I see you made many of these same points on your own blog, but since you posted them here first I will respond here.

You’re definitely right. Parental involvement has been one factor that almost consistently shows up in the eventual success of the child, although that effect still does not predict oral success to a strong degree. In my opinion, using ASL reduces the need for intensity of involvement on the part of the parents, although I don’t have any statistics to back me up on that, just my gut feeling.

I do want to make it clear that just because a parent sends a child to a school for the Deaf doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily “dumping” the child, but it can be that they recognize that that would be the best environment for their child, linguistically and socially, but are still concerned about their child’s welfare and do what they can for their child when the child is with them. But I do agree with you that there is a certain element that does “dump” the child and expects the school to do all the educating. But that goes for parents of Hearing children as well — there are certain parents who think it is the school’s job to do all the teaching. And this is why we are seeing the schools in trouble nowadays.

I think you’re confusing linguistic status of the World’s languages with what is commonly taught as a second language. Swahili is definitely a language, although yes, it is not usually taught in schools or colleges as a second language. ASL is becoming more and more recognized as a language, and more places are teaching it as a “Foreign Language”, but even if it was not taught as a “F.L.”, this would not detract from its status as a language in its own right.

As for your points re: DBC, AGB, and AVT, I am not so sure that it would work the way you describe. It is probably something for DBC to decide for itself in the direction they want to go. Knowing AGB from my perspective, I have my serious doubts whether AGB would support the Deaf perspective on ASL and bilingualism. But if I can be proved wrong, then that would be a good thing for future Deaf children.

Thanks for giving us something to think about. I do respect your thoughts, and this is what we all need to do — have a mutually respectful dialogue about the issues.

–Don G.

However, it was not the school alone that gave me my speaking and lip reading skills, a lot of credit goes to my parents as they dedicated themselves to ensure that I learned it at the home too. Having dedicated parents is a vital role in the upbringing of any child, whether its ASL or oral.

That being the case, this could also be another reason for the failures that I mentioned earlier, parental involvement. There are those parents that have “dumped” there kids in deaf schools, whether its oral or ASL, expecting the school to take care of it themselves without being personally involved with the development of the childs language.

Those successes that we see on both communication modes, are almost always as a result of parental involvement. I would imagine that it is significantly more work on the oral side when it comes to parental involvement. Which is a point that these parents need to be made aware of, if they cannot dedicate themselves to a tactic enough to do so from the home in itself, then they should not do it.

I was kind of taken aback when you used Swahili as an example when you said that ASL is not seen as a true language. I thought ASL was recognized as a language in many states and now many high schools across the country are offering it as a foreign language. That isn’t the case with Swahili. Granted, ASL was not recognized as a language by states back then, but progress has indeed been made and progress is continuing. It just takes time.

Your points on the educational aspect are genuine points. When I said “weaning off”, I was referring to the parents that choose the AVT model. To be honest, I was offended at first, but the fact that it did not use ASL so I communicated with more people in that field, teachers, parents, and yes even students themselves to learn more about it before having an official position about it. I wanted facts and information before I had set my opinions in stone.

AVT means just that, Auditory Verbal Training, it is nothing like the oral training that I had as a child (which I wasn’t too keen on as a child, but now appreciate it). The teachers can actually stand behind the students, which was not possible during my day. It is 100% auditory training. I still remember a statement a commenter made to me last year, its just like where a grandfather places a child on his knee and talks to him and the child learns from him. Same thing with AVT, there are no visual tools used whatsoever. So if you were to try to add ASL to this, it would no longer be called AVT. Now don’t kill the messenger here but that was what I learned and I am nuetral with that, just as I am nuetral with CIs.

I dont think AVT has been around long enough to really determine its success or failure rates, as the first generation of students in AVT are now just entering their college years. The real test is when they graduate and enter the real world.

It appears that AVT is showing enough success because I do see more more and more AVT programs popping up across the country. I would imagine that the reason for more programs is so that the students remain as day students and not in dormitories, hence allowing more parental involvement which plays a vital role in the success of an AVT student.

I do realize that many deaf people do not like this, but that is what these hearing parents of deaf children are liking, and this is what DBC has to compete with in terms of reaching out to hearing parents of deaf children.

Unfortunately, I do think that DBC has pretty much ruined its reputation with AG Bell and it will be extremely hard to overcome that. I am not trying to bash them here, I am looking at hard facts. It is probably easier to start a new organization when it comes to approaching AG Bell.

And yes, I did see that a deaf services group had a bad location at the Milwaukee conference, but I have not gotten the whole story here. But if you look at this strictly from a business perspective, some organizations do charge more for the prime spots, hence, sponsorship. Top sponsors get the prime spots. Secondly, they look at repeat vendors, vendors that come back over and over. They would get a better spot so that they can keep coming back. That leaves out the worst spots for first timers or groups they feel would not attend the next convention. I do feel it was more of this situation than anything else when it came to that deaf services group, based on my business experience.

Now suppose DBC took that 35-40 thousand that has been said on blogs was used for the DBC event in Milwaukee, and instead, used it for top sponsorship, they would be among the best spots in the conference. I think that would have been a significantly better strategy.

Lastly, Don, I do support bilingualism for deaf babies wholeheartedly, but I don’t know if I can support DBC itself in their efforts to get it right, simply because they have ruined their reputation with AG Bell and it will be extremely difficult to overcome that. I only say AG Bell for one reason and one reason only, they have the best access to hearing parents of deaf babies and there is no way around that for the time being and likely it will be that way for years to come. However, I will support a group that takes the right approach, and that is allying themselves with AG Bell, again for one reason and one reason only, the actual access to hearing parents of deaf children.

I do beleive we can get AG Bell to change their thinking too, if we can create a win-win situation. I actually think it would be more beneficial if a new such organization does not grow to be too big, simply for the reason being that its easier to ensure that the message stays the same throughout the organization. For example, you say that DBC is not against cochlear implants, but there was Jack Barr, a highly touted DBC activist, with a vlog or two that was totally against CIs. That sends a conflicting message doesnt it?

Someone asked why I think some are bitter about this topic; well the fact is, some are bitter. I guess i can accept this because the fact that there are those who are emotive about their oral upbringing.

I have a disappointment that there’s this AGBell bashing going on that really isn’t solving anything. I have yet to see anyone trying to make a move to educate doctors about sign language. Who’s going around communicating to all hospitals that have a maternity ward? Who’s making brochures, websites, and writing letters to hearing aid centers, expectant mothers classes (breathing classes, yoga), and the like?

Instead, there’s AGBell bashing; constant reminding of things that happened in history. Yes, there is value in history; I like to acknowledge though, that there is more value in making history.

Wow! Long response! Will try to address your points….

Yes, I would agree that some Deaf have overused or overgeneralized the concept of audism and used it as an insult to those who they shouldn’t be. The concept needs to be understood better, but it is still new for some, and some may take their fuzzy understanding and apply it as they think fit. Hopefully as more understanding of the term spreads, we won’t see these instances of incorrect usage.

A good question about when the late-deafened might come to enter the ASL stage… My suspicion is that a lot of the resistance comes from misunderstandings about ASL and what it means to use ASL. ASL is still not seen as a true language equal to Spanish, French, Swahili, etc., and that misperception is fostered by people (doctors, audiologists, speech therapists, educators of the Deaf, AGB, etc.) who promote a Hearing/speech-oriented agenda. This is one thing the DBC is trying to address — to bring ASL to an equal status with any other spoken language of the world and to help people recognize that it may be useful to their own lives. I do admit that some Deaf aren’t exactly supportive at times of ASL learners — I’ve been guilty of that myself, and this is something that we as a community need to change so that people don’t get turned off of ASL and the Deaf community.

As for “ASL failures”, you, like many other people, are blaming ASL for the failure of many Deaf people to acquire good English skills. The problem lies not in ASL itself, but in how Deaf people are educated. Many Deaf enter school with minimal to no language skills because their parents chose to start through the oral route, and when that did not succeed, they experienced a resultant cognitive and linguistic delay that is nearly impossible to overcome. Think about most Hearing people — By age two, they have acquired or been exposed to thousands of words, and have begun developing a mental map (schema) of the world — concepts, ideas, relationships — that a Deaf person without full access to language cannot develop. In addition, most schools for the Deaf have not been set up to properly utilize a bilingual education model — most still operate from Hearing-centric philosophies and methods which do not take advantage of the skills and abilities that Deaf people DO have. So this is where the “ASL failures” that you are describing comes from. Just as a point of comparison — look at the written English of many Hearing second-language learners of English. See the similarities in the patterns of these Hearing English second-language learners and Deaf people’s written English?

Actually, I think DBC isn’t forbidding CI — in its mission statement, as I recall, it is for access and exposure to ASL for ALL babies, regardless of hearing status. So, having a CI doesn’t go against DBC’s stated mission. However, AVT, by its very nature, is mutually exclusive of ASL, because it stresses ONLY hearing and speaking, WITHOUT any visual cues, including sign language.

As for DBC allying with AG Bell, I suppose in theory, it could happen, but I don’t think it would, because AGBell is, as we have agreed, not supportive of ASL. Did you see a Deaf Services group from Wisc. on the DBC website that said they had a booth in the AGB convention, included representatives of all perspectives — Oral, CI, SEE, and ASL, and their booth was shunted off to a far recess of the exhibit hall which was easily overlooked by convention-goers because of how the booths were set up? This is indicative of AGB’s mindset — they structure things to THEIR advantage and perspective, instead of providing a balanced, level presentation of the information out there.

As for “weaning off” of sign language for Deaf babies, I would not support that, and I don’t think DBC does either. DBC has not said anything against allowing Deaf people to learn speech if they can, but our perspective is that for Deaf people, sign language is the one method that allows FULL access to communication and social interaction. The philosophy of “weaning off” of sign language just continues to promote the idea that ASL is of lesser status than English.

I do get your point, though, that we have to provide a positive message to the parents. I think DBC IS trying to do that, but I guess they’re going to have to tinker with it until they get it right. They’re less than one year old. They’ve only barely started. AGB has had over 120 years to get their message “right” (for their purposes). Let’s support the DBC in their efforts to “get it right”.

By the way, I never realized your father had a Deaf son. Is that how he got into the field of Deaf ed, or was it just a coincidence?

Just for the record, I may be able to speak and read lips with some hearing people, but I don’t hear at all. Both of my ears are severely profoundly deaf and I dont use hearing aids. Your definition of audism makes a lot of sense, I would never ever say that I am better just because I can speak and read lips. I pretty much try to treat everyone as an equal, yet I get labelled as an audist on occasions. Its fairly obvious that the definition differs among the deaf community, and perhaps that in itself does more harm than good.

When you think about it, a lot of oral, cued speech, etc people often enter the ASL aspect of deafness as they get older. Question is would these people enter that ASL stage at an earlier point of their lives, if their communication mode werent perceived as negative by those that use ASL?

I can understand where some people may bring up the word, just as Bob RRR just did here in his comment above, “oral failure”, but to me that is only half of the equation. The reason is because without intentionally trying to make any specific person look bad. Just let me play devil’s advocate for a moment here, one could flip the coin and say that there are also “ASL failures”, as well.

When I say that, I do not mean to say that they have failed in ASL in terms of communication, but in the educational aspect, which is quite unfortunate. This could be a potential factor in the reason that deaf people are often quite underpaid compared to their hearing counterparts. Many of them do not necessarily have good jobs and I have no desire to label the types of jobs that they have, as they do the best they can and I certainly respect that. Granted, there are those that do indeed have successful jobs, but let’s look at the overall picture here.

Perhaps, lack of communication could be a factor, but I do think that their educational background could be a bigger factor. The same does apply to hearing people as well. I was fortunate to have mastered the English language, largely due to the fact that I used to read a lot as a child because TVs did not have captions back then.

Is this to say that I am better than others? Absolutely not. You probably know as well as I do that you would not have a doctrate degree, if your English wasn’t good. Does that make you better than others? Nope. Its all in the circumstances that each of us, as an individual that was brought up in and we cannot blame these individuals for the upbringing that they had, which is why we cannot say that we are better than they are.

In order to have a better educational background, one needs to get a better understanding of the english language, which is a huge reason why I am a beleiver in bilingualism among deaf babies.

Now I am going to rely on my business experience here, as I have been in business for nearly 20 years now. I understand strategic planning, I understand marketing, etc.

I can understand where people are saying nasty things about AG Bell in the past. You just said that they do not forbid ASL, they just don’t promote it. They dont really say anything negative about ASL either. True, they have a preference to other communication modes.

Suppose DBC did the same thing here, and said they dont forbid CI/AVT, they just dont promote it. I’ve explained in my blogs, as well as comments on other blogs, how it would be much more beneficial in the long run to ally with AG Bell.

Look at it this way from a strategic point of view, I am not trying to convince you here, but merely request that you try to see this from the long term strategic plan I have in mind.

Picture this, suppose DBC has a booth inside the AG Bell conference, which quickly gives them the largest audience of hearing parents of deaf babies they’ll ever find in one place. The people at the booth are not combative or defensive with these parents by explaining the benefits of being bilingual and how baby signs can genuinely benefit them. Then say, “If you want to wean off of the baby signs when the child starts the CI/AVT program, thats ok too what counts is that you are starting the child’s language development at an earlier age.” These hearing parents will likely be quite impressed with that and take it more seriously.

I would suggest you research a bit more into the CI/AVT program, which I did myself and got a much better understanding of it. As a matter of fact, I used to be anti-CI myself, but I learned more about it from Rachel’s blog, among other CI blogs as I asked many questions. I learned some of it from my father as well, but to be honest, I didn’t really give it too much face value until I communicated with actual people from CI/AVT, which basically verified what he told me. I am no longer against it, but you would not see me promoting it either, I am just nuetral about it.

If you look into this, you will see that many of these CI/AVT children even enter public schools as young as kindergarten. These children will eventually realize their true deafnesses as they get older. I know I did when I was as young as the 4th grade and is why I stopped using a hearing aid at the 5th grade. Simply because I fully accepted my deafness. Now supposing the parent recognizes this, they will remember the kind words that were given out to them from the DBC booth years ago, and they see that the child is able to speak, they would more likely to agree to allow the child to use ASL again if he desires to be bicultural by being in both the deaf and hearing worlds, knowing the fact that it wouldnt hinder their speaking abilities.

I stopped using a hearing aid at the 5th grade and it hasnt hindered my speaking abilities as well, but these kids would be better off than I was cuz they could still rely on their aural skills, which I didn’t. Point here is that the hearing parent is going to be comfortable with this because of what they learned from the DBC booth inside the AG Bell conference.

Now let me ask you this, do you think that the parents that attended the AG Bell conference in Milwaukee recently with react the same way I just explained above years from now?

This is what I am referring to in the long run. Be positive, we may lose them for a few years or so while they are in the CI/AVT program, but we will get them back for a lifetime after that. That my friend, is why its very important to look at this as a long term strategy. Its a win win situation too, AG Bell gets what they want, and so do we.

Your thoughts?

AGB may not FORBID sign language any longer, but they certainly don’t ENCOURAGE parents to learn or use it. If you look at their website, there is a plethora of information on Cochlear Implants, AVT, implications of hearing loss, etc., etc. They do mention sign language, but don’t give any real information on it other than a token link to NAD. In addition, if you look carefully at their mention of ASL, you will see they have made a careful choice of words that relegates ASL to a lesser status than spoken or written English.

As for technologies, it is indisputable that AGB promotes those technologies that the parents want. But, it is the intention behind those technologies where the Deaf community and AGB clash. We are nearing the time when genetic technology will become commonplace. What if somebody develops a method for removing excess melanin so that a Black person could appear to be White? Would that be acceptable and accepted by the Black community? I would think not. So why is it deemed acceptable to utilize technology to remove a Deaf person’s “difference” in being Deaf? Just because most parents are Hearing? Should we then pursue technology to remove the homosexual preference from Gay/Lesbian people just because their parents are heterosexual?

Open, honest questions, and I do appreciate them.

Just being able to speak and hear to some degree doesn’t make you an audist. But if you were to go around saying that you are “better” somehow because you can, or to say that Deaf people can’t have a successful life if they can’t speak or hear well, then that would make you audist. See the difference?

As for late-deafened people, or hard of hearing people, they all can fit in the model. LaRonda Zupp, for example, is a late-deafened person who has found her place within the Deaf community. On another blog, recently, there was a person who identified as late-deafened who prefers to associate with other late-deafened people. I made a case that this person would also fit within the model, although it would be a variant of the “classic” model in that this would be a “late-deafened Deafhood” model, since a key component of Deafhood is the recognition of similarity of experiences that all Deaf people have, and the tendency to socialize with those people who share those experiences. Deafhood allows for variance, since there really is no one “perfect” way to achieve Deafhood; it is a personal developmental process that may vary from person to person. Even I, born Deaf, will have a different personal understanding of what it means for me from a person who comes from a similar background. But there will likely be more similarities than differences between our models.

This brings me to:

Dog Food –

If the use of technology and desire for improvement of your speech skills are what you desire, that would be ok, since that would be part of your personal process, as long as you recognize our similarities and support the goals of the Deaf community and work with, not against us toward those goals.