Turmoil at College for Deaf Reflects Broader Debate

[XemaSab]

Ask Joshua Walker, a sophomore at Gallaudet University here, about technology like cochlear implants that helps many deaf people hear, and he is dismissive.

Joshua Walker, left, a sophomore at Gallaudet University, where the appointment of Jane K. Fernandes as the next president has caused an uproar on campus. “In some way, you’re saying deaf people are not good enough, they need to be fixed,” signed Mr. Walker, 20. “I don’t need to be fixed. My brain works fine.”

Protests over the selection of a new president, Jane K. Fernandes, have thrown Gallaudet, the nation’s only liberal arts university for the deaf, into turmoil. But the clash is also illuminating differences over the future of deaf culture writ large, and focusing attention on a politically charged debate about what it means to be deaf in the 21st century.

Should Gallaudet be the standard bearer for the view that sees deafness not as a disability, but as an identity, and that looks warily on technology like cochlear implants, questioning how well they work and arguing that they undermine a strong deaf identity and pride? Or should Gallaudet embrace the possibilities of connecting with the hearing world that technology can offer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/education/21gallaudet.html?ref=us

[Berry Cool]

1. So Gallaudet's having another president controversy, eh?

This seems to happen over and over there.

I imagine the NYT is going to get their head handed to them for reporting that a deaf person "signed" a reply rather than "said" it. Ideally, they would not have made such a distinction.

Deaf people can be very defensive and protective of their culture, viewing it as just as unique and precious as any other culture, and viewing any technology that enables people to hear as a form of genocide.

It's not going to be an easy problem to solve.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Frankly, as much as the militants within the

deaf culture irritate the hell out of me (they've gotten angry with me because I've expressed my view of wishing I could have a cochlear implant and could hear better), I can certainly understand where they're coming from on the issue of Gallaudet's president and I agree with them on that. The president of a deaf university should damn well be a part of the culture themselves and should have a first-hand understanding of what the students have to deal with on a daily basis in a hearing world. It's insulting to the students to put forth a president who is not one of them.

Back in '88, during the DPN (Deaf President Now!) protest over the hiring of the new president, I definitely was on their side. The proposed president was not only not deaf, she didn't know any sign language at all or any other aspect of the deaf culture, which was truly insulting.

[Spinzonner]

2. Deafer than Thou ?

[liberalhistorian]

5. That appears to be a real attitude among

the deaf culture, trust me. I've never understood it, though. I'd give anything to be able to hear better, I'm tired of having to wear hearing aids and struggling to hear all the goddamned time. Especially in movies, where I lose more than half of what's being said even with my hearing aids. It's only when I watch them on TV later with the closed captioning that I truly understand them. Closed captioning has been a godsend for me, especially with my type of hearing loss, sensorineural, where words often get scrambled up so that you can hear that something's being said but you can't fully understand it.

[azureblue]

8. If you're having a hard time hearing

then blame your audiologist for not adjusting your hearing aids correctly. I have a severe loss and am a performing jazz musician. i learned how to self program, and, in turn, I learned that most audis have no clue about how to adjust hearing aids.

[tblue37]

9. Hearing aids work better for some than for others.

My hearing aids help me understand speech about as well as a walker helps someone walk.

Many--perhaps most--with severe hearing loss get only partial correction from aids. Because most people get 100% correction from glasses, they have trouble understanding the limited corrections so many of us get from hearing aids.

The problem isn't sound (i.e., music), but language. Distinguishing words is often impossible, even with aids. With aids in, I can HEAR you talk, but I often can't understand what youa re saying.

[liberalhistorian]

14. Exactly! I have sensorineural hearing loss,

the technical term for "nerve deafness" and there's only so much that hearing aids can do for that type of loss. My greatest trouble is distinguishing actual words. Like you said, I can often hear that something is being said but I cannot actually distinguish the words.

Hearing aids only amplify sound (some of the fancier newer, digital ones even filter out background noise to make it easier to hear in restaurants and other public places; that would be great, but I just can't afford them), they don't help to distinguish the actual words being spoken. That's the most frustrating thing of all, and some days I just get so tired of it. Thank GOD for closed captioning!

[tblue37]

21. Hey, liberalhistorian,

you might like to check out my I'm Listening as Hard as I Can! website? http://www.deafnotdumb.homestead.com/index.html
I write commentary about coping with deafness. Most of my pieces are humorous, but some of them (like "Refusing to Admit to Hearing Loss," which I wrote on request for a now defunct deaf/HoH ezine) are more serious.

BTW, my deafness is caused by Meniere's Disease. Deafness runs in the female line of my family. Mom, Mom's mother, and Grandma's sisters were all progressively deafened, as I have been. My younger sister is even deafer than I (and that is pretty darned deaf!), and our youngest sister suddenly lost most of the hearing in one ear just five years ago--from Meniere's. Poor thing--she had had perfect hearing until age 47, so unlike the rest of us, she didn't have a lifetime to get adjusted to her hearing loss.

[tblue37]

23. Oh, and you might also like

"Even with My Hearing Aids, I Am Still Hearing-Impaired":
http://www.deafnotdumb.homestead.com/hitchcock.html

[DavidDvorkin]

3. If a cure for deafness becomes available

then this debate will evaporate. There may be a few holdouts, but I suspect that the majority of deaf people will be eager for the cure.


I'm very hard of hearing and have been since childhood. I got hearing aids as soon as the kind that help me became affordable, and I'd be quick to get a permanent fix if it were available.

(I wrote about my feelings on the matter here: http://www.dvorkin.com/essays/hearing.html)

[greeneyedboy]

10. such a "cure" would wipe out 250+ languages and cultures.

i hope it never happens, and the deaf people i know don't want to be "cured". ASL is a gorgeous, rich language, and they are no more disabled than I am in a room full of people who don't use my native language.

[liberalhistorian]

15. Sorry, but as someone qualified to speak on this

matter because I'm part of the "group", so to speak, I have to say that I consider my hearing-impairedness a disability and not an "identity" and those who fault me for that can kiss my ass. This is a hearing world, and to not be able to hear right in it is a disability. I'm sick to death of dealing with it and would be the first in line for any cure for deafness/hard of hearing. If that makes me a "traitor" to the "cause" then so fucking be it.

[greeneyedboy]

18. nobody is trying to stop you from doing whatever you want.

and i certainly would never call you a traitor.

i just object to imposing a "cure" on people who don't want it and function just fine without it.

in the city where i live, many people do not use English. this is an English-speaking world, and some options are not available to them because they don't use English.
just as some options are not available to me because i don't know Chinese, don't have lots of money, etc. does that mean they should be forced to use English? if not, then why should deaf people be forced to accept an extremely risky and expensive procedure that they don't want?

do whatever you want, but don't force it on other people.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. Who's talking about force?

In my post that started this sub-thread, I said that I think that if a cure becomes available, the dispute will evaporate as the vast majority will choose that cure.

No force involved.

[tblue37]

22. Oh, yeah--you should visit my site.

You would love my essay "Don't Tell Me I'm Not 'Hearing Impaired'!" In it I specifically address this issue:
http://www.deafnotdumb.homestead.com/pc.html

[liberalhistorian]

4. Well, as someone who's suffered with

sensorineural hearing loss most of my life and who's worn hearing aids for over twenty years, since college, I would truly welcome a cochlear implant if it would help me hear better. In fact, I'd be desperate for it if it would actually work for me, which it wouldn't. I don't see my near-deafness as an "identity" but a disability and if that makes me a "traitor" in the eyes of the deaf community, so fucking be it.

That doesn't give me the right to make that determination for others, certainly. But I have a really hard time understanding why someone wouldn't jump at the chance to hear better. It's a real, major pain in the ass to be hearing-impaired, let me tell you; it affects everything in your life, especially employment and socially. And it's hard for your family and friends, too.

[Igel]

7. Mr. Walker's brain does not work fine.

However, it's not his brain that's at issue. It's his auditory apparatus. And his willingness to be cooperative in communication.

People born without two legs don't need to have their brains fixed either, their brains work just as well as Mssr. Walker's. But they certainly can, and do, profit from prosthetics and physical aids such as wheel chairs, instead of being proud that they form a legless community with special needs and devices. Mr. Walker must frown on their atavism.

Obviously I'm in favor of cochlear implants for those that can benefit from them. It's expensive, but nowhere near expensive as requiring ASL interpreters at work for 30 years, and not nearly as demeaning as being in a situation where he needs information but can't understand it, so he has to blame the non-signing person for not accommodating his specialness or understanding ASL.

I guess it could be worse. Mr. Walker could insist on not learning to read and write in English. He could just stick to SignWriting (or Stokoe notation).

[greeneyedboy]

11. same logic is used by all the anti-immigrant folks

who want us to pass "English-only" laws. i find it abhorrent.

[Igel]

28. It's the logic used by people working in discourse pragmatics.

Hardly a reactionary field.

One must be cooperative when communicating. I extend this from things like relevance and completeness to communication as a whole.

If an immigrant shows up and does not learn sufficient English after a reasonable period of time for his basic needs, he is not cooperating; he is imposing on others to learn his language. Given 300 languages spoken by immigrants to the US, all minorities, one can take the tack that they should learn English, or that everybody should learn their languages. Work out the math; I'm not going to learn hundreds of languages, and the logic works the same if the language is spoken by .00001% of the population or 10% of the population. Human rights don't depend on the census, or on immigrant status. Only reality trumps the logic--shopkeepers learn the overall-minority-yet-community-majority language.

When I was in Finland I was grateful for those that spoke English--I was there for a day, and when I couldn't communicate I viewed it as my problem; when I spent months in the Czech Republic, ucil jsem si cesky--I learned Czech. Americans that did not meet the dominant community were greatly resented and judged arrogant, and properly so, although they viewed imposing English on the long-term inhabitants of Prague, and refusing to learn even survival Czech, as some sort of divinely-granted American right. There is no such right, from Americans or any other group. One cooperates or one is uncooperative. I don't fall for the (il)logic that calling names and presenting false analogies constitutes some sort of reasoned argument. Discourse should be above that; if not, there's not really any reason to argue, since argument is irrelevant.

In the case of the deaf, if they can meet the dominant speech community part way, they should; if they can and don't, they're imposing their requirements on others in a way that I think is arrogant, if not hostile--they expect others to consistently conform to the wishes, not necessarily their needs. They get no sympathy from me, their problems are self-imposed. As I mentioned above, if everybody that's challenged wrt communication takes this attitude, the result is unreasonable, ne tak? If they can't meet the dominant speech community halfway, they have a reasonable expectation that people will oblige when possible; they're not necessarily arrogant, merely needy. (They may also be arrogant; the two attributes aren't mutually exclusive.)

I'm not a big believer in positive rights. Each positive right imposes an obligation, not necessarily a voluntary one.

[liberalhistorian]

16. Very well-put, thanks!

I find it especially repugnant when deaf parents won't let their children have cochlear implants if they'd benefit from them, in order to "protect" their "identity." This amounts to gross child abuse and neglect, frankly.

As I am hearing-impaired and wear hearing aids, I do not expect special treatment from those around me and I do not expect the entire world to accommodate me. I have a disability, NOT an "identity."

[seasat]

12. Part of it is audio verbal therapy for implant patients.

They've found through studies that children that learn to sign will not progress as fast in learning to interpret the signals from their implants. The speech therapists that work with implant patients ask that you not teach them sign language and focus only on verbal communication. Some find it okay to use common signs instead like motioning for them to come to you but not sign language.

I find the whole idea that someone who can benefit from cochlear implants shouldn't because of some cultural issue, ridiculous. I'm blind as a bat without my glasses and I'm not about to give them up and join a severely near sighted culture.

You see, I have personal experience with this issue. My twin sons were both born with profound genetic hearing loss. After doing some research, we decided on cochlear implants and the change has been miraculous. The modern implants are much better than those described in the article. They are both 16 months old and respond to their names. They have learned to respond to simple words. Both enjoy music. One will dance to it. The other loves banging on a cheap keyboard we bought for them. They've only had the implants active for 3 months. I put my career on hold to stay home and work with them and help them learn speech.

My uncle, who was also born deaf, refuses to see them since they got their implants. He won't stop by when we are visiting my folks. He says that God made them deaf for a special purpose. He is part of this deaf culture that shuns those that get implants as though they are traitors.

My wife and I have to make the best choices for our sons. Not being able to hear leaves them at a disadvantage to their peers. It also becomes a safety issue since they can't hear a spoken warning or approaching car. When they are older, if they can make the decision to remove their implants and join the deaf culture, I'll support them 100%. Right now, I find that attitude against implants personally disgusting. An individual should have the right to choose their own path in life and others should accept that. It's a parent's repsonsibilty to make those choices for their children until they are mature enough to make it themselves.

[XemaSab]

13. So do you agree with the students?

That the president should be a part of their community and culture? Or do you think they are maybe too picky?

I can't think of another culture that can "pick" who is and isn't a member.

[liberalhistorian]

19. I think the students have every right to expect that

the president of their university should be a part of their culture and should not be dismissive of things like sign language, etc. Frankly, I think the president of a deaf university should be deaf themselves and have a first-hand understanding of what their students deal with on a daily basis. It's truly insulting to the students to not have a deaf president of their deaf university.

[seasat]

26. I can see both sides of the issue.

I think that the choice of what direction and how to lead a university such as that should be left up to the students and supporters. If it's their view that they should emphasize sign language then it should be followed. I can't imagine Berkley alumni and students supporting Trent Lott as their president. However, like I said in my post below, I don't support their bigotry against those that choose to get cochlear implants. If the president fully supported their total use of sign language and was fluent in sign language, then they shouldn't express a prejudice against her because she has an implant. However, if she is pushing the university in a direction they don't want to go, then they have every right to oppose her.

[Fredda Weinberg]

17. The genetic part gets ya every time

I sympathize with those who consider their heritage worthy of preservation, despite condemnation from the greater society. I believe those who say that sign is more expressive language and that relationships are more intense within the deaf community.

I would not second guess your decision as a parent, responsible for your own children. But the opposing side has a legitimate point to make and you can accept that even as you do what you think is best.

[seasat]

24. Of course I accept their view but not their condemnation.

As I stated in my post, if my sons want to remove their implants and join the "deaf culture" when they are older, then I will support them completely. However, I do not want someone condemning my children because I made the decision for them that I feel will help them to have a better life. It is the individual's choice and in the case of infant children, the parent's choice. It is not the choice of some outside group. I have no condemnation for their choice to remain deaf and use only sign. I fully support that. I do have condemnation for their bigotry against those who chose other options. There are a lot of other genetic conditions that result in loss of normal body functions. I don't hear of other groups condemning an individual for choosing to correct it.

IMHO, their reaction is a response to the bigotry against the deaf. They were considered retarded back in older days and people generally treat them as lacking comprehension skills. I run into it all the time with my sons. My sons are advanced in many tasks for their age, but people view them as being imperfect because of their profound hearing loss. This still doesn't exscuse my uncle's or some members of the deaf culture's behavior. My sons will have enough prejudices from the hearing population to battle without condemnation from other hearing impaired individuals.

[phylny]

25. I'm a speech-language pathologist who has worked with

kids with CI, and I insisted that one child be taught sign as we were working with the implant team, the family, and the child. There were serious doubts as to whether the implant was helping the child, and the doctors and audiologists have all but concluded that the child is getting absolutely no auditory benefit.

I wanted to be certain the child learned names of things, knew how to call its parents, and had help understanding the world the child lives in.

That's the LANGUAGE part of Speech-Language Pathology ;)

[seasat]

27. I can understand that.

My sons responded spectacularly to their implants. As soon as they were activated, they responded to sound. They now make sounds to get our attention and try to imitate speech. If we suspected that they hadn't we would have gone another route. They haven't developed too many consonants yet (mainly just "mmm") but make all the vowel sounds.

I do plan on relearning ASL myself and my sons learning it also. I will wait until they fully develop their speaking abilities. Our audiologists and speech therapists have recommended that we wait until they are a least in elementary school. I do want them to be able to relate to folks such as my uncle.

According to our audiologist, there are several recent papers from a study done in Miami that showed a significant difference in speech development between implanted children of the same age who previously had learned sign and who didn't know sign. They found that sign language is much easier for children to use and they didn't want to learn speech as quickly.

[phylny]

29. I agree with what you say.

The other children were gaining great benefit from the CI and were understanding and learning language, and we did avoid sign in the beginning.

Best to you and your sons :)