Meanwhile, I do also completely understand the reason and "right" for using ASL more and "better" --especially at places like Gallaudet. My ASL is only about half-good right now--not even as good as my German probably. But I can have conversations. I did so all the time as Board Chair with King and other Gu administrators directly on VRS (not using interpreters). I get by. And had I had any time to actually prepare my remarks for the GU graduation last May, I probably would have signed them more or at least part of them. But I didn't have that prep time. I was dropped into the Acting Chair's position on May 10, to be exact--once CM Baldwin resigned. And I was handed the remarks she was supposed to deliver (already scripted) for graduation on May 12. In fact, they didn't even give me the script until the morning of May 12. And it still had her name at the top of it! So, using oral/spoken English, I could feel comfortable enough to develop a few of my own "touches" in the prepared script. But I sure couldn't do that trying to use ASL....

"Hey, I like my voice!" I'm proud of it. It's unique, it's mine, I like it. I think I'll use it! - Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. Sept 1, 2010.

If it makes you feel any better at the height of the campus scandal in 2006 while I was defending my student teaching experience for my degree from Gallaudet in front of the Education Department. I also choose to use my voice to do so. I used ASL for the answering/question session but the actual defense I used my voice. Imagine defending an education degree from Gallaudet University orally. I'm sure I was the FIRST to ever do so.

I received a few funny looks from my peers and a few of the EDU professors but It was a success...

-Bobby W.

My son is a HOH rural- always mainstreamed-student. No ASL ever offered. The last thing he needs is another place he won’t be accepted without “conditions”. At least he knows what he is up against at a “hearing school”. Was so hopeful that this college could be a welcome break from discrimination for being who he is. I am so disappointed that “adults” act in this manner- especially ones who have been horribly discriminated against as he has been. He has worked so incredibly hard- zero possibility of being torn apart in DC.

(Chris) Heuer stated that “there is one specific attitude that needs to change. If a non-signer is willing to learn sign, hands off! Let them learn in freedom. Help them. Include them. Make them a part of the community pride. If we exclude them, where else will they learn sign? How can we expect them to sign if we never interact with them?”  

“ASL is an official language like English, and it cannot be mastered overnight. We can’t force everyone to sign outside of the academic buildings and in private, like the dorms and the cafeterias. Imagine telling deaf people at a hearing school (or even oral schools back in the days) that they could not use their native language, sign language, to communicate. Would they like that? No. Now imagine telling hearing people not to talk — which is their native mode of communication — outside of the classroom,” said a hard-of-hearing student who chose to stay anonymous.

Amanda Koski on November 28, 2010 at 6:28 PMsaid:

I agree with Sara 100%!
Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle.
The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful!
To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now? 

Jonathan Beattyon November 29, 2010 at 3:12 PM said: Terrific. Some of the points here are points I make on a daily basis; specifically, the point about the new students not being told about the so-called darker side of Deaf culture. I have found the culture here to be somewhat exclusionary at times.  

I’ll explain myself: I’m hard-of-hearing and have been since birth. However, I “fit in” in the hearing world well. Face-to-face communication is easy enough for me (even though using the phone is painfully difficult with some voices) that I did not *have* to come to Gallaudet. However, I’ve had good experiences with the Academic Bowl, having come to Nationals three times. I was always met with respect and patience, even though during the competition I used a voice interpreter. I came to Gallaudet as a new signer (in the summer program as well) expecting similar treatment.  

Ha! I was wrong.  

In only the third day of the New Signers’ Program, my table at lunch was approached by a proud Deaf girl who proceeded to tell us (with a good friend of mine translating for my benefit, of course) that Gallaudet was a Deaf university and that we should only sign while on campus. Those competent in ASL at the table were sim-comming, but two of us were just speaking. At that point, I knew letters, numbers, and days of the week, along with a smattereing of other useful signs (“right”, “wrong”, “day”, “morning”, etc) so I was not pleased at being told that my language skills were not good enough to be allowed to express myself.  

I am also offended that it’s somehow right for people to criticize my signing skills just because they are Deaf. It’s well-accepted on campus and seen as being just a sign of “Deaf bluntness”. I’m sick of it; I do make an effort to improve my signing skills, but what if I were to laugh at a Deaf person trying to order food at McDonald’s: “Your speaking is awful. You should practice more.” That would be completely unacceptable.  

The argument from tradition is a very, very poor one. Something is not good just because that’s how it’s traditionally been done. Some examples of “cultural traditions” here that I have come to abhor:  

1. The cultural policy on phones. I personally do not have voice on my phone (when I use the phone, I prefer to do so on Skype with my amplified headphones and equalizer). That being said, if someone wants to use the phone, let them. Is it right to sit at the table with Deaf people and speak on the phone? No, and for the same reason that it would be inappropriate for me to greet a phone call from my friend Hans with “Tag, Hans! Wie geht’s?” and proceed to rattle off in German while surrounded by English-speaking hearing people.  

2. The repression of simultaneous communication. Yes, I said it. The point is communication; when you get stuck in the game of being prideful in something just because it’s part of *your* culture, you’re playing the same stupid games oppressive people have always played. I’d like to be able to understand lectures and be able to participate. For the same reasons that Deaf students in mainstream schools do not typically participate in classes (linguistic processing is slow with or without the interpreter) I find it difficult to participate in a class when, by the time I understand what was signed, the conversation has already moved on. I do not think deaf people should be encouraged to sim-com if they’re not comfortable with it, not at all. However, I must say that I’m always appreciative when someone notices my poor signing skills and sim-coms for my benefit.  

3. The oppression of signs with “No, that’s English”; a lot of people on campus sign with an English structure anyway. That’s what happens in bilingual environments. It is very rare to see two languages side-by-side without “contamination”; Deaf English typically is missing things like articles, plurals, etc while Hearing ASL can contain signs which are, strictly speaking, completely unnecessary in a sign language. This occurs even when the people in question are fluent in both languages. There is a line between comfortable language and formal language; “Pidgin Signed English” is that line for a *lot* of students of all backgrounds.  

And with all due respect to President Hurwitz, I must say I disagree strongly with this comment:  

“And no, this is not about stifling speech or marginalizing those whose signing skills are undeveloped. Rather, it’s about respect, courtesy, tradition and harmony.”

I don’t care what it’s about. I am more concerned with what it DOES. These policies DO stifle speech and they DO marginalize those whose signing skills are underdeveloped. Your intentions are irrelevant.

 “We all know and accept that Gallaudet is a bilingual university. Communication here happens through American Sign Language (ASL) and English. While the expectation that everyone on campus becomes fluent in both languages within a reasonable amount of time, the reality is that some people, however diligent, take longer to master one or the other language.”

I know, I know, everyone says that sign-supported English (SSE) and simultaneous communication (SimCom) – both involving speech and sign at the same time – are bad. On the theoretical/political side, people point out that neither is truly a language unto itself, and argue that they therefore are “inappropriate.” Empirically, people point to two studies, both done over 20 years ago, which found that several teachers and parents of young deaf children said more than appeared on their hands (by anywhere from 20 to 50%). The sign abilities of those parents and teachers were never examined, however, and some people are extremely good at SSE (or whatever language) and SimCom. Research over the past 30 years has shown that when teachers are highly skilled at SSE or SimCom, students learn just as much or more than with ASL from a teacher, interpreting, or spoken language alone. In our own work, we’ve recently have found the same thing, as deaf college students learned exactly the same amount when they had teachers using SimCom, voice-off ASL, or utilizing interpreters.Importantly, these were skilled teachers of the deaf, who had been using SimCom for many years with classes that included oral students, ASL students, and everything in between. Although it frequently is not discussed (at least in public) many deaf students request teachers to use SimCom and ask interpreters to include “English on the lips.” It seems likely that SimCom would be particularly beneficial for children with cochlear implants, who generally do not receive auditory input as clear as that received by hearing children.  

Unfortunately, the unearned stigma associated with SSE/SimCom seems to have prevented anyone from doing the appropriate study. Meanwhile, both are used effectively in many classrooms, even if students use a natural sign language or spoken language in other settings. What is essential is that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have early access to fluent language. That usually is difficult with spoken language alone and most parents are not fluent in sign. So, SimCom/SSE might be helpful in ensuring communication for new-signing parents, but this DOES NOT mean that SimCOM/SSE can replace full access to a natural language (actually, there isn’t research one way or another). The issue clearly is more complex than we can deal with here.  

For full discussion of what we know and what we don’t know, see Spencer, P.E. & Marschark, M. (in press). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students. New York: Oxford University Press.

"process of false persuasion by scientific pretense"

“Deficit thinking is tantamount to the process of ‘blaming the victim’. It is a model founded on imputation, not documentation.”

• Provide timely and reliable information about hearing loss through HLAA’s website, Hearing Loss Magazine, HLAA e-News, the Hearing Loss Support Specialist Training, message boards/chat forums and annual conventions
• Advocacy at the national level to affect legislation that impacts people with hearing loss, whether it’s funding for hearing aids, cochlear implants, communication access in public places or other important issues
• A nationwide network of chapters and state organizations providing peer support
• Support for parents of children with hearing loss at www.kidsandhearingloss.org
• Outreach to veterans returning with hearing loss
• Social networking site for young adults with hearing loss at www.hearinglossnation.org

• Captioning and hearing assistive technology at HLAA chapter meetings to make them accessible
• Scholarships toward college tuition for students with hearing loss
• Funding for hearing aids and assistive listening devices for people who cannot afford them
• Installation of hearing assistive technology in public places, such as community rooms and public libraries
• Captioning of live theater productions
• Seminars on coping with hearing loss

empower parents of hard of hearing and/or deaf children by providing the resources necessary for them to make informed decisions about their children’s hearing loss.

As a Deaf man, former teacher of the Deaf and advocate for the Deaf community in the NW, I can confirm to you that many Deaf people graduate from high school with about a 4th grade reading level. ASL is their first language, which is quite different from English. English is difficult to master for them, given the communication barriers.

According to Marc Marschark, the Director of the Center for Education Research Partnerships at NTID, the statistic appears in a 2000 study by Carol B Traxler, which purports that, after the analysis of SAT reading comprehension scores, the median (not the average) scores for deaf high schoolers were around the fourth grade level. And while the statistic is still a frightening one, it does mean that fifty percent of deaf high schoolers are reading above a fourth grade reading level.  Another thing to note is that this statistic is often leveraged as a way to speak out against certain methods of deaf education.  In reality, the scores were the same whether or not the student's primary mode of communication was ASL, SEE or speech, and regardless of whether he or she wore hearing aids, a cochlear implant or nothing. Check out Marschark's full interview with Hands and Voices on the subject here. 

ASDB students’ MAP test scores showed that they start at a much lower level than national norms. Although limited growth occurred after 5th and 6th grades and continued into high school, it was not sufficient to bring students’ scores within reach of national norms. For example, by the 11th grade, ASDB students scored the same as the average 3rd-grade student would in reading and scored slightly below the average 4th-grade student in math.

The underachievement of our state's deaf and hard-of-hearing students is of grave concern.

Only 8 percent of our deaf students and 15 percent of our hard-of-hearing students score proficient or advanced on the California Standards Test for English-language arts.

In math, only 10 percent of our deaf students and 18 percent of our hard-of-hearing students score proficient or advanced.

In support of California EC 56000.5, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, this document provides clarification for the CDEs position supporting the right of children to have access to a complete language, visual or spoken, as appropriate, from birth.

Believes that children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing have the right to receive appropriate services that will provide them with exposure to fully accessible natural languages – American Sign Language (ASL), and spoken English (or other spoken language).

Accepts and respects all languages.

Accepts and respects all communication tools (i.e., Cued Speech, Signing Exact English, Conceptually Accurate Signed English, Sign Supported Speech, Simultaneous Communication).

Accepts and respects all educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children (i.e., ASL/English Bilingual, Listening and Spoken Language, and Total Communication).

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the language opportunities available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the communication tools available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are born Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the language(s) they will use in raising their children.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the communication tool(s) they will use in raising their children.

Believes that parents should not be compelled to choose between spoken and signed language. They may choose to use both.

The opposition argues that the focus of this bill about "communication options" is misleading and picking one option over another would only rob the child of the ability and opportunity for full language acquisition.

Early Start should be under the state entity that is best fitted to provide oversight and coordinate early intervention services: The California Department of Education (CDE). The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) should not be involved at all, unless a child in a particular case is developmentally disabled.

The CDE should be the entity responsible for designing an appropriate resource guide-handbook...

Emphasizes that the purpose of Early Start for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing is to ensure that these children acquire age appropriate language skills to enable them to do well in school and career.

February 26th was an especially good day for the Stanford team in their efforts to move closer to finding a cure for hearing loss. In addition to the exciting Press Release on Dr. Cheng’s research findings on hair cell regeneration and hearing loss, we were pleased to announce that Dr. Heller and the Stanford OHNS team were the proud owners of a new stem cell sorter. As you may recall, there are currently only about a dozen of these instruments (costing over a third of a million dollars) available in the world. The Stanford team will be the first research group in the world to apply this cutting edge technology to overcome hearing loss.

Also, he led to set up and organize a short-lived ad hoc organization called FROG to mock the Greek organizations for fun during the Rock Festival weekend and I played some roles in his organization.

“He proceeded to disparage the deaf people, making very specific and negative comments with regard to deaf people. After his triad continued for more than 5 minutes, I finally had to confront him. At which point I commented that it was obvious he didn’t know anyone who was deaf, nor did he have a child that was hearing impaired. He continued to reference your organization and made comments that they didn’t want stupid deaf people in their neighborhood, and that he was and had participated in a petition campaign to stop them making his park into a school for “STUPID DEAF PEOPLE,” because he didn’t want them in his neighborhood. He offered of allow a couple of people in line with him to “sign our petition.”

Because if I had the resources I would be putting my money in hearing aids. As a musician I value my ears above everything else. I know the damage that can be done to your hearing from volume in a confined space. So my idea is that everyone who thinks that having the equivalent of a 10,000 watt PA in their car, should be encouraged to do so...They should also keep the windows closed, volume works so much better in a confined space. They should indulge in it as much as they like, they should ruin their hearing forever, because at the end of the day, apart from the fact they never listened to anything intelligent or life changing, my franchise would be there to sell them deaf aids. Imagine all those stupid deaf people, with their useless car systems, their cheap fashions & poor plastic taste, waiting for my sales person to talk to them, writing prices on a piece of paper, because they cannot hear what you are saying! But you can have it in Chav pink!! The opportunities to enjoy and savour revenge are wonderful.

Oh yeah, stupid deaf people should only get utilitarian signing? Fuck man, we dont have to clown everything.

Stupid deaf people in horror movies are about as annoying as just plain old stupid people in horror movies.

One of them being that hard of hearing students should not be permitted to talk - only sign in American Sign language - she did not care what parents thought. Even in the last couple of months, a current ASDB teacher taped a student's mouth during class-time for "speaking" as well as hit him with many students and staff witnessing this. It was reported, but due to her "ties" with Nancy and certain administrators, she still remains. The bullying continues on campus from certain deaf staff. Was this disclosed in the AZ star? NOPE.

Working at ASDB not being in the in crowd, everyone watches you and reports silly crap to your supervisor. I know I was good at my job, but I allowed myself to be pushed out because going to work in a hostile work environment everyday is not healthy. Being watched and being called into your supervisors office everyday for petty stuff becomes old and tiring. I look back now and wish I would have went and talked to Robert Hill, but Nancy A. would have probably told the deaf community and I would have hell to pay.  

Shel has been the most vociferous with her attempts to rationalize these methods that are oppressive to those children with residual hearing and speech that can be developed. The “bi-bi” approach, or rather “movement” is operating under the guise of “teaching language and culture.” This implies that ASL and Deaf culture are only incidental to the teaching, when in fact, those concepts are the main goal. Auditory methods and speech articulation are suppressed under the rationale that it is necessary in order for these children to “assimilate” ASL to proficiency. There are many fallacies regarding this assumption. But just bear in mind that these people are profoundly affecting the lives of these children by altering the primary language to ASL and by exposure to a culture that has not been defined.

There is no theory or empirical evidence that ASL is a “bridge” to English language learning, even though this very premise has been claimed by many renowned (unnamed) educators of the deaf. In the past these advocates for “bi-bi,” ASL, etc. have alluded to, or insinuated that such a thing exists. But when pressed, they admit that there is no evidence. This has not stopped them, however. They are fervently working to manufacture “studies” and seeking out established language experts to validate their methods, by claiming parallels about how hearing persons learn foreign language. It is not the same! Learners of a second language have already acquired their primary language!

The goal of our schools, whether they are public schools for the hearing or public (state schools) for the deaf, the majority of states require that English must be taught as L1 (English=First Language). This is not happening in deaf schools where ASL is being taught as L1 (ASL=First Language). In such cases, this is clear violation of state law. Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school. I suppose, I do not know, but suppose, that they will rationalize their actions by saying that deaf require a visual language in order to communicate. All that they are doing is engraining these children into a language that is little known or used outside of deaf circles.

The minds of young children are “in the process” of being wired in early childhood. Although much of this “wiring” occurs in the first 2-3 years, it continues for many years after this “ideal window” for language development. Once a child is “wired” for a language of a certain type, that mode becomes life-long and unlikely to change. Proponents of the “bi-bi” movement know this, and are pressing forward with this misguided approach that will create a whole new generation of deaf individuals bereft of English language skills, recognizable speech, and enculturation into an extremely small minority “society” that has historically, and likely to remain a social and economic under-class in perpetuity.