Ranting from a different perspective: response to Stephen

[James/Judy Shepard-Kegl]

Stephen,

I give you credit for at least being honest.
--


> ps - sorry for the rant below, but I'm a firm believer in the value of
> English.
>
> I disagree with deaf knowing only a single language.  It is great to start
> with a signed language, but not learning the native language of a country is
> a big mistake (or so I believe).  To require an interpretor to get a job,
> education, or even deal with a laywer is a mistake.  I believe it traps the
> deaf individual.  If the deaf know only a single language, then they require
> the government to make laws that require companies to hire two people to
> perform a single job.  This does nothing positive for the deaf, because it
> builds resentment toward them.  It also encourages the stigma that deaf are
> handicapped.  I even believe that deafness should be removed from the ADA.
>
> However, I do believe the time spent learning to lip read and voice can be
> better spent on learning to read and write; both ASL and English!

You forgot to add one critical point:  Deaf people who fail to master the
dominant speech driven language to the extent that interpreters will no
longer be required should be summarily (but compassionately) shot.

This is what you are suggesting, isn't it?  Because in my experience, very
few profoundly Deaf people (especially those whose parents are hearing) ever
achieve literacy skills in a speech driven language to the extent that you
are proposing.

By the way, hard of hearing and Deaf Ph.d.'s, whose literacy skills match or
exceed our, often request ASL interpreters in legal settings.  Their
experience tells them this is the superior method to achieve maximum
participation and comprehension.  I cannot quote you statistics on this;
however, as a practicing attorney I can assure you that this has been my
experience.  These highly functioning Deaf professionals prefer interpreters
in medical situations, as well.  While they are fully able to read and
write, we all know that doctors quickly tire of it and will simply refuse to
take the time to communicate this way.  (Next time you are in the hospital,
try writing back and forth rather than talking, and see how far you get with
it.)

As for SignWriting, the system compared to written English is somewhat
cumbersome.  I do not know how it compares to Chinese.  There is an SW
shorthand system, as well, but I have never taken the time to learn it.
Typing SW on the computer takes longer than typing English, but I suspect is
quicker than the 18th century of typesetting English.  If you think this is
all about a race, then you are missing the point.

SW, above all else, is about self-esteem.  Just as any hearing
English-speaking child can more or less learn to read English, most Deaf
children can learn to read SW.  In fact, they master it quite quickly.  If
you know anything about teaching children, then you know that success breeds
success.  Conversely, low self-esteem serves as the biggest obstacle to
scholastic achievement that I can think of.  So, if you want to guarantee
that a Deaf child will fail in math or history, then remind him daily that
his native sign language is inferior and that his inability to read English
demonstrates his level of stupidity.  That might not be your intended
message, but that is how the child (and adult, too) will react.

There are a lot of reasons why Deaf people themselves might be adverse to
learning SW.  The chief reason is that they know they are judged solely by
their English skills (your viewpoint being a case in point), and they fail
to perceive any significance in being able to write their native signed
language (low self-esteem: never underestimate its influence.)

But here is the interesting thing.  If a Deaf child is introduced to SW as
if learning to read one's first language was just the most natural thing in
the world, well, then they truly enjoy it.  And, since SW is so damnably
easy to learn, then these same children get a self-esteem boost.  (Being
against boosting a child's self-esteem is like being against motherhood and
apple pie, would you not agree?)

The catch, however, is that there is not an awful lot of literature (even
children's literature) written in SW.  But, please do not jump on Valerie
for that.  She has produced a fantastic system, and a computer program (ever
improving) to boot.  It is up to the academics to produce the reading
lessons for the Deaf children.  (Those reading lessons had better be in ASL,
and not a jumble of sign glosses of English, or the whole thing falls
apart.)  Who has the time to produce this stuff?  Good question, but if the
time is taken, the results are impressive.  (Intriguing claim  -- how to I
justify it?  You would have to look at the pilot project in Bluefields,
Nicaragua.  Only a handful of students have been trained in Spanish using
SW, but after a short time, their reading levels swept past levels
demonstrated by Deaf students in other schools in Nicaragua.  The project is
ongoing.)

Have you ever studied a foreign language?  I did back in junior high and
high school (grade school, too, but that's a sad story.)  Guess what?  My
Latin books and French books were all intended for kids who could read
English!  So, all these educators back then thought that students should be
literate in their native language in order to develop literacy skills in a
second language.

Does not it seem logical that Deaf children might best learn English the
same way  -- by using their literacy skills in their first language (ASL) to
develop literacy skills in a second language (English).  Or, do we really
think that Deaf children are just so much smarter than hearing kids that
they do not need to be able to read and write their first language to master
a second one?  (Frankly, given the sound obstacle that Deaf kids confront, I
would have thought that for them it would be obviously even more important
that they learn SW to help them learn to read and write English.)

But, you say, the teachers (by and large hearing) would have to learn SW
first.  And, these same teachers would have to be able to explain how ASL
and English grammar and syntax are different.  And, they would need
textbooks and workbooks and glossaries all designed for the ASL reader who
needs to learn English.  Who is going to design all that, and publish it?
Wouldn't it be easier to just force Deaf kids to be hearing?

Now it is I who must apologize for ranting.

-- James Shepard-Kegl