Again, the difference between Deaf Culture and wheelchair culture is that deaf people have an isolated linguistic community and are unable to join the larger linguistic community because they can’t hear. It’s not a choice. Cochlear implants aren’t the magic pill that cures deafness. This is why there is no wheelchair culture, even though there are probably more people who use wheelchairs than deaf people.
If a guy in a wheelchair says he hopes to have a kid in a wheelchair rather than a walking kid, who cares? It’s not up to him, it’s up to God.
A deaf parent refusing to get a cochlear implant for their deaf child and instead teaching them sign language is more analogous to a crippled parent getting their crippled kid a wheelchair rather than crutches, than a crippled parent wheeling into the nursery late and night and breaking the baby’s legs.
If you had a crippled kid you might push for crutches for your kid, because you’d imagine that crutches would give the kid a more normal life. A crippled parent who has a wheelchair might have a different answer. A crippled parent might have a better answer than you, because they’ve gone through life crippled and know how to deal with it. Or maybe you’ve got a better answer, since you’ve gone through life without being crippled and you know what the crippled parent missed out on. Either way, we’re talking about crutches vs wheelchairs, not walking vs not walking.
Or even better, how about we give the child both. Cochlear implants AND sign language. If it turns out that the cochlear implant was a big success, he might not turn out to need sign language. But since it probably won’t you don’t want to deprive the kid of language. At my nephew’s program, half the deaf kids have cochlear implants, but they’re still deaf. An all too common attitude among the hearing is that sign language for kids who can hear a little bit is a waste of time, they need to drop that crap and concentrate on developing and training the shreds of hearing they have. This attitude, in my opinion, is horribly misguided.
The OP does not have a premise. I try to avoid asking rhetorical questions, and I don’t think I did this time. If I had meant to argue the proposition “Deafness is not a culture, and the hearing impairment is best understood as a disability,” I would have done so.
I can’t dance either. But I could still perform in the dramatic arts. Hearing is not vital to communicating. Plenty of people can hear and not communicate because they are dimwits.
Some people just can’t whistle no matter the motivation. Maybe they lack the motor skills or mental skills, but not whistling in and of itself doesn’t seem to be category in ‘disabled’. Remember we’re not talking about a lack of ability to do something. Everybody lacks an ability to do some particular thing. We’re talking about categorizing people here.
Uh, yes, unquestionable logic in defining what ‘disabled’ means.
They can learn to read lips, they can use mechanical devices which allow them to perceive speech and sounds. What is about hearing in and of itself that is so important?
Unless you can fly, you are disabled by that definition. There are plenty of things you can’t do. IMHO, the term disabled refers to people who somehow cannot perform the normal functions of life without assistance, and shouldn’t be expected to. Do you think an inability to hear qualifies for that? Should a deaf person park in a handicapped spot? Should they qualify for welfare or SSI because they can’t work?
And what happened to this thread? It’s like you guys just aren’t listening to each other.
I am the father of daughter who has been deaf from birth - yes, it is a disability, and she receives SSI because of it. What can she do that the ‘hearing can’t’ - have multiple parallel conversations with other deaf people due to the parallel nature of visual input, for one.
Would she rather be able to hear? According to her, yes, but not enough to deal with a cochlear implant.
I’m certainly better at hearing than a deaf person is.
But.. I mean, come on. If I get cancer and doctors tell me things like “You can’t possibly live another six months” and “You can’t drive a car because the cancer in your brain could cause seizures” and “I can fix you with radiation treatment,” am I being told that I am a lesser human being?
You are equating deafness with cancer? Or saying that being deaf is just as bad?
No one is disputing the medical terminology. But *disability *has some pretty negative connotations with it (including pity) and some people in this thread have some patronizing views of deaf people.
Has your daughter ever suffered because someone thought she was mentally disabled?
I think that’s part of the issue with the deaf. There’s a perception that deaf = dumb, but that’s not the case.
There are many kinds of disabilities but none so discriminating as the kind where people are compelled to feel sorry for you because they think you are not as smart/capable/deep/etc. as they are.
When did he do this? Stop misrepresenting people’s posts. You’ve been doing it over and over again and it’s terribly annoying.
Deafness is a disability by definition - the deaf is not able to hear. Distinctions between abilities and skills have been pointed out time and time again to you but to no avail. And screw culture - if a panacea is found to cure deafness (and magically rewire the brain in the process), destroying the deaf subculture in the process should not be seen as bad.
Some people in this thread are arguing over the semantic definition of disability, and that deafness indubitably fits. Then they go on to say that deaf people are not ‘lesser’, that deaf children should have access to sign language, that it’s fine for deaf people to have their own community.
In the real world, people argue that deaf people have a disability, that this should be fixed, by, as much as possible, turning deaf people into hearing people, that deaf people shouldn’t use sign language, that deaf people should integrate into the hearing community.
The argument for Deaf people is (IMO) mostly not about whether or not they technically have a disability. The argument is that if they are considered to have a disability, then do they need to be fixed, and turned into hearing people? Bearing in mind that turning them into hearing people doesn’t actually work (though cochlear implants are changing that), Deaf people say “No. Don’t change us. We are OK as we are, really.” Deaf people get by much better as Deaf people than they do as not-really-hearing people.
Before I got involved with the Deaf community, I vaguely thought that deaf children learnt sign language, and lip-reading, managed OK with that, and the big issue was whether or not they could hear music, or police sirens. But no, most deaf children don’t learn sign language. How would they? Their parents don’t sign, sign language is not used in most schools. Lip reading is actually really difficult, and unreliable. Most hearing people have no idea what life is like for deaf people. The argument on this message board is not what Deaf people are arguing about. People on this message-board make all sorts of concessions about the worth and validity of deaf people, and what options they should have, that people in the real world don’t. If you just want to argue about whether deafness is or is not a disability, this discussion won’t really go anywhere.
No and no, and you’re avoiding the obvious point; that pointing out that someone has a physical affliction of some kind - be it disability or disease - does not mean that one person is intrinsically better than the other in terms of their worth as a human being.
If you can’t seem to deal with the cancer comparison, choose another disability. If I tell Stevie Wonder that he is unable to see, and that he very likely would be a poor choice to drive my car, am I saying I’m a better person than Stevie Wonder?
[QUOTE=Weedy]
But no, most deaf children don’t learn sign language.
[/QUOTE]
Well, gosh, I’d like you to provide some support for that, because at least in industrialized countries it seems exceedingly unlikely.
And deafness is a disability. Deaf culture is like wheelchair basketball-it’s a way for people who are disabled to band together against the disadvantages and find common experiences-but as other have said, if a magic pill could eliminate deafness from all future children (making all current deaf folks hearing would be too chaotic) there is no good reason it shouldn’t be offered, and anyone who didn’t give it to their child would be a cruel person.
It is possible to communicate without hearing, yes. Still, hearing is an ability most people have. It’s possible to get around if you’re unable to walk. Do we need to argue that people with spina bifida or paraplegics or amputees are not disabled?
Yes, they have poor communication skills. However they still have the ability to communicate verbally. This is like saying blindness is not a disability because some people can’t coordinate their clothes.
What? That’s exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about disabilities.
This is where these objections get to be a problem. Are we not allowed to describe people accurately if they have an objection to being categorized and attach a lot of value judgments to being categorized?
Then it’s a disability every human being has, which makes this entirely academic. “Disabled” does imply a comparison to the abilities most people have. That doesn’t mean being being different is bad. It means that the basic attributes most of us share are part of the foundation of our society - like being able to see, hear, speak, walk, and so on - and people who can’t do those things need to develop other means to get around and often need accommodations from the rest of society.
What’s the basis for your definition?
If you lose your ability to hear and can’t do your job anymore, yes, you should absolutely qualify for federal assistance. Why wouldn’t you? (I realize we’ve mostly talked about people who are congenitally deaf, but I think that’s a minority of deaf people.) If you’re deaf from birth you’d have a better chance of developing the skills you would need to find work, but I don’t have a problem with assistance for them either. I don’t care how parking spots are apportioned.
This is very hard to cite, because there are no recent studies on ASL use. I was going mostly on my Australian experience, where I know most deaf children don’t use sign because there is only one school in my state that uses sign language, and that has an enrolment of 30-40. The policy of the Education Department in NSW is not to allow the use of Australian Sign Language (Auslan) in schools. In Queensland a few years ago, the government was sued for not allowing Auslan, and they have since discontinued the use of Signed English and are using Auslan in schools instead. I’m not sure about other states in Australia, and I have no information about the US, but my impresssion is that Signed English is quite common there.
Here’s a chart from Gallaudet Research Institute. It doesn’t help much because it doesn’t associate level of hearing impairment with type of instruction and doesn’t specify whether ‘signed instruction’ means ASL or Signed English (they are not the same). It covers public secondary schools across the USA.
23.9% of families use some form of signing at home. 3.8% use ASL. 52% of children are educated in spoken language only, 11.4% in sign only, the rest in a mix of speech and sign. My guess is the sign only programs are more likely to be ASL. Speech and sign together sounds like Total Communication, which is more likely to use Signed English/Manually Coded English.
I have no idea what the private school situation is. Probably a mix of Oral and bilingual-bicultural schools. (The wiki link says that 36%-40% of deaf schools use bilingual-bicultural method, but most deaf students go to mainstream schools, not deaf schools (28% in 1994 and the trend towards mainstreaming has continued since then)).
You rang? I am deaf (audiologically hard of hearing, but strongly consider myself Deaf.
Just to clear up something. CIs DO NOT make a deaf kid hearing. It makes them HOH. That is NOT the same as hearing. We can hear but not the way a hearing person does. Even I don’t, and I have a conductive loss due to no ear canals. Matter of fact, an ABR says I’m profoundly deaf. (on soundbooth testing I test out as having a moderate severe loss, dipping into profound in one frequncy)
CIs also vary tremendously in their effectiveness. I also do not think that they spell the end of Deaf Culture. Did you know that there are TONS of HOH people who identify strongly as Deaf? Did you ALSO know that when hearing aids were first introduced, a lot of Deaf were against them? Now you see kids at NTID and Gally with colored hearing aids to match their punk hair colors!
Were you aware that enrollment in the oral schools is shrinking? Even when I was little, (mainstreamed and oral sadly) Clarke, CID and St. Joseph had thriving residental/dorm programs and a very active P-8 enrollement? Now it’s just Preschool and kindergarten that have a bunch of students.
I think too that only a small percentage of deaf kids are eligable for CIs.
As for the OP, Dhh people are disabled. I think the reluctance to label themselves as disabled is due to both the implication, that a disabilty is a condition where a sick person stands in a corner wishing they could be well or normal. As well as the fact that mentally retarded people have grabbed onto the identity of disabled.
Disabilty does not have to mean total and complete inabilty.
Actually wait. I do think they fit in as having a disabilty under a Disabilty Rights model. This is a model of thinking that argues that disabilty isn’t a “boo hoo hoo complete and utter inabilty” but can be ADAPTED TO and lived with.
It does not fit in as a disabilty under a “Tiny Tim” I wanna be cured and be healthy and normal model.