unheard here?

Six, I feel your desire to want your children to be just like you. I agree with you - you should be able to transmit your culture, your traditions, and your values to your children. I just don't understand why you aren't willing to share your children with us. We don't want to take them away from you. We just want to let them know we're here for them when they're ready for us. We don't mind sharing at all. Why do you mind? (just wondering, not accusing)

Please don't deny a part of your child. Please allow your child to be deaf, while giving your child everything you can. Please continue to expect your child to be part of your family and your culture, but acknowledge that your child is different. Please give your child the most precious gift you can - bilingualism. It's only to their - and your - advantage, after all.

Oralism vs ASL: I'm getting irritated

I just got in and am about to go out again, but I just had to take a bit of time to bang out some thoughts on the ongoing two-part saga at DeafDC.com. As of this writing, both entries have 100-plus comments and I've been following them avidly with great interest.

One thing that absolutely *fries* me is that every time someone pro-ASL or pro-bilingualism speaks up, invectives such as "ASL extremist" or "Deaf militant" are heaped upon their heads. Take the original entry, "Oralism vs. ASL: Here We Go Again." The entry was written in response to John Egbert's protest announcement for the upcoming A G Bell Association conference. I understand the concerns about the protest and I have some questions about the protest myself, even though I support the concept of standing up to those who have hurt deaf education. I thought Shane Feldman made some good points. However, the title reinforced a dichotomy; a black-and-white situation. The two first words in the entry were "Oh, brother." The very second sentence reported an attempt to mock the AG Bell organization. While the rest of the entry was more balanced and sought a middle ground between the two extremes, the title and opening established a very negative tone toward a segment of our community. At best, this was not in good judgement, and at worst, it was an irresponsible choice, causing more division. Later in a comment, Shane pointed out that he is pro-ASL and because of this, I believe that he never intended to hurt the community and in fact, he may have thought he was helping us by asking us to examine the situation. He redeemed himself in his second entry by examining ways to effect positive change in organizations. The rest of the original entry, again, was much more balanced and asked us to seek a middle ground; it is just the title and opening that I found in poor taste.

I believe that the choice of title and opening passage paved the way for very negative anti-ASL comments. And boy, did they come! One of the very first exhorted people to stop being so naive, and be deaf, but not dumb. Another gem: "Quite frankly, if someone is going to protest over something as frivolous as this, they are nothing but a whiny ungrateful brat." A sweeping indictment of our world knowledge: "Many Deaf people are being ignorant about what oral approach those day is really like. Even they are ignorant about MANY other things…. That’s even sadder on their part." An assumption: "God forbid they should actually attend the conference and learn something....Go to an AGBell conference and talk to the kids! Except I know you won’t, because you might learn something." And there are more.

Granted, the majority of comments for that entry are reasonable and while there are viewpoints expressed from every single point on the continuum, they are respectfully expressed. This is heartening, because it shows that we, as a whole, are capable of dialogue and attempting to understand each other. Agreed, A Deaf Pundit, Ben M, Shane (in a couple of comments), Barb DiGi, Michele Ketcham, and several others had productive suggestions and/or asked thought-provoking questions. They succeeded in raising the bar for our dialogue and had wonderful ideas about how to go about achieving the same aims that this protest is trying to achieve. I especially loved the one about working with the National Institute of Health, which dictates a lot of public policy in this area. Props to everybody who contributed with ideas and healthy, honest, respectful thoughts!

My beef, however, is that there were far fewer oral-bashing comments than ASL-bashing comments and ASL/Bilingual advocates STILL got painted as extreme and militant. (By the by, I'm not going to tally them up because they would require making judgement calls. Just too subjective - we'd all come up with different numbers.) Agreed (But Not To This Post) put it very, very well:

Rachel, the last thing I want to say tonight… If people really are free to choose another organization that supports some other method, then why is it that Gallaudet gets hammered from every single stinking direction but AGBAD never does? Gallaudet supports ASL and all of a sudden it’s a haven for people who are out of touch with reality, a giant Deaf Club, Deaf Extremists, ASL Extremists, and the list goes on and on. AGBAD, meanwhile, advocates for the use of oral methods, and it can’t be touched? Why not? Why shouldn’t they face the harsh spotlight as well? Why shouldn’t they be forced to account for themselves? Why is their PR about only their successes acceptable, but if we talk about their failures, we’re “angry Deaf people?”

This isn’t meant for you directly but the hypocrisy of many in this community sickens me. Do you know why this is treated as a “war?” Because such people won’t get their heads out of the sand! Show me that you’re willing to acknowledge the failures and weakness of your favored approaches and I’ll open up a dialogue with you any day of the week. But until you do that, and until Deaf people as a whole are no longer bashed for being angry and extremists for daring to take control of their education from K to college and beyond, then you aren’t interested in a dialogue. You’re interested in a scapegoat.

This salient point just FRIES me. It's just so unfair that one side gets all the flak and if they try to criticize the other, the other side throws a hissy fit, raises its arm, and points a finger, crying, "Those big, bad militants and extremists are attacking poor widdle me AGAIN!!!" It'd tick me off if the shoe were on the other foot; that is, ASL proponents were criticizing oral proponents over and over again in the same way, so this has nothing to do with which side I'm on, if I'm on *any* side. Enough already. Let's stop the ASL-bashing and disagree with respect, while continuing this long-term dialogue.

Don't I get a say in this???

I'm sitting in a doctor's office right now waiting for an anaesthetic to kick in, but I'm seething because a mediocre signer was nearly foisted upon me as my interpreter.

**doctoruption**

OK, now I'm home, ready to continue my tale. I was in to see a doctor I'd never seen before due to this odd lump in my throat (apparently an infected lymph node, a byproduct of a cold. And they say colds are mild affairs. Jeez.) He came in and asked me, "Do you read lips?" I do, quite well, but when it comes to medical matters, I'm not willing to take any chances, so I shook my head and signed, "Write, please." He had the effrontery to look annoyed and left the room. I groaned inwardly because I did NOT want an interpreter. He came back in a few minutes with a very well-dressed woman, who signed awkwardly, "Hi, I'm Nancy. I'm an audiologist who works here. I'm here to interpret, help you communicate." I smiled, thanked her, and said no thanks, I prefer to write. She shrugged, pooh-poohed my comment and said, "It's better. It's easier and I'll help you." With that dismissal of my preferences and her presumption that she knew what was best, I became quite livid, but kept my cool. I grabbed pen and paper and wrote the following:

"Thank you — this was very nice. But I'm perfectly capable of communicating on my own. We can do it this way or I have typed back & forth with other doctors via your e-mail program & Patient Notes."

After I'd written the second sentence, Nancy tapped me on the shoulder. I didn't look up and held up one finger to indicate that I wasn't done. Once I showed them my note with a smile and they read it, they both looked stunned, but nodded in acceptance. I think Nancy was miffed by my insistence that I certainly did not need a third party to talk to my doctor, but the doctor seemed like he wasn't upset. I thanked Nancy for understanding with a smile and watched her walk away, quite happy to see her amscray. Dr. E and I proceeded to communicate via pen and paper and the rest of the appointment went quite smoothly.

This brings up several issues, some of which are obvious (such as the jaw-dropping level of patronization and arrogance) and some that aren't so clear.

It was interesting to note how well-dressed the audiologist was. Perfectly coiffed, lovely manicure, well made-up, and generally dripping money. Her clothes were much more Saks than Old Navy. Mm. Two things immediately come to mind. 1. Clearly a lucrative profession, hein? 2. This just may prove the adage that image, image, image is everything. Audiologists and speech therapists do have this tendency to ooze wealth, which implies class and education. And what do we pro-bilingual education professionals tend to wear? Jeans. My school has a no-jeans policy, but that's routinely violated. Some of us may wear button-down shirts and pants, but they look rumpled. Some of the people at my school definitely dress nicely and look professional, but there are a good number who think nothing of wearing jeans once a week or more often. I've even seen T-shirts or track suits (!). Which image would instill more confidence in confused parents searching for guidance? I know which one would help sway me. This is what I do as I dress for work daily: think of your appearance as PR, not only for yourself, but for your worksite and for your philosophy. You never know whom you're influencing and what way that influence goes.

On to a different aspect — this whole situation made me reflect on my communication choices with medical professionals. I feel strongly that it's so important to get accurate information both to and from my doctor. I don't want to deal with the potential for botched translation when my health is at stake, nor do I want to limp along with lipreading. Hence my insistence on written English communication, since we are both using the same language and it is completely accessible to both of us. Another issue I have is privacy. I know too many of the interpreters in this area and I see them socially. I'm not too keen about anybody but people I choose to tell knowing my medical stuff. I don't care about the code of ethics - I just don't want interpreters knowing my business. I'm not ruling out using an interpreter for a doctor's appointment or medical emergencies ever, but I very strongly prefer not to use an interpreter or be forced to rely on spoken English. Don't get me wrong – I'm glad it's an option and it's great that people who want to use one can do so. Just not for me with my doc. *headshake* No thanks — give me clear, completely accessible monolingual communication any day.

The thing that ticked me off the most about this whole thing was Nancy's refusal to accept that her "offer of assistance" was simply unwelcome and unwanted. She was ready to insist that she knew what was best, not me. I'm willing to grant her the benefit of the doubt. After all, she's probably been brainwashed by the system to believe that deaf people need help and that's what she's there for. It's also possible she's open to not being needed but she wanted to help the doctor and felt obligated, since he had asked her to help out. It's also possible she's never been exposed to someone like me, who is quite happy with writing back and forth. However, her refusal to listen to me in the first place was inexcusable. I believe the only reason she backed down was because my declining her services was there in black and white where the doctor could also see it. And that is paternalism, no matter how she wants to justify it.

I could type a whole bunch more, including thoughts on the dominant paradigm, why I'm glad I always have pen and paper, et cetera, but I'll close here by summing this entry up: We need to consider what image we're projecting and how that reflects on our stance on deaf issues. Our choice of communication method is a highly personal one that may vary from individual to individual and depending on the situation, but it is ultimately ours and ours alone, which means that it *should* be respected by those around us.